IlIBRARY of PRINCETON 
 
 JUN 2 8 2005 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
Is the Bible Infallible? 
 
 c^i^ 
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 THE REV. DR. DODS' CASE, 
 
 IN THE FREE PRESBYTERY OF GLASGOW, ON 
 Sth SEPTEMBER AND 271/1 NOVEMBER, 1877. 
 
 REV. ROBERT BREMNER, M.A. 
 
 GLASGOW. 
 
 REVISED AND CORRECTED. 
 
 WITH DR. C. HODGE OF PRINCETON'S LETTER, AND AN 
 
 APPENDIX CONTAINING THE COMMITTEE OF 
 
 PRESBYTERY'S REPORT. 
 
 GLASGOW : 
 DAVID BRYCE & SON, 129 BUCHANAN STREET. 
 
 EDINBURGH : MACLAREN AND MACNIVEN, AND ANDREW ELLIOT. 
 
 ABERDEEN : A. AND R. MILNE. 
 
 1878. 
 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
}OiOQ 
 
SPEECH I 
 
 Glasgow, Free Presbytery House, 
 yh Sept., 1877. 
 
 In rising to call the attention of the Presbytery to the sermon on 
 " Revelation and Inspiration," recently published by the Rev. Dr. 
 Dods, and to the new preface prefixed to the third edition of that 
 sermon, I beg to say for myself, and for the brethren in concert 
 with whom I am acting, that we deeply deplore that there should 
 be any necessity for our taking such a step. Could we have done 
 so with a good conscience, we should a thousand times rather 
 have refrained from moving in the matter. It is to one and all 
 of us a most painful thing to have to call in question the character 
 of the teaching of a brother so greatly esteemed by us all. Such, 
 however, is the opinion we entertain of the unscriptural and 
 dangerous nature of the views propounded in these publications 
 — -views which, in our judgment, are subversive of the ver^^ 
 foundations of Christianity — that we feel — were we to remain 
 silent, we should be guilty of unfaithfulness to God and to his 
 truth. 
 
 I beg further to say, and I do it in all sincerity, that I regret 
 it should have fallen to me to occupy my present position. 
 Most thankful should I have been could some abler and more 
 experienced brother have been prevailed upon to take the 
 initiative in the matter. No one can be more sensible than 
 I am of my inability to do justice to the unspeakably im- 
 portant subject I have tremblingly undertaken to bring before 
 you. The esteemed brethren, however, with whom I act, know 
 and can testify that it is not at my own instance, but at 
 their urgent and unanimous request, that I have done so. My 
 earnest prayer is that, in endeavouring to state the grounds on 
 which the proposed motion proceeds, I may be kept, on the one 
 hand, from doing injustice to the truth, and, on the other, from 
 giving unnecessary offence to our brother, or to any one else. 
 The motion I have to propose is, "That a committee be appointed 
 " to examine the sermon on ' Revelation and Inspiration,' recently 
 " published by the Rev. Dr. Dods, and the new preface prefixed to 
 " the third edition of that sermon, and to report to a subsequent 
 " meeting of Presbytery as to the nature and character of the views 
 
4 
 
 " of divine revelation, and espcciall}- of the inspiration of the Holy 
 " Scriptures, set forth by Dr. Dods in these publications." * 
 
 To prevent misapprehension, I have to state at the outset that, 
 apart from what bears more directly upon the questions of 
 Revelation and Inspiration, numerous very objectionable state- 
 ments are to be met with in the sermon before us. Thus, at p. 1 1, 
 the author speaks of other "great religions" besides Christianity 
 and Judaism, as possessing "canonical scriptures," and containing 
 " a moral teaching little if at all inferior to that contained in our 
 "own." At p. 23 it is declared that Paul's epistles "teach that 
 "spirit supersedes law," and that this is "the ultimate religious 
 " teaching the world needs or can have." At p. 25 the same 
 apostle is spoken of as having "deduced a doctrinal system from 
 " the revelation made to him." At p. 26 it is affirmed that " the 
 " Bible has not done its work until it takes us past itself, and 
 makes us independent of it," and that " when the Bible has done 
 " its work, and has brought us into a living fellowship with God 
 " . . . we say to it as the Samaritans said to the woman — 
 " ' Now we believe, not because of thy saying ; for we have heard 
 " ' him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the 
 " ' Saviour of the world.' " 
 
 These, and not a few other statements of a like character, to 
 be met with in this sermon, I regard as altogether unwarrantable. 
 At the same time, had this Sermon -f- contained nothing else 
 objectionable, I for one should not have felt called upon to bring 
 it under the notice of the Presbytery. 
 
