comparing it for myself with the Old Testament, I was struck with observing that the corruption of the two names Ahaziah and Uzziah into the same sound (Oziah) has been the cause of merging four generations into one; as the similarity of Jehoiakim to Jehoiachin also led to blending them both in the name Jeconiah.  In consequence, there ought to be 18 generations where Matthew has given as only 14:  yet we cannot call this on error of a transcriber; for it is distinctly remarked, that the genealogy consists of 14 three times repeated.  Thus there were but 14 names inserted by Matthew:  yet it ought to have been 18:  and he was under manifest mistake.  This surely belongs to a class of knowledge, of which man has cognizance:  it would not be piety, but grovelling superstition, to avow before God that I distrust my powers of counting, and, in obedience to the written word, I believe that 18 is 14 and 14 is 18.  Thus it is impossible to deny, that there is cognizable error in the first chapter of Matthew.  Consequently, that gospel is not all dictated by the Spirit of God, and (unless we can get rid of the first chapter as no part of the Bible) the doctrine of the verbal infallibility of the whole Bible, or indeed of the New Testament, is demonstrably false.

After I had turned the matter over often, and had become accustomed to the thought, this single instance at length had great force to give boldness to my mind within a very narrow range.  I asked whether, if the chapter were now proved to be spurious, that would save the infallibility of the Bible.  The reply was:  not of the Bible as it is; but only of the Bible when cleared of that and of all other spurious additions.  If by independent methods, such as an examination of manuscripts, the spuriousness of the chapter could now be shown, this would verify the faculty of criticism which has already objected to its contents:  thus it would justly urge us to apply similar criticism to other passages.

I farther remembered, and now brought together under a single point of view, other undeniable mistakes.  The genealogy of the nominal father of Jesus in Luke is inconsistent with that in Matthew, in spite of the flagrant dishonesty with which divines seek to deny this; and neither evangelist gives the genealogy of Mary, which alone is wanted.—­In Acts vii. 16, the land which Jacob bought of the children of Hamor,[1] is confounded with that which Abraham bought of Ephron the Hittite.  In Acts v. 36, 37, Gamaliel is made to say that Theudas was earlier in time than Judas of Galilee.  Yet in fact, Judas of Galilee preceded Theudas; and the revolt of Theudas had not yet taken place when Gamaliel spoke, so the error is not Gamaliel’s, but Luke’s.  Of both the insurgents we have a dear and unimpeached historical account in Josephus.—­The slaughter of the infants by Herod, if true, must, I thought, needs have been recorded by the same historian,—­So again, in regard to the allusion made by Jesus to