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.