 Nay, had it contained only what is said upon the subject of 
 Revelation, I do not know that I should have deemed it neces- 
 sary that any Presbyterial cognizance should be taken of it. 
 Not that I regard what is said on this latter point as satisfactory. 
 Far from it. Judging from the way in which the matter is 
 spoken of in this sermon, the Bible, while containing revelations 
 by God, may also contain much that is in no sense a divine 
 revelation, but simply the words, thoughts, and impressions of 
 the writers themselves. Nay, more, I cannot but conclude 
 that, according to the teaching of this sermon, there is in the 
 Bible, and that not merely in regard to matters of which the 
 writers may have become acquainted "in the ordinary way," 
 much that cannot be regarded either as having been super- 
 naturally revealed, or as possessed of divine authority. In 
 what other light, for example, can such statements as those 
 
 *The following was moved as an amendment by the Rev. Dr. Adam : — 
 " The Presbytery, having special respect to the difficulties felt and expressed 
 by brethren regarding the views of Dr. Dods on the subject of Revelation and 
 Inspiration, as stated by him in a sermon lately published, entitled ' Revela- 
 tion and Inspiration,' resolve to appoint a committee to consider deliberately 
 whether the Presbytery was called to take any action with reference to said 
 views, and if so, of what nature, and to report to a subsequent meeting of 
 Presbyter}'." 
 
 t When I mention the Sermon I include also the Preface. 
 
5 
 
 contained in the following quotation from page 6 be re- 
 garded ? — 
 
 " I accept as authoritative those whose teaching is connected witli the 
 historical revelations of God, and I decline to accept as authoritative any 
 others. There has been a distinct series of such revelations culminating 
 and terminating in the Incarnation. Those whom God raised up to preserve 
 and diffuse the knowledge of these re\elations I accept ; but all teachers out 
 of the historical line or arising subsequently to its termination in Christ, I 
 take for what they are worth ; but even when they teach me most valuable 
 truth, I cannot put them on a level with those whose teaching is directly 
 connected with CJod's revelation of Himself in history." • 
 
 From the fact that no one, except perhaps Mr. Page Hopps, 
 ever seriously proposed that Dr. Dods should accept as authori- 
 tative teachers of divine revelations, any besides the writers of 
 the Bible, it seems clear, especially from the emphatic way in 
 which he expresses himself, that it is not of any outside the 
 Bible, but of some of its actual writers that the author here 
 speaks — declining to accept them as authoritative teachers, 
 because they are out of the historical line, or arose subsequently 
 to its termination in Christ. But be this as it may, it is impossi- 
 ble to see how, with his views of inspiration, the author can 
 regard the Bible, taken as a whole, as a revelation from God 
 to man. 
 
 Nay, if we are to judge from the language employed, it is 
 difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion, that not a little even 
 of that to which the name of revelation is given, is not regarded 
 as objective presentatiorts of truth, made ab extra, to the minds 
 of the sacred writers ; but truths subjectively discovered, and 
 evolved from within, out of the depths of their own spiritual 
 natures, by the aid of the Holy Spirit. At least, I am unable to 
 see what other interpretation can legitimately be put upon such 
 statements as these — " The evangelists " (p. 20) " had the Spirit 
 " of Christ, and therefore coincided with Him as to what was 
 *' important and what was little in his life ; " " The kind of truth" 
 "(p. 21) "about God, which the world needed, was not that 
 " which is reached by reasoning from first principles ; but that 
 " which is attained cxperinieiitally by those who hold life-long 
 " fellowship with God ; " mark the expression, not that which is 
 supernaturally revealed to them by God, but " that which is 
 attained cxpcriincntally," in other words, discovered by, and 
 brought forth from the recesses of, their own spiritual intuitions 
 and experiences. 
 
 But be the author's views of revelation what they may, there 
 can be no dubiety as to what is taught in this Sermon, in regard 
 to Inspiration. Equally obvious is it, that his views on this point, 
 are contrary to the Word of God, to the Confession of Faith, to 
 the doctrine hitherto held and professed, and universally under- 
 stood to be taught, in the Free Church, and to what has been 
 held and professed by the ablest and most orthodox theologians, 
 not in this country only, but in ever>' country in Christendom ; 
 
yea, contrary to the faith and creed of, the universal Church of 
 God in every age. 
 
 As I understand it, the doctrine of Scripture is, that the 
 writers of the Bible not only had the whole of what they have 
 written supernaturally made known to them by God, or were 
 specially directed by Him to the selection of it ; but that they were 
 all specially and miraculously qualified and enabled by Him to 
 record, with infallible accuracy, what was thus supernaturally 
 revealed to them ; that they were completely preserved from 
 errors and mistakes, not only in regard to the doctrines they 
 declared, but also in regard to the facts and incidents they 
 recorded ; and that, as the result of this, the Bible is, from 
 beginning to end, a record of infallible truth and divine authority 
 — the Very Word of God ; or as the venerable Locke declared, 
 " It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without 
 any mixture of error for its matter." 
 
 In this sermon, however, it is denied that the writers of the 
 Bible were thus supernaturally inspired ; and maintained that 
 the Holy Scriptures,* as originally written, contained numerous 
 errors and mistakes, and so are not possessed of absolute 
 infallibility. 
 
