FORMS OF ATTACK 



15 



its inspiration.^ Not one conclusion of biblical critics 

 can be alleged to the contrary which cannot be shown 

 to be unscientific by reason of the question-begging 

 and rationalistic denial of the supernatural upon which 

 it is based. Certain alleged results of criticism, which 

 seem, to ordinary men at least, to nullify Christian doc- 

 trines, are supported by very plausible arguments. 

 But in every instance of this kind careful scrutiny will 

 bring to light the vitiating fallacy of which I have been 

 speaking. The plausibility depends upon the premises; 

 and naturalistic premises should be proved. They 

 may not, scientifically speaking, be taken for granted. 

 But the most disturbing effect of biblical criticism is 

 this, that not even a beHef in the supernatural can 

 account for what appears to be the presence of his- 

 torical and scientific inaccuracies in Scripture. Few 

 scholars can be found to-day who will venture to 

 maintain the historical and scientific value of the 

 early chapters of Genesis, and the entire freedom of 

 the Gospel narratives from mutual inconsistencies of 

 detail. Those who have adequately considered this 

 difficulty are not troubled by it. The Bible was not 

 inspired for historical and scientific purposes, but for 

 rehgious ends. And these ends did not require that 

 the sacred writers should be made infallible in his- 

 tory and science. So far as the narratives of Scrip- 

 ture embody what is taught by catholic dogma, they 

 are not found to be erroneous; and the mutual varia- 



1 1 borrow this watch illustration from Marcus Dods, The Bible, 

 ch. V. 



