My opponent was fond of saying that the Bible was an infallible guide. The statement was not true in any strict and rigorous sense of the words. And it was foolish for him to make it in an eager debate, for he could never prove it. And he was not long in finding this out. A few plain questions set him quite fast. The Bible is an infallible guide, you say. We ask, Which Bible? The common version? No. John Wesley's version? No. Dr. Conquest's? No. The Unitarian version? No. _Any_ version? No. Is it some particular Greek or Hebrew Bible then? No. Is it the manuscripts? No. But these are all the Bibles we have. The Bible is an infallible guide, you say. What to? Uniformity of opinion? No. Uniformity of worship? No. Uniformity of life? No. Uniformity of feeling, of affection, of effort? No. It does not even require uniformity in those matters. It supposes diversity. It asks only for sincerity, honesty, fidelity. But it is an infallible guide to all truth and duty, you say. Has it guided you to all truth and duty? No. Whom _has_ it guided to those blessed results? You cannot say. But it is an infallible guide to all that truth which is necessary to a man's salvation, you say. But there is no particular amount of truth that _is_ necessary to a man's salvation. The amount of truth necessary to a man's salvation differs according to his powers and privileges. That which is necessary to my salvation may not be necessary to the salvation of a Pagan. It is sincerity in the search of truth, and fidelity in reducing it to practice, which is necessary to a man's salvation, and not the acquisition of some particular quantity of truth. The Bible is an infallible guide. To whom? To the Catholics? No. To the Unitarians? No. To the Quakers? No. To the Church of England people? No. To Methodists and Calvinists? No. That the Bible is a trusty guide enough, I have no doubt, if we will faithfully and prayerfully follow it; but to talk as if it would guide every one infallibly to exactly the same views, or to the fulness of all truth, is not wise. It is not warranted either by the Bible itself, or by facts. Besides, if a book is to guide a man infallibly, it must be made perfectly plain; it must be infallibly interpreted. And where are the infallible interpreters? We know of none that even profess to be such outside the Church of Rome; and none but themselves and their own Church members believe their professions. _You_ do not believe them. As a rule, the claim of infallibility is taken as a proof that the man who makes it is not only fallible, but something worse. But if we had infallible interpreters, they would not be able to keep us from error, unless we had infallible hearts and infallible understandings. And we have no such things. If we had, we should neither need infallible books nor infallible interpreters.