 First of all, it is denied that the writers of the Bible were 
 supernaturally inspired. In proof of this, look, for example, at 
 what is said on p. 3, in regard to the purpose for which the 
 sermon was written — 
 
 " In the first place, I should have expected intelligent readers to apprehend 
 that the sermon was written as an apologetic attempt. My main object was 
 to indicate that, so far as the historical contents of Scripture are concerned, 
 Revelation stands firm, although there should prove to be no such thing as 
 Inspiration. It will not be disputed by any ordinarily informed person, that 
 a large amount of the current scepticism is due to the mixing up of these two 
 distinct things. If Revelation is to be conserved, it must not be bound up 
 and made to stand or fall with a special theory of Inspiration. My aim was 
 to show that of these two distinct things, Revelation is by far the more im- 
 portant, that in certain books of Scripture the separation between the two can 
 very well be effected, and that, supposing you give up that theory of Inspira- 
 tion which unquestionably staggers many intelligent and earnest men, Revela- 
 tion remains. All that we need to contend for is the historic credibility of 
 the narratives. This we can establish in the completest way : anything be- 
 yond this is not indispensable." 
 
 The sermon havdng been written as an apologetic attempt, and 
 the object of it being to enable sceptics to accept the contents of 
 the Bible, some may be disposed to think that those who take 
 exception to its contents, ignorantly and ungenerously overlook 
 the author's purpose in writing it, and fail to give sufficient 
 weight to the motives by which he was actuated. Moreover, if I 
 mistake not, the author himself is of opinion that the end he had 
 
 * N.B. — When I speak of the Holy Scriptures, I mean, of course, the 
 Scriptures as orii^inally gweii ; as it is about errors alleged by Dr. Dods to 
 have existed in these original documents, and about these alone, and not 
 about such as may be due to variations of MSS., or to translations, that any 
 question has been raised in the Presbyter)-. 
 
in view ought to <j^o far to obviate objections to the means he has 
 adopted in order to the accomplisliment of that end. It ought 
 to be remeinbercd however, that the end, even when good, can 
 never justify the means when bad, and that we must never do 
 evil that good may come. 
 
 Now, not only do I regard the object which the writer .says he 
 had in view, as a very hopeless one, but I look upon the means 
 employed to accomplish it as most unwarrantable. What arc 
 these means ? It is by trying to show that Revelation is far more 
 important than Inspiration, and not only so, but that, in so far at 
 least as the historical portions of Scripture are concerned, a 
 separation can very well be effected between these ; that all that 
 need be contended for is the historic credibility of the narratives ; 
 and that nothing beyond this is indispensable. 
 
 Now, what is this, but just a denial that the writers of 
 these historical Scriptures either were, or required to be super- 
 naturally inspired .'' Did the author believe that these writers 
 were divinely inspired, and that in these Scriptures Inspira- 
 tion and Revelation are by a divine hand wedded together, 
 we cannot for a moment suppose that, even to conciliate such 
 " intelligent and earnest men " as are staggered at the thought 
 of these writers being supernaturally inspired, he would ever 
 have dreamt of attempting to separate what God had thus 
 joined together. How any who reverence the Bible as being 
 throughout the inspired word of God, should be expected to 
 look upon such an "apologetic attempt" with approbation, or 
 even with indulgence, is inexplicable. Nay, it is amazing that the 
 author himself should have been able for a moment to imagine that 
 by any such means he should be instrumental in getting " intelli- 
 gent earnest men " to accept the contents of the Bible as " an 
 infallible rule of faith and life." The man who will not accept 
 the contents of the Bible as supernaturally inspired, will never 
 receive them as supernaturally revealed. Nor, in affirming this, 
 do I stand alone. The author's venerable father, the late 
 Rev. Marcus Dods, of Belford, took the very same view^ 
 At p. 42 of his " Remarks on the Bible," he declares that 
 " If the Scriptures are spurned by the infidel, when they 
 " are presented to him as wholly the word of God, it is pre- 
 " posterous to suppose that they will command his reverence when 
 " presented to him as partly the word of God, and partly that of 
 " man. Give the infidel one book, or one verse, and upon the 
 " same principle he has a right to demand the surrender of the 
 "whole Bible." 
 
 But, perhaps, I will here be told that the writer of this sermon 
 does not deny that the historical writers of Scripture were in- 
 spired, but repeatedly speaks of their inspiration. True ; but 
 the inspiration he attributes to them does not deserve the 
 name, as Dr. Martin in his admirable pamphlet on "The West- 
 " minster Doctrine on the Inspiration of Scripture" has conclu- 
 sively shown. 
 
8 
 
 Thus, at p. 20 of this sermon, we have the following state- 
 ment :- — 
 
 " The inspiration of the apostles fitting them to preserve to the world the 
 life and character of our Lord, was not an influence which served them instead 
 of eyes and memory, but it was an influence which set them in the right atti- 
 tude towards Him they were to reflect, and which made them sensitive to 
 everything in Him which was of the highest value. We have nothing in them 
 of the trifling gossiping biographer, who tells you the colour of his hero's 
 eyes, or details his daily habits and the kind of food he relished : here we are 
 in a spiritual region, because we are in the hands of spiritual men." 
 
