It is very true that our position with respect to the Scriptures is not in all points the same as our fathers’.  For sixteen hundred years nearly, while physical science, and history, and chronology, and criticism, were all in a state of torpor, the questions which now present themselves to our minds could not from the nature of the case arise.  When they did arise, they came forward into notice gradually:  first the discoveries in astronomy excited uneasiness:  then as men began to read more critically, differences in the several Scripture narratives of the same thing awakened attention; more lately, the greater knowledge which has been gained of history, and of language, and in all respects the more careful inquiry to which all ancient records have been submitted, have brought other difficulties to light, and some sort of answer must be given to them.  Mr. Newman, as we have seen, has made use of those difficulties much as the Romanists have used the doctrine of the Trinity when arguing with Trinitarians[19] in defence of transubstantiation.  The Romanists said,—­“Here are all these inexplicable difficulties in the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet you believe it.”  So Mr. Newman argues with those who hold the plenary inspiration of Scripture, that if they believe that, in spite of all the difficulties which beset it, they may as well believe his doctrine of the priesthood; and many, if I mistake not, alarmed by this representation, have actually embraced his opinions.

[Footnote 19:  On this proceeding of the Romanists, Stillingfleet observes, “Methinks for the sake of our common Christianity you should no more venture upon such bold and unreasonable comparisons.  Do you in earnest think it is all one whether men do believe a God, or providence, or heaven, or hell, or the Trinity, and incarnation of Christ, if they do not believe transubstantiation?  We have heard much of late about old and new popery:  but if this be the way of representing new popery, by exposing the common articles of faith, it will set the minds of all good Christians farther from it than ever.  For upon the very same grounds we may expect another parallel between the belief of a God and transubstantiation, the effect of which will be the exposing of all religion.  This is a very destructive and mischievous method of proceeding; but our comfort is that it is very unreasonable, as I hope hath fully appeared by this discourse.”—­Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared, at the end.]

It has unfortunately happened that the difficulties of the Scripture have been generally treated as objections to the truth of Christianity; as such they have been pressed by adversaries, and as such Christian writers have replied to them.  But then they become of such tremendous interest, that it is scarcely possible to examine them fairly.  If my faith in God and my hope of eternal life is to depend on the accuracy of a date or of some minute historical particular, who can wonder that I should listen to any sophistry that may be used in defence of them, or that I should force my mind to do any sort of violence to itself, when life and death seem to hang on the issue of its decision?