nothing. If God, without interfering with a man's free agency, can make it infallibly certain that he will repent and believe. He can render it certain that he will not err in teaching. It is in vain to profess to hold the common doctrine of Theism, and yet assert that God cannot control rational creatures without turning them into machines.
Discrepancies and Errors.
But although the theologian may rightfully dismiss all objections founded on the denial of the common principles of natui-al and re- vealed religion, there are others which cannot be thus summarily disposed of. The most obvious of these is, that the sacred writers contradict each other, and that they teach error. It is, of course, useless to contend that the sacred writers were infallible, if in point of fact they err. Our views of inspiration must be determined by the phenomena of the Bible as well as from its didactic statements. If in fact the sacred writers retain each his own style and mode of thought, then we must renounce any theory which assumes that inspiration obliterates or suppresses all individual peculiarities. If the Scriptures abound in contradictions and errors, then it is vain to contend that they were written under an influence which pre- cludes all error. The question, therefore, is a question of fact. Do the sacred writers contradict each other ? Do the Scriptures teach what from any source can be proved not to be true ? The question is not whether the views of the sacred writers were incor- rect, but whether they taught error? For example, it is not the question Whether they thought that the earth is the centre of our system ? but. Did they teach that it is ?
The objection under consideration, namely, that the Bible con- tains errors, divides itself into two. The first, that the sacred writers contradict themselves, or one the other. The second, that the Bible teaches what is inconsistent with the facts of history or science.
As to the former of these objections, it would require, not a vol- ume, but volumes to discuss all the cases of alleged discrepancies. All that can be expected here is a few general I'emarks : (1.) These apparent discrepancies, although numerous, are for the most part trivial ; relating in most cases to numbers or dates. (2.) The great majority of them are only apparent, and yield to careful examination. (3.) Many of them may fairly be ascribed to errors of transcribers. (4.) The marvel and the miracle is that there are so few of any real importance. Considering that the differ- ent books of the Bible were written not only by different authors,
170 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. VI. — P. R. of Faith,
but by men of all degrees of culture, living in the course of fifteen hundred or two thousand years, it is altogether unaccountablejhat they should agree perfectly, on any other hypothesis than that the' 'writers were under the guidance of the Spirit of God. In this respect, as in all others, the Bible stands alone. It is enough to impress any mind with awe, when it contemplates the Sacred Scriptures filled with the highest truths, speaking with authority in the name of God, and so miraculously free from the soiling touch of human fingers. The errors in matters of fact which skeptics search out bear no proportion to the whole. No sane man would deny that the Parthenon was built of marble, even if here and there a speck of sandstone should be detected in its structure. Not less unreasonable is it to deny the inspiration of such a book as the Bible, because one sacred writer says that on a given occa- sion twenty-four thousand, and another says that twenty-three thousand, men were slain. Surely a Christian may be allowed to tread such objections under his feet.
Admitting that the Scriptures do contain, in a few instances, dis- crepancies which with our present means of knowledge, we are unable satisfactorily to explain, they furnish no rational ground for denying their infallibility. " The Sci'ipture cannot be broken." (John X. 35.) This is the whole doctrine of plenary inspiration, taught by the lips of Christ himself. The universe teems with evi- dences of design, so manifold, so diverse, so wonderful, as to over- whelm the mind with the conviction that it has had an intelligent author. Yet here and there isolated cases of monstrosity apj^ear. It is irrational, because we cannot account for such cases, to deny that the universe is the product of intelligence. So the Christian need not renounce his faith in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, although there may be some things about it in its present state which he cannot account for.
Historical and Scientific Objections.
The second great objection to the plenary inspiration of the Scripture is that it teaches what is inconsistent with historical and scientific truth.
Here again it is to be remarked, (1.) That we must distinguish between what the sacred writers themselves thought or believed, and what they teach. They may have believed that the sun moves round the earth, but they do not so teach. (2.) The language of the Bible is the language of common life ; and the language of common life is founded on apparent, and not upon scientific truth.