1. The recital of the temptation in St. Matthew and St. Luke. In the former (Matt. iv. 6-8), the vision from the pinnacle of the temple is placed first; in the latter (Luke iv. 1-1(1), that from a lofty mountain takes precedence.
2. In Matt. x. 10, Jesus commands his apostles to take for their missionary journey neither "scrip, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet stares." In Mark vi. 8, he commands them to "take nothing for their journey, save a staff only." 3. In the narrative of the passion, as in that of the resurrection, there are numer ous contradictions of detail resting on a fundamental and striking unity. According to Mark xiv. 72, the cock is represented as crowing on each of the first and second occa sions on which Peter deities his Lord. In the uccounts given by the other evangelists, the cock only crows upon the third denial (Matt. xxvi. 74; Luke xxii. 60). The state ment of the death of Judas differs materially in Matthew in the Actsof the Apostles. According to the former, Judas casts down the pieces of silver, and departs and hangs himself; and the chief priests afterwards purchase with the price of his guilt the potter's field for the burial of strangers, hence called the field of blood, According to the Acts of the Apostles i. 18, Judas himself is represented as having purchased the field " with the reward of iniquity;" then as having in sortie way (not explicitly stated in the narra tive) met there a bloody death, from which circumstance the field took its name. In the narratives of the resurrection, it is well known there are numerous variations; and numerous palpable errors of memory as to historical facts occur, such as may lie seen by comparing Mark ii. 26 with 1 Sam. xxi. 2-6, and 1 Cor. x. 8 with Numb. xxv. 9.
4. As to the citations of the Old Testament in the New, they are almost entirely taken from the Septuagint, and evidently in many cases quoted front memory, with little regard to their exact sense in the original. Thus.. St. Matthew (ii. 6), in applying to the Messiah the prophecy of Micah (v. 2), says of Bethlehem precisely the reverse of the Septuagint. "'Chou art too little to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda," lie translates: " Thou art not the least among the princes of Juda." In many cases, the New Testament writers, while repeating the inaccuracies of the Septuagint tratrlation, turn them to admirable account; this is especially remarkable in the gospel of St. Mat thew and the epistles of St. Paul. Thus (iii. 3),St. Matthew translates with the Septua glut: " The voice of one crying in the wilderness;" while the Hebrew is: "A voice cries, make plain in the wilderness the ways of the Lord " (Isaiah xl. 3). Compare also Matt. xii. 21 and Isaiah xlii. 4, also Matt. xv. 8 and Isaiah xxix. 13.
None of these errors, it is maintained, are of any material consequence so far as the substantial veracity of Scripture is concerned. The very fact that a microscopic criti cism can detect no more serious inconsistencies in the scriptural writers, is rightly held to be one of the most striking testimonies that could lie given to their truthfulness. Such slight inaccuracies are the mere freedoms which writers, thoroughly hon4t, and animated with a high interest which overlooks trifles, permit themselves. But how ever unimportant in themselves, they are considered by many theologians to be alto gether inconsistent with a theory of verbal inspiration. 'However minute, they are recog nized as real discrepancies—human imperfections in the sacred record—and as conse quently proving that the mere text or letter of Scripture is not infallible, that it cannot be regarded as it "direct utterance of the Most High," Inspiration, therefore, according to these theologians, does not imply the infallibility of the scriptural text; it is something consistent with scientific, historical, exegetical, and even argumentative errors (witness, to quote no other example, St. Paul's argument about the sons of Abraham. Gal. iv. 22, 25). There is nothing valid, no divine authoritative element, it may be said, that can survive such deductions. If there are such errors in Scripture, why may it not all be imperfect or erroneous? The suffi cient answer is, that it is not so—that, judged by the very same critical tests which detect such errors, the Bible remains an entirely vniric book. Every Christian mind recognizes in it a higher divine knowledge and authority than in aught else. The divine spirit it) Scripture makes itself felt, shines forth in every page of it; and this is inspiration in the highest sense, the mind of God meeting our minds in Scripture, enlightening, guiding, elevating, purifying them. There is nothing more in reality to begot from any theory than this. An inspired letter, or word, or message is nothing to any one in itself; the meaning is We must understand the word or mes sage. There is no degree of objective authority that can supersede this subketive proc ess of apprehension on our part. There cannot, therefore, be immunity from error, let the symbol or the text be as perfect as possible. It is only to its what we see it to paean; and this meaning, in the case of Scripture, shines with a divine power and luster such as invest no other book. It bears its own divine witness. In such an idea of inspiration, criticism finds nothing inconsistent, nothing impossible, and no higher idea can be well formed of it.