to the Church the exclusive right of interpretation, but insisted on the right of private judgment on that point; they did not admit the authority of the Vulgate, but looked upon the original languages alone as authentic.

According to Gerhard, the most learned of the Lutheran dogmatists, the purity of doctrine was not preserved by tradition, but much that was alien and false became mixed with it; and therefore God caused his word, which had originally been propagated orally, to be set down in Scripture. There is no real difference between the word of God and Holy Scripture; for the latter contains nothing but the word of God, and it contains this completely, so that no word of God is to be found outside it. The early Protestant dogmatists claim for Scripture the four following properties (affectiones or proprietates)—authority, perspicuity, sufficiency, efficacy. By virtue of its authority it is the ground and standard of faith, generating faith in the mind of the believer, and distinguishing the true and false in cases of controversy. Regarded in these two aspects, the authority is divided into causativa and normativa. By perspicuity it is meant that Scripture contains whatever is necessary for salvation in such clear expressions that no man of competent intelligence and enlightened spirit can fail to understand it. For him who is devoid of piety or ignorant of the language the perspicuity does not exist. The sufficiency of Scripture implies that it contains perfectly and fully everything that is needful for the attainment of eternal life, and that therefore tradition is not required to supplement Scripture, though it is admitted that some things are not explicit, but only implicit. Finally, its efficacy refers to its supernatural power of producing supernatural effects, converting, regenerating, and renewing the minds of men.2

This view of the Bible implies a theory of inspiration, conceived in its most extreme and mechanical form. This is 1 Quoted by F. A. B. Nitzsch, Lehrb. der evan. Dogmatik, 1896, p. 207. 2 Nitzsch, p. 208 sq., from whom the above is taken.

known as the hypothesis of verbal inspiration, according to which the nominal writers of the several books were merely passive instruments for recording the very words of the Holy Spirit. The Formula Consensus Helvetici, of 1675, actually goes so far as to say that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is inspired both as regards the consonants and as regards the vowels or points or at least the signification of the points.1 A less extreme hypothesis maintained that the writers were guarded by Divine direction' from all material error, but exercised their own special faculties in reducing the results of inspiration to literary form; and some even admitted the possibility of trifling errors in statements which did not affect the substance of revelation. Further details belong rather to the history of doctrine than to our present subject. I have given the foregoing particulars because it is right that we should clearly understand the doctrine which, till recent times, expressed the firm conviction of the most learned theologians, and still lingers among those who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

At the present time a great change is in progress, and men belonging to various churches are being driven from the old view by a variety of considerations. Science has banished the motionless earth, and the creation in six days a few thousand years ago. It has also destroyed the story of the fall, and extended the history of man back into dim ages, long before the mythical Adam. Criticism also has been doing its work, showing the uncertainty which rests upon the origin of several books, the complexity of their composition, and the legendary character of their contents. Comparative religion has greatly widened our knowledge of the spiritual forces of mankind, and by giving us a larger and more sympathetic outlook upon the world has made it impossible to separate the Bible from all other sacred literature in the absolute way which the ancient dogma

1 Quoted by Nitzsch, p. 216; also by Schaff, A History of the Creeds of Christendom, p. 487.

asserts. And lastly, the religious element itself is growing nearer to the mind of Christ, and is seeking for a higher and more spiritual view of inspiration.

In consequence of the opinions which I have thus briefly described it is necessary to begin our statement of doctrine with a negative proposition :-the Bible is not infallible.

It is not worth while examining in detail the arguments (if such they can be called) which are adduced in support of its infallibility. When we remember that the Bible is a collection of a large number of books, confessedly of very various human authorship, many of them of unknown authorship, written at different times, and gathered together into a Canon by we know not whom; and that these books have the most multifarious contents, scientific, historical, geographical, moral, religious, theological; we must see the enormous difficulty of proving that every line is the dictate of infinite wisdom. An appeal to their literary and religious value, and to the grand moral purpose which underlies them and gives to the whole a kind of spiritual unity, has not the slightest tendency to establish this position; and it is not wonderful that the Westminster Divines held that the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very word of God." I admit the reality of the religious experience to which appeal is here made, and would speak with all reverence of the interior witness; yet I cannot but question the soundness of the inference. Take the strongest instance, when in times of deep emotion words of the Bible fall upon our ears as though the very voice of God spoke to our longing hearts. What is it that the Spirit testifies? Surely this, that the same Spirit breathed in the man who thus addresses us with such kindling power. The Spirit bears witness of spiritual things, not of outward fact and intellectual propositions; and, however natural it may be to a soul entranced with the sublime truths which it has found

1 Larger Catechism, Qu. 4.

in the Bible, it is not a legitimate inference that the mind which has been moved to its depths by the Spirit of God, and carried thereby into inspired speech, is therefore secured from error, or raised above the current belief, within the intellectual realm. We can hardly doubt that it is owing to a precisely similar experience that the adherents of other religions have ascribed a perfect inspiration and supernatural authority to their sacred books, for instance to the Veda in India.

A less spiritual argument is founded upon certain statements in the Bible itself. It is clear that the general use which is made of the Old Testament in the New can be no evidence in the case unless the infallibility of the New be first proved. The first teachers of Christianity were not Biblical critics, and nothing could be more natural than that they should hold the accepted belief of their time, so far as it was not opposed to the new truth. What is really remarkable. is the amount of freedom which they exercise towards the Old Testament, and how little Christ especially bases his teaching directly upon it. We must notice, however, a few particular passages which are most commonly relied upon.

In II Timothy iii. 16 we read πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ péμos. The Revised Version renders this Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable." With this translation the passage vanishes from the controversy. But supposing the verse to state that the Old Testament was inspired, it tells us nothing of the extent of the inspiration. Inspired does not mean infallible'; and it may be that inspiration has nothing to do with mere matters of fact.

In Hebrews i. I it is said that God spoke unto the fathers in the prophets. Truly so: but this does not say that everything which the prophets wrote was dictated by God.

1 So the Clementine Vulgate translates, Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum.' Codex Am., however, reads, ‘Omnis scriptura inspirata divinitus et utilis ad,' leaving the sense ambiguous as in the Greek.

'

In II Peter i. 21 we read that'no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.' This Epistle is of doubtful genuineness, so that these words may only express the opinion of some unknown writer. But there is no difficulty in admitting the statement. The belief that the prophets of Israel delivered a Divine message is quite independent of the belief in their infallibility.

Finally, in John xiv. 26 Christ is reported as saying, 'The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.' This promise is limited to the Apostles, and says nothing about writings; and if we take it strictly, it guarantees not only infallibility, but omniscience. We must not, however, interpret such passages as if they were hard little dogmas, but in sympathy with their setting and their spiritual purport.

The entire absence of proof that the Bible is infallible is in itself sufficient reason for rejecting so astounding a proposition. Dr. Hodge, indeed, asserts that the onus probandi rests exclusively on' those who deny the infallibility. But this is surely unreasonable; for though the dogma may have a prescriptive claim to our attention, it can have no claim to our acceptance apart from the proofs which it offers. It involves the supposition of a long series of miracles, so intrinsically improbable, and so unlike our general experience of the action of the Divine Spirit, that nothing short of overwhelming proof could render them credible to an unbiased mind; and I believe it is only the weight of long tradition, embodied in early education, which makes it possible for learned and candid men to maintain the ecclesiastical doctrine. We must, however, glance for a moment at the positive evidence that the Bible is not infallible.

This evidence is furnished by a careful examination of 1 Outlines of Theology, 1879, p. 76.