 Such, according to this sermon, is the only inspiration vouch- 
 safed to the apostles. It must be obvious to the least observant 
 that there is nothing special or supernatural in its character, no- 
 thing in short different from, or superior to, that which might 
 have been possessed by any very spiritually-minded Christian. 
 That this is really the idea intended to be conveyed is clear from 
 what follows (p. 2i) : — 
 
 "Inspiration, in short, is a spiritual gift, and only indirectly a mental one. 
 It illuminates the mind as enthusiasm does, by stimulating and elevating it ; 
 it enriches the memory as love does, by intensifying the interest in a certain 
 object and by making the mind sensitive to its impressions and retentive of 
 them. It brings light to the understanding, and wisdom to the spirit, as 
 purity of intention does, or as a high aim in life does. But it is not a gift con- 
 ferring intellectual acuteness where that did not previously exist, nor impart- 
 ing any superhuman power of knowledge. If an error existed in the records 
 used by the compiler of the Books of Chronicles, if the documents from which 
 he was gathering his information mis-stated the numbers that fell in some 
 battle, inspiration furnished him with no means of detecting such an error." 
 
 These quotations, I submit, make it perfectly plain that in this 
 sermon it is denied that the writers of the Holy Scriptures were 
 supernaturally inspired, and not only so but maintained that 
 supernatural assistance was not needed to enable them to see and 
 represent truly a revelation of God. If any thing further were 
 necessary to demonstrate the correctness of this view we have it 
 in what is said at page 22, in answer to the question — 
 
 " WTiat is it then that distinguishes these writers of Scripture .'' Mainly 
 this, that they had the revelation at first hand, that they were the men before 
 whom the revelation was made, and who were so impressed with it and saw 
 its meaning, as to be moved to preserve and perpetuate this impression for the 
 sake of others. As John remarkably says, 'That which we have seen and 
 heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us.' " 
 
 But not only is it thus denied that the historical writers of 
 Scripture were supernaturally inspired, and maintained that their 
 distinguishing characteristics were that they had their facts at 
 first hand, and were, in addition, very spiritually-minded, honest 
 men, but it is declared that this is all that they themselves lay 
 claim to as entitling their writings to credit. Thus, at p. 19, in 
 reply to the enquiry, " What was the special equipment of those 
 " who were chosen to record the revelations which God made ? " 
 it is thus written : — 
 
 " So far as regards the narration of events in which (jod revealed Himself, 
 we find the historical writers of Scripture in thorough agreement with criticism, 
 asserting that the prime requisite is, knowledge of these facts at first hand. 
 
Luke grounds the credibility of his gospel, not on any inspiration which could 
 give him a knowledge of events of which he could not in any other way be 
 cognisant, but upon the ordinary grounds of belief in history— viz., that he had 
 his facts from those who were eyewitnesses. We have only one gospel which 
 claims for itself to have been written by an apostle, and he bases his trust- 
 worthiness on the fact of his being an eyewitness of what he relates and an 
 honest man. ' He that saw it bare record, and his record is true ; and he 
 knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.' . . . They (the apostles) 
 never ask us to take their word for a thing which they had not good means of 
 knowing in the ordinary way, they do not come before us as men who by a 
 process called inspiration ^vere made aware of facts which had not come within 
 their own observation or knowledge, neither do they bid us accept their testi- 
 mony without question as infallible." 
 
 Now, Sir, while, in common with all who believe in the super- 
 natural inspiration of the writers of the Bible, I not only admit, 
 but maintain, that the apostles and other historical writers of the 
 Scriptures employed all competent means to make themselves 
 thoroughly acquainted with the facts they record, and are entitled, 
 apart from their inspiration, to have their narratives received as 
 the productions of intelligent, well-informed, and trustworthy 
 men, who wrote only what they believed to be true, I most 
 emphatically deny that what Luke and John say is to be regarded 
 as an indirect disclaimer of supernatural inspiration, or even as an 
 " assertion that the prime requisite was knowledge of the facts 
 " recorded at first hand." Moreover, even were it the fact that 
 the apostles, as asserted in the last quotation, never ask us to 
 take their word for a thing which they had not good means of 
 knowing in the ordinary way, or come before us as men who, by 
 a process called inspiration, were made aware of facts which had 
 not come within their own observation or knowledge, it would 
 not follow from this, either that they were not, in regard to all 
 that they wrote, supernaturally inspired, or that they did not 
 claim to be so, or believe that they were. And I cannot but be 
 amazed that such an argument should ever have been employed. 
 The writers of Scripture did not need to be always declaring that 
 they were inspired, and that what they wrote was written by 
 divine help, and under supernatural direction. As divinely com- 
 missioned apostles and prophets, whose official position and 
 standing in the Church were equal to, or even higher than that 
 of the ancient prophets, whom all believed to be divinely inspired, 
 they were known and acknowledged by all to be under the very 
 same supernatural influence and direction in all their official 
 sayings and doings as these ancient prophets. 
 
