Foote opens by recalling the Reformation-era Catholic charge that Protestants treat the Bible as a 'wax nose,' twistable to any shape. He immediately reframes this: both sides were partly right, and rationalism must war against all infallibilities. The book thus announces itself as a polemic that will use the tools of Higher Criticism—historical context, textual analysis, and logical consistency—to dismantle the notion of a unified, inspired scripture. Foote's method is forensic: he isolates Dean Farrar's arguments, then subjects them to scrutiny, often turning Farrar's own concessions against him.

The Wax Nose and the War of Infallibilities

Foote's introduction sets up a dialectical structure. He presents the Catholic-Protestant dispute as a double error: Protestants were right against the Church, Catholics right against the Bible. Rationalism, he claims, harmonises both truths by rejecting all infallibilities. This framing recurs throughout: Foote repeatedly places opposing views in tension, then proposes a third position. The 'wax nose' metaphor returns implicitly when he argues that the Bible's self-contradictions allow any sect to prove its doctrine. He cites the proliferation of 'Harmonies' that add or subtract words to force agreement—a practice he treats as intellectual dishonesty. The movement from historical dispute to logical paradox is characteristic of Foote's rhetorical strategy.

Farrar's Four Theories and the Problem of Degree

Foote devotes sustained attention to Dean Farrar's classification of inspiration theories: mechanical, dynamic, illuminative, and general. He quotes Farrar's admission that the term 'inspiration' is 'vague' and that a less ambiguous word would be welcome. Foote seizes on the fourth theory—general inspiration—as the weakest. If the Bible is inspired only in the same sense as other noble works, he argues, the difference becomes one of degree, not kind. The word loses its original meaning, reducing Christianity to a form of Theism. Foote's critique is structural: he shows how Farrar's attempt to preserve inspiration by broadening it actually dissolves the concept. The argument moves from Farrar's own words to a logical reductio, a pattern Foote repeats across chapters.

Self-Contradiction as Structural Principle

Foote repeatedly returns to the Bible's internal contradictions as evidence against its divine origin. He notes that the same infallible book yields conflicting doctrines among Protestant sects, and that 'Harmonies' are required to paper over discrepancies. This observation is not merely thematic but structural: Foote organises his own chapters around oppositions—science vs. scripture, miracles vs. natural law, morality vs. biblical ethics. Each section mirrors the book's central claim that the Bible is a heterogeneous volume that cannot sustain a single interpretation. The recurring image of the 'wax nose' thus becomes a structural device: the Bible's plasticity is both its weakness and the source of endless theological conflict.

Movement from Text to Context

Foote's argument moves constantly between the biblical text and its historical or critical context. He cites Farrar's references to Haydn's 'Creation' and the idea that all noble inspiration is divine, then shifts to a broader critique of how such a theory undermines special revelation. This movement—from a specific quotation to a general principle—is typical. Foote also uses the structure of the book itself to mirror his method: each chapter tackles a different aspect of biblical authority (canon, science, miracles, morals), but all return to the same core argument about self-contradiction and human authorship. The effect is cumulative: the reader sees the same pattern of reasoning applied to different domains, reinforcing the book's central thesis without relying on a single knockout blow.

Foote's work is best read as a sustained exercise in logical and textual criticism, not as a comprehensive survey of biblical scholarship. Readers should attend to how he uses Farrar's own words to expose internal tensions, and how the structure of each chapter mirrors the book's overarching argument about contradiction. The polemical tone is deliberate; Foote aims to provoke, not to persuade the undecided. Those interested in the history of freethought or the reception of Higher Criticism will find this a sharp, if partisan, example of late-Victorian rationalist debate.