The emphasis in italics [or rather, non-italics, because wordpress inverts them in blockquotes] is theirs, the emphasis in bold is mine. Comments in brackets  are my words.
Upon few subjects of theology are options so fluctuating and uncertain as upon this. One one extreme stands the doctrine of inspiration maintained by Gaussen (translated by Edward N. Kirk, D.D.), who asserts that every word contained in the Bible was communicated by inspiration, and contains infallible truth. On the other extreme is the view (represented in this country by the author of the “Discourse of Matters pertaining to Religion”), that the writers of the New Testament were no otherwise inspired than good and wise men always are, and that their writings are full of error both of fact and principle. These two doctrines are definite and perfectly intelligible; and, adopting either, we have no difficulty in applying it. Adopt the first, and reason, conscience, observation, experience, must all yield to the letter of Scripture: adopt the second, and you may set aside as puerile, false, or wicked, any assertion or command of Scripture which does not suit your opinions, tastes, or prejudices.
But between these two doctrines there is a vast mass of floating opinions, difficult to define or fix. Some say, the “Bible is not a revelation, but the record of a revelation.” Some say, “the thoughts were suggested, but not the words.” [Which I say is very sensible.] Others contend for what they call an inspiration of superintendence; that is, the writers were watched, and restrained if they were going astray,–an inspiration like the warnings which Socrates received from his demon, who never told him what to do, but only check him from doing wrong. Some say, “Parts of the Bible are inspired, others not,–Paul was not inspired to send for his cloak, nor David to curse his enemies.” Others say, “There are degrees of inspiration: all parts are inspired, but some in a greater and some in a less degree.” Bishop March thinks a man may believe in the truth of the religion who does not believe in the inspiration of the record. Grotius says, “It was not necessary that the historical part of the Bible should be dictated by the Holy Spirit: it was only necessary that the writers should posses a good memory.” Marsh thinks we should be gainers, if we considered the evangelists as not inspired at all; for then their testimony would be more valuable as witnesses: but the writers of the Epistles must have been inspired. Some Catholics have contended that the writers of some books were not inspired, but that the Holy Spirit made these books Holy Scripture, after they were written, by testifying (through the Church) that there is nothing false in them. Milman thinks that the inflexible love of truth of a true Christian would be sufficient to guarantee of his fidelity as a writer.
The extreme positions of those who contend for a plenary inspiration of every word, and of those who deny all peculiar inspiration, seem to be perfectly intelligible, definite, and clear; but untenable. The positions of those who stand between these points is often more reasonable, but vacillating, and not precise.
The source of this difficulty is twofold: first in the method of inquiry usually pursued; second in the absence of a precise idea of inspiration in its essential nature…..
I think rather the problem is hit pretty fair on the head by the Catholic comment that writings uninspired were added to the Bible by the Church (i.e. the Catholic church). Only, the Church’s judgement that they contained no error was faulty (especially with respect to the Pauline Corpus).
Furthermore, even with respect to those books that were inspired, I would have recourse to the theory of degrees of inspiration before I would admit any inspiration whatsoever in Mark, Luke, or John, for I will not admit these subpar gospels on the same high level with Matthew. Yet, even with Matthew (the most inspired book of the New Testament) we must have recourse to a theory that the “Church” thought itself an adequate judge to add in a few verses here and there that were not inspired but that they judged to be correct (from the fictions of their Catholic brains). Of such nature, I would rank the zombie pericope (Matt. 27.51-54) in Matthew, as well as the story of the virgin birth and the bogus claim that Isaiah 7 has anything to do with prophesying of Christ, not to mention the bogus interpretation which the Catholics interpolated into Matthew for the parable of the tares, which interpretation is itself a tare, for it is obvious from the parable itself that the point is that the devil will sow tares into the scriptures, but they make up verses purporting to be Jesus explaining the parable which gives it a sinister meaning. And their artifice on this point is exposed easily, by reading Eusebius’ Church History, for the first author to ever give an interpretation of the parable interprets it as of the tares being corruptions in scripture, a writer prior to Ireneaus in 180 AD, but Ireneaus interprets it inline with the tare of an interpretation that now defaces the holy gospel of Matthew.
But the mission of Christ, his Messiahship, his authority, none of this hinges on the perfection of the New Testament…and never has. If it had, how could so many people in the past (particularly among unitarians) have held to a “lower” view of inspiration, and yet clave to Jesus Christ so much?
The Evangelical lie that “the Bible is a take it or leave it book” just produces atheists. Rejection of perfect inerrancy produces Christians, and yea, it alone produces Christians. Because were lip-service is given to inerrancy, every passage on morality is rejected, and only the most vile passages (Romans 9) from Satan himself are listened to. Where “inerrancy” is given lip-service, there Calvinism is lurking in the corner, waiting to devour your soul. There is the spirit of antichrist.