 I deny, however, that they ever make any such assertion as 
 that which, in the extracts just given, is attributed to them. Still 
 more emphatically do I deny that they neVer ask us to take their 
 word for a thing which they had not good means of knowing in 
 the ordinary way, or that their inspiration was not an influence 
 which ever served them " instead of eyes or memory." Not to 
 speak of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us of what was said 
 and done during our Lord's temptation in the wilderness, during 
 His agony in the garden of Gethsemane, and at the sepulchre on 
 
lO 
 
 the morning of the resurrection, of much of which neither they nor 
 any others were ear or eye-witnesses, and with which, therefore, they 
 could not have become acquainted in the ordinary way, any more 
 than Moses could have become acquainted in the ordinary way 
 with the facts of the creation, but must have had it revealed to 
 them either by Christ Himself, or by the Holy Spirit; does not 
 John tell us that "all things were made by the Word, and without 
 Him was not any thing made that was made" ? Does not Paul 
 declare * that God chose believers in Christ " before the founda- 
 " tion of the world that they should be holy and without blame 
 " before Him in love" ; f that Christ before coming into the world 
 was " in the form of God," and " thought it not robbery to be 
 " equal with God," and that because He became obedient unto 
 death, even the death of the cross, " God hath highly exalted 
 " Him, and given Him a name that is above every name, that at 
 " the name of Jesus every knee should bow, . . . and that 
 " every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of 
 '' God the Father"; that^: the names of his fellow-labourers were 
 " in the book of life"; and that "God promised eternal life before" 
 " the world began " ? Does not Peter testify § that " the angels 
 " desire to look into the things declared in the Scriptures regarding 
 " Christ " ; and that || " God spared not the angels that sinned, 
 " but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains 
 " of darkness to be reserved unto judgment" ? These, and 
 numerous other facts of a like character, the apostles, as " no 
 "careful student of Scripture can well deny," "do ask us to take 
 '■ their word for." 
 
 Now, I should like to know what the "good means" were 
 which they had for knowing these things " in the ordinary way." 
 They were neither eye-witnesses of them, nor ear-witnesses ; 
 nor could any others have had a " knowledge of these facts 
 at first hand," or otherwise than by supernatural revelation. 
 
 It is affirmed that the inspiration of the apostles was not an 
 influence that served them "instead of memory." Are we to 
 understand from this that Matthew, without any divine, super- 
 natural help, recollected and accurately recorded the Sermon 
 on the Mount, and the many other words and sayings of our 
 Lord recorded in his gospel; and that John in like manner, 
 by his own unaided mental efforts, recollected and accurately 
 recorded the valedictory discourses of our Lord contained in 
 the latter chapters of his gospel; and not these only, but all 
 the many other conversations and discourses recorded by him.'' 
 If this is what is meant, and I cannot see what other meaning 
 the words can bear, then the author must have a much higher 
 opinion of the apostles' powers of memory than their Master 
 had. Was it not just because the Lord knew that they were 
 altogether incapable, of themselves, of remembering and re- 
 cording what he had said to them, or to others in their hearing, 
 
 * Eph. i. 4. t Phil. ii. 6, 9, 1 1. t Phil. iv. 3. 
 
 § I Pet. i. 12. II 2 Pet. ii. 4. 
 
1 1 
 
 that the Holy Spirit was to be sent to bring all things to their 
 remembrance whatsoever He had said unto them; in other 
 words, to be to them "instead of memory"? Nay, was He not 
 sent also to make known to them many things of which they 
 had not had any previous knowledge, or means of knowing — 
 that is, to " make them aware of facts which had not previously 
 come within their own observation or knowledge." Hear what 
 Christ himself said upon these points, as recorded in John xiv. 
 25 and 26, and xvi. 12 and 13 — "These things have I spoken unto 
 " you, being yet present with }'0U. But the Comforter, which 
 " is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, 
 " he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your 
 " remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." " I have yet 
 " many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. 
 " Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth has come, he will guide 
 " you into all truth .... and he will shew you things to 
 " come." So manifest indeed is it, that the apostles could not, 
 without divine supernatural aid, have remembered and recorded 
 that which is contained in the gospels, that even Strauss declares 
 that " it is contrary to all the laws belonging to the human 
 faculty of memory that long discourses, such as those of Jesus 
 given in the four gospels, could have been faithfully recollected 
 and reproduced " — that is, without supernatural aid, which, of 
 course, he maintains was not accorded to them. 
 
 But, in short, the views propounded in this sermon regarding 
 the inspiration, or rather the non-inspiration of the apostles, 
 as I am prepared to prove, are just the views of Spinoza, Grotius, 
 and Le Clerc ; of Schleiermacher and other German rationalists ; 
 and of Coleridge, Maurice, Hare, Morell, and others of their 
 disciples in this country. "Inspiration," says Morell, "depends 
 " upon the manner, form, and accuracy of a man's religious 
 " intuitions. . . . Let there be a due purification of the moral 
 "nature" (or as in this sermon p. 21, 'emptied of self-seeking, 
 and worldly ways of looking at things'), " a perfect harmony 
 "of the spiritual being with the mind of God" (or as in this 
 sermon, 'sympathy with the purposes of God'), "a removal 
 " of all inward disturbances from the heart " (or as in this 
 sermon, ' having no interest to see any thing different from 
 what God actually makes known'), " and what is to prevent 
 "or disturb the immediate intuition of divine things, and what 
 " do we require in inspiration more than this.''"* 
 
 Nor is it only in the case of the original eleven apostles, and 
 of the four gospels, that inspiration is thus evacuated of every 
 thing supernatural, and reduced to a level with that which is, 
 or may be, possessed by any true Christian. The same thing 
 is done in the case of the apostle Paul and of his epistles. For, 
 although he is spoken of as a very wonderful man, from whom 
 it is " somewhat dangerous to differ," and his epistles charac- 
 terised as very remarkable productions, by means of which he 
 * Philosophy of ReHgion, pp. 158, 176, 186. 
 
12 
 
 performed one of the world's hugest tasks — to no extent is the 
 credit of what he wrote or did ascribed to the fact of his having 
 been miraculously qualified for the work thus accomplished by 
 him. "It was Paul," it is declared, (p. 23,) "who most distinctly 
 " saw what Christianity really was, and it is in these epistles he 
 " communicated to the world the knowledge that the true religion, 
 " the religion of the Spirit had come." (Was the religion of the 
 Old Testament not the true religion?) "They teach in a word, 
 that spirit supersedes law." (As I read them they teach no such 
 thing). " Paul was in point of fact the man who saw what God 
 meant in the revelation made in Christ." (Did the other apostles 
 not see this.'') " In comparison with this, it seems," the writer 
 goes on to declare, " quite a secondary question to ask what 
 was Paul's inspiration, and how far did it carry him." It is 
 very obvious, however, that the apostle himself did not regard 
 the matter in any such light. Hear how he writes on the subject 
 to the Corinthians (i Cor. xiv. 7,y), and to the Galatians (ch. i. 
 8, 9, II and 12). "If any man think himself to be a prophet, 
 " or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write 
 " unto you are the commandments of the Lord." " But though 
 " we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto 
 " you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be 
 " accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man 
 " preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, 
 " let him be accursed .... But I certify you,- brethren, 
 " that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 
 " For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but 
 " by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 
 
 This, I submit, is not the language of a man who regarded it 
 as a matter of secondary importance what his inspiration was, or 
 how far it carried him. Still less is it the language of a man who 
 was doubtful as to whether he was supernaturally inspired or not, 
 or of one who would have endorsed the following, from p. 25 : — 
 " I, for my part, do not care what meaning a man attaches to the 
 " word ' inspired,' nor, indeed, whether he says these epistles are 
 " inspired or not, so long as he accepts their teaching." How 
 different this from the words of Dr. Owen : — 
 
 " What it was, they (the apostles) gave testimony unto is duly to be con- 
 sidered, and this was not only that the Book of the Scripture was good, holy, 
 and true, in all the contents of it, but that the whole and every part of it was 
 given by divine inspiration. . . On this account, and on no other, did they 
 themselves receive the Scripture, and also believe and yield obedience unto 
 the things contained in it. Neither would they admit that their testimony 
 was received, if the whole world would be content to allow of or obey the 
 Scripture on any other or lower terms ; nor will God Himself allow of an 
 assent unto the Scripture under any other conception but as the word which 
 is immediately spoken by Himself,'' 
 
 that is, supernaturally inspired. 
 
 Having in the sentence last quoted declared that he does not 
 care what meaning a man attaches to the word " inspired," the 
 author proceeds to give us the meaning which he himse attaches 
 
13 
 
 to it. " The only inspiration," he says, " worth contending- for is 
 " the ability to see and represent truly a revelation of God." 
 This at first sight seems all that could be desired ; and it would 
 be so, if by the word " truly" were meant " infallibly." No one, 
 however, whose inspiration is not a supernatural endowment, but 
 simply, as the author maintains, a " spiritual gift," and who is 
 liable to make mistakes, can be regarded as able to represent 
 with infallible accuracy a revelation of God. The ability, there- 
 fore, which comes short of this, and does not preclude the possi- 
 bility of error or mistake, does not deserve the name of 
 inspiration. Nor would any orthodox theologian ever think of 
 so designating it. Assuredly it is not " worth contending for." 
 
 In what follows we have a justification of the statement that 
 the author does not care whether a person says the epistles of 
 Paul " are inspired or not, so long as he accepts their teaching." 
 " I do not " he say.s, " believe what Paul says, because I first 
 " believe him to be inspired ; but I believe him to be inspired 
 " because he brings light to my spirit which can only have pro- 
 " ceeded from God." 
 
 The design of this obviously is to show that belief in the 
 inspiration of the writers of the Bible is not a factor in the 
 process by which sceptics and infidels pass from unbelief to faith 
 in God and in His Word, and so must be a matter of very secon- 
 dary importance, and the historic credibility of the narratives all 
 that need to be contended for, — nothing beyond this being indis- 
 pensable. On this point, however, I shall content myself with 
 simply quoting the following from the late Dr. Bannerman's 
 incomparable work on Inspiration (p. no) : — 
 
 " If the Bible is to subdue all under it with authority, it must speak with a 
 divine voice ; if the understanding is to yield up its opinions and the con- 
 science to rectify its beliefs in homage to its word, it must be known to be the 
 Word of the Most High ; the surrender of thought and feeling, and obedience 
 which it claims can be a willing surrender only to the presence and the 
 power of God. No Bible uninspired, and therefore unauthoritative, can 
 do this." 
 
 The only other passage to which I shall call your attention as 
 proving that the author of this sermon is, to say the least of it, 
 not thoroughly persuaded of the supernatural inspiration of all 
 the human authors of the Bible, is that on p. 4 : — " I can say 
 " little or nothing about the inspiration of the prophets. . . Simi- 
 " larly of the apostles. I of course believe they are the authori- 
 " tative teachers of the Church, and that in order to fit them to 
 " be so, special revelations were made to them, and therefore, in 
 " their case also, I desire, as Paul himself obviously did " (where 
 does Paul say anything to warrant such an assertion ?), "to bring 
 " the revelations made by God into the foreground, and to allow 
 " the inspired state of the human mind to fall back into a secon- 
 " dary place." 
 
 In this extract, the writer tells us that he believes that the 
 apostles were the " authoritative teachers of the Church," and 
 
14 
 
 that, in order to fit them to be so, "special revelations were made 
 " to them." Do we not then find Paul, one of these authoritative 
 teachers, authoritatively declaring (2 Tim. iii. 16), and that of 
 course as having been specially revealed to him by God, that 
 " all Scripture," meaning thereby primarily the Scriptures of the 
 Old Testament, "is given by inspiration of God " ? Does not the 
 apostle Peter, another of these authoritative teachers, assure us 
 (2 Peter i. 21), that the " prophecy came not in old time by the 
 " will of man ; but holy men of God " (that is the prophets) 
 " spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" '? How, with 
 such express testimonies to the fact, by those whom he believed 
 to be the authoritative teachers of the Church, especially when 
 taken in connection with the way in which Christ Himself 
 invariably spoke of the Old Testament Scriptures, the writer of 
 this sermon should be unable to say whether the prophets were 
 supernaturally inspired or not, it is impossible to understand. 
 
 Equally impossible is it to comprehend how he .should be at 
 any loss as to the supernatural inspiration of these authoritative 
 teachers themselves, especially the apostle Paul. P'or not only 
 does this apostle repeatedly and most positively affirm that the 
 things which he spoke and 'Avrote had been supernaturally made 
 known to him by the Holy Spirit, but he also declares that he 
 spoke and wrote these things "not in the words which man's wis- 
 " dom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing 
 " spiritual things with spiritual," that is, as Alford explains it, 
 " attaching spiritual words to spiritual things." Not only so, but 
 he also affirmed that the gospel which he preached was not the 
 word of man, but the word of God. Do we not in like manner 
 find the apostle Peter (2 Peter iii. 16) putting the epistles of Paul 
 on a footing of equality, in respect of character and divine 
 authority, with the " other Scriptures " of the Old Testament, 
 and not only so, but speaking (2 Peter iii. 2) of the command- 
 ments of himself and the other apostles as being of equal divine 
 authority with the words of the " holy prophets," and declaring 
 that the apostles and evangelists preached the gospel " with the 
 " Holy Ghost sent down from heaven " ? But, in short, although 
 the author of this sermon denies, at least indirectly, the divine, 
 supernatural inspiration of Paul and the other writers of the New 
 Testament, and so might more properly have entitled his sermon 
 " Revelation without Inspiration," nothing is clearer or more 
 certain than that they themselves, and all the followers of Christ 
 among whom they lived and moved, believed that they were not 
 only the divinely authorized, but the divinely and supernaturally 
 inspired teachers of the Church. In proof of this, in so far at 
 least as Paul is concerned, we have only to read what he says in 
 I Cor. ii. 1-16 ; Eph. iii. 1-7; i Thess. ii. 13 ; iv. 1, 2, 8, 15 ; 
 and 2 Thess. ii. 13-15. 
 
 In regard to the inspiration of the writers of the Gospels, I 
 shall content myself with quoting the following from Dr. Banner- 
 man (p. 392) : — " The biography of the Son of God, declaring 
 
15 
 
 " aright what He was, and narrating truly what He said and did, 
 " could not have been written except by that same Spirit who 
 "was from the beginning one with Him in nature; and therefore, 
 '' adequately understood His mind, His thoughts. His words, and 
 " His life." " For what man," says Paul, " knoweth the things of 
 " a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ? even so the 
 " things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 
 
 But I have said enough to make it manifest that, according to 
 the teaching of this sermon, the writers of the Holy Scriptures 
 neither were, nor needed to be, specially and miraculously in- 
 spired, that is, qualified and enabled to record the revelations 
 given them. 
 
 Equally obvious is it, as the following quotations will show, 
 that, as previously stated, these writers were liable, in writing the 
 Scriptures, to make mistakes, and actually did make mistakes ; 
 and that, as the result, the Holy Scriptures, as originally written, 
 contained such inaccuracies as occur in ordinary writings through 
 imperfect information or lapse of memory, and so never were pos- 
 sessed of absolute infallibility — never were in every part and par- 
 ticular a record of infallible truth and divine authority. 
 
 Thus, at page 24, speaking of the apostle Paul, the author thus 
 writes — " I will not deny that he was occasionally wrong in a 
 date." 
 
 At page 17, the Bible is thus spoken of: — " It has been con- 
 "sidered infallible not only in regard to the revelation it contains, 
 " but in regard to the whole form in which that revelation is con- 
 "veyed to us, and so when errors and imperfections have been 
 " pointed out, those whose faith has rested on its verbal and uni- 
 " versal infallibility have received a violent shock as if revelation 
 " itself were being brought into danger." 
 
 It is clear from this extract that the w^-iter does not regard the 
 Bible as infallible in regard to " the whole form " in which the 
 revelation it contains is conveyed to us, but holds that it contains 
 " errors and imperfections." That it is not of MS. copies of the 
 Bible that the author here speaks, but of the original record as it 
 came from the hands of the inspired authors, is evident from the 
 fact that no one denies that, through the carelessness or ignor- 
 ance of subsequent transcribers, verbal errors of a trifling nature 
 have crept in. I am sure, moreover, that the author himself will 
 not deny that it is to the original writings that he here refers. 
 
 It may be imagined too by some, that the " errors and imper- 
 fections " of which the author speaks, have reference simply to 
 the way in which some matters of geology and astronomy are 
 spoken of, and to instances of alleged bad grammar on the part 
 of some of the writers who were not very polished or learned. 
 The following quotations, however, from the preface, p. 8, will 
 make it abundantly plain that the supposed errors and imperfec- 
 tions to which he refers are of a very different character : — 
 
 " I say plainly, that if I supposed the Confession to mean what Dr. Hodge 
 says it means, I could not accept it. Dr. Hodge, on p. 55 of his Commentary 
 
i6 
 
 on the Confession, and speaking of Inspiration, says : 'The nature of this 
 Divine influence we, of course, can no more understand than we can in the 
 case of any other miracle. But the effects are plain and certain, viz., that all 
 written under it is the very word of God, of infallible truth, and of Divine 
 authority ; and this infallibility and authority attach as well to the verbal ex- 
 pression in which the revelation is conveyed as to the matter of the revelation 
 itself This I distinctly deny. In presence of the facts, no such infallibility 
 can be made out, and no such theory could ever have been formed from an 
 unbiassed consideration of what the various writers of Scripture say of them- 
 selves. No careful student of Scripture can well deny that there are inac- 
 curacies in the gospels and elsewhere — inaccuracies such as occur in ordinary 
 writings through imperfect information or lapse of memory. These are trifling, 
 it will be said. Certainly they are trifling ; so trifling as in no appreciable 
 degree to damage the historicity or trustworthiness of Scripture, but sufficient 
 entirely to explode the averment of literal infallibility. What is infallibility 
 but incapacity to err.'' Unless we are prepared to go as far as Hodge — which 
 I fancy few men will be found hardy enough to do — we must give up the claim 
 of absolute, thoroughgoing, literal infallibility." . ..." I believe the 
 Scriptures contain an infallible rule of faith and life, I believe they are the 
 authoritative records of the revelations which God has made, but it is im- 
 possible to affirm that all the statements contained in Scripture are strictly 
 accurate, impossible, that is, to claim for Scripture an absolute infaUibility." 
 
 Need I give any more quotations to demonstrate the truth of 
 what has been averred in regard to the views propounded in the 
 publication before us. Not only does the author, in the extracts 
 just given, distinctly deny that all written under the influence of 
 the Inspiration of which Dr. Hodge speaks, is the very word of 
 God, of infallible truth and of divine authority, but he very con- 
 fidently maintains that " no careful student of Scripture can well 
 deny " that, as the result " of imperfect information or lapse of 
 memory," there are such inaccuracies in the gospels and else- 
 where as are sufficient entirely to explode the averment of literal 
 infallibility, that is, as explained in the following sentence, infal- 
 libility in the literal sense of the word, viz., incapacity to err ; 
 and not only so, but very confidently asserts that it is impossible 
 to affirm that all the statements contained in Scripture are strictly 
 accurate, or to claim for Scripture, even as originally written, an 
 absolute infallibility. Language could not be either more ex- 
 plicit, or more dogmatical. So confident indeed is the author of 
 the accuracy of his views, and of the unassailable character of his 
 position in maintaining them, that, in venturing to call them in 
 question, and to maintain the opposite, every one who differs 
 from him runs a risk of being set down as not " a careful student 
 of Scripture," and not only so, but regarded as a presumptuous 
 novice who "has thought too little, and is unwilling to think- 
 much " upon the subject. 
 
 I must be allowed therefore, to remind the Court of the fact, 
 that the greatest theologians, and the most careful and diligent 
 .students of the Bible in Christendom, downwards from the days 
 of the apostles, have held and advocated views the very opposite 
 of those propounded in this sermon. 
 
 Should this statement be questioned, I am prepared to sub- 
 stantiate it by ample quotations from the writings of Origen, 
 
17 
 
 Augustine, Calvin, Turretine, Dr. Owen, Scott the commentator, 
 Principal Cunningham, Principal Candlish, Dr. Chalmers, Dr. 
 Banncrmann, Dr. Duncan, Rev. Marcus Dods, Principal Fair- 
 bairn, Dr. Eadie, Haldane, Gaussen, Dr. Leonard Wood of 
 America, Dr. C. Hodge, Dr. A. A. Hodge, Dr. Lee of Dublin, 
 Dr. Westcott