THE NECESSITY FOR INFALLIBILITY.

HE subject of infallibility is one of commanding interest. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the intelligent theological mind to set it aside. The consequences resulting from it are so serious and far-reaching as to command the attention of all. If true, no one can afford to treat it with indifference, and if not true, all should know it to be so. It is the duty, therefore, of all earnestly to test it in every form in which this may be legitimately done, and not to endeavor to confuse and thus hide its true claims from the conscience. Though there has been, as we have reason to know, a good deal of earnest reflection by many Protestants upon this subject, the public treatment of the question by them has not been such as to do them full justice. Only here and there has it been allowed to make its appearance in their more elaborate publications, and even then, owing to some sort of indistinct or undefinable dread, it has always been more or less slighted or superficially run through, so as to create the impression that it is not worthy of a full, radical, and thorough examination. The question, however, is manifestly not thus to be quieted or put out of the way. It has called forth a response from the common reason of men, which commands respectful consideration, and the theological mind generally is beginning to realize that if it is to be satisfactorily refuted, it must be done by legitimate means, which will require all, and likely a good deal more than all, the most earnest resources of Protestant thought. It is said that Nero, in order to conceal his cruelty from his own. conscience, as well as from the eyes of the world, clothed many of his victims with the skins of wild animals, and then cast them into the amphitheatre to be torn to pieces by ferocious beasts. They were human beings, nevertheless. So there are many who oppose infallibility, and denounce it as an absurd pretension, not because of its own true nature, but because of the imaginary and tawdry garments with which they have clothed it. They are fighting, for the most part, the consequences of their own misconception; just as the lions. in the amphitheatre thought, no doubt, if they thought at all, that they were devouring beasts, not men; and many of this class, after the true idea was allowed to take the place of the false one, have fully recognized, along with the greatest intellectual lights of the world, its profound rationality, and have come to be not only sincere believers in it, but also its most strenuous advocates.

Let us briefly allude to, and, if possible, correct some of these misconceptions.

Infallibility, for instance, is not inspiration, with which it is often carelessly confounded, namely, that peculiar supernatural gift of

prophets and apostles, by which a divine relation was given to the world. It pretends to no power or authority to give a new revelation, nor yet to add one jot or tittle to the old. Nor is it a personal gift, whereby a man is made to be unerring individually in all his mental or moral judgments. Moreover, it is not impeccability; for, however infallible in his proper function, it is freely admitted that the Supreme Pontiff may nevertheless sin, and sin so deeply as to be lost forever. His sin is always greater than that of others, because of the exalted position which he occupies. Infallibility, briefly, is a supernatural gift secured by the Divine Spirit to him who occupies the office of Vicegerent of Christ on earth, so that when, in this office, and teaching the whole Church, in matters of faith and morals, and when, if he were in error, the whole Church, of which he is the head on earth, would be in error also, he is so guided and guarded, by the promised light and grace of the Holy Ghost, that he cannot but teach the truth in the most absolute accordance with revelation.

As regards the nature of this great endowment the subject of this article requires no further remark at this point.

Now, where is the absurdity of this dogma? Is it an impossible bestowment, and in this view absurd? Then, what becomes of the claims which similarly frail human beings, such as prophets and apostles, made to inspiration—a still more transcendent gift-upon the truth of which depends the validity of revelation? Those claims must, on this ground, also be absurd; for so far as they personally were concerned, it cannot be asserted that they were materially different from the generality of men; they experienced the same human frailties and were conditioned by the same finite limitations. But absurdity is not predicated in respect to their claim upon this or any other ground. Therefore, the objection in this application is, as it must be, without foundation. If God was able, or if it was consistent with His manner of working, to give inspiration to feeble men, men of like passions as ourselves, and through them, thus endowed and conditioned, to communicate an absolutely infallible revelation, can any one on the ground of reason say, that it is absurd to believe that He is also able to give, with this revelation, the inferior grace which will qualify a man, placed at the head of the Church, to preserve the truth thus revealed from all fatal error? Surely this cannot be. To speak of the impossibility, and in this view the absurdity, of frail erring men sharing with God, and by His act, in the grace of infallibility, is, therefore, in the way of fact, to undermine the whole groundwork of inspiration itself; for, if anything is clear, it is the fact that the first is presupposed by the last; that the two are, like body and soul, inwardly bound together; that the union is so vital, that the first cannot be impossible if the

second is not, and that the one cannot be absurd unless the other is so likewise.

These reflections prepare the way for a clear and in some sense full apprehension of the necessity for infallibility, in regard to which we now proceed to speak more definitely and in detail.

As already intimated, it seems clear that the nature of revelation itself requires infallibility. This, so far as it can be sustained, is a direct, divine requisition. Inspiration in giving, and infallibility in guarding revelation, are co-ordinate, at least as to their ultimate aim, and therefore must be, in their respective functions, of equal necessity. The last but secures the proper results of the first, and is, in fact, the only condition on which the first can be of any real account as respects its own purpose and mission.

Revelation is acknowledged to be supernatural, both as to its substance and form, i. e., that its truth and its inspiration are wholly above and beyond the natural order. Although much of it is concerned with natural or historical facts, which might be known in an ordinary way, yet the whole, being the work of the inspired mind and connected with a spiritual and supermundane end, is a purely divine product. This is revelation in itself,—an objective fact, as really so as the sun, which gives natural light to the world,-absolutely unerring and supernatural. Here we stand upon common grounds with all believers in the fact of a revelation.

But now, whilst this objective supernatural revelation is one thing, conceded to be unerringly true by all so-called orthodox Christian minds, our fallible apprehension of it is, as must also be conceded, quite another and a different thing.

It is well, at this stage of our general discussion, to mark somewhat in detail a few of the sharp points of difference which here

arise.

1. Revelation, as an objective fact, immediately from the pen of inspiration, is, as to its truth, absolutely certain. It must be so, otherwise it would not be inspired. As, however, it is understood, or subjectively apprehended by fallible minds in their ordinary state, it is just as absolutely uncertain; and this also must be so, otherwise those minds would not be fallible.

2. Revelation, as objective or in itself, teaches the same truth through all ages and to all minds. It cannot vary or change, or, · as regards its doctrine, adapt itself to different conditions, being one thing for one and a different thing for another. As understood, however, by different minds, on the principle of fallibility, it teaches radically different things.

3. Revelation, as objective or in itself considered, carries the whole complicated system of divine truth in a way that is perfectly harmonious throughout. There is not, as there cannot be, the

presence of a single jar. As apprehended by the fallible individual reason, it results in contradictions of the most palpable nature from beginning to end.

4. Revelation, as objective, is the bearer to our natural, and now world of sin and moral darkness, of pure supernatural truth, which, as such, is in no sense attainable by the reason, nor by any process which the reason might institute. As apprehended by finite, darkened, fallible minds, it is truth on a level with the limited human understanding, that is, truth in the order of nature.

Now there is certainly no form of reasoning known to the human mind which can make it appear that these two things, with differences so strongly marked, are one and the same thing. This would be to destroy reason itself and convert the whole region of knowledge into a fancy or an idle dream. As it cannot be shown that light is darkness, so neither can it be proven that these two things are the same thing. Rather, like light and darkness, they are opposites, and, as such, can never be reconciled.

Take now these two strongly-marked and divergent facts, and suppose infallibility, or an infallible interpreter, does not exist, which of the two would remain, and be the practical guide and controlling power for men? Very manifestly, the latter-that is, the uncertain, contradictory, natural opinions of men respecting revelation, which constitute just no revelation at all, instead of the absolutely sure and perfect Word of God itself! Here, as all may see, is a direct substitution of the word of man for the Word of God. What, then, in these circumstances, is the perfect objective revelation of God, without the power somewhere to understand it in its own perfect character? Clearly, in spite of all the vain boasts of the Protestant world, it is, as it must be, a pure abstraction.

The absence of this power of infallibility to understand revelation would not, it is true, utterly destroy revelation as such. It would still exist, just as the sun would, were there no eyes to see its light; and it would still be, in itself, absolutely unerring. But, plainly, so far as we are concerned, it would be as though it were not. For us and for the world generally, concretely and practically, it could not be. In other words, it would be shorn, ex necessitate, of every element that constitutes it a supernatural revelation, and would be reduced to the character of a mere ordinary, common book, from which each one may, ad libitum, gather what notions best suit his tastes, though he would be, at the same time, at absolute war with every other one, who professes, in like manner, to take his opinions from the same source. To speak of this book, thus eviscerated, in which human opinion has taken the place of divine inspiration, as being the revelation of God, is simply to be foolish and impious; and it certainly is not harsh to say, that no

one in proper harmony with his own reason can seriously maintain such a proposition.

In such form, being a mere abstraction, or relegated practically to the clouds, the Revelation of God, however perfect, both as to form and contents, could of course never actualize its own purpose, namely, serve as an infallible guide, or lead men into infallible truth; and not being able to do this, we cannot rationally believe that it would ever have been given. Why should it, in such case, be inspired at all? Surely it did not require inspiration to produce such results. There is nothing in variable and contradictory opinions which, as effects, can connect them with inspiration as their cause.

What then is the general conclusion which reason, to speak of nothing higher, compels the mind to draw from these premises? Nothing less, surely, than this: If Revelation is to be a fact for our world-if it is to be for us the actual revelation of God, whose teachings are, and in their own nature must be, certain, harmonious, invariable, and supernatural, in which there can be no error, no changing opinion, no contradiction, then, by some means or other, we must be made to understand it in its own certain, harmonious, and absolute character. Otherwise, whatever it may be in itself, it is, and can be, no inspired revelation for us. Thus the inherent logic of reason, which speaks to the consciousness of every man who recollects himself as being accountable to God, will force the conviction, when prejudice is banished and nature is calm, that to know revelation in this the only way it can be known, we need a power to interpret it which shall have equal authority with revelation itself. This conclusion cannot be avoided.

It is a great mistake, which many make, to suppose that all that is necessary in order to possess the Bible, is to purchase it, and, like an honest man, pay for it. They seem to forget that infidels of the most advanced type possess it precisely in the same way, and are frequently able much more adroitly to manage, in the service of infidelity, their quotations from it. Such possession may indeed give him a legal right to the paper and ink which enter into it, as into any other mere personal chattel. But the Bible itself, in its own proper nature, namely, its truth, is not thus a matter of merchandise or legal ownership. To possess it in this its only true sense is to seize its meaning, to know its sense, and to know this infallibly, for this sense or meaning is infallible. How may this be done without infallibility?

The necessity for infallibility in this view is, therefore, clearly equal to the value of revelation itself; for without the first it is not possible to possess the last. He who has the truth of revelation, in its own infallible form (and it has no other truth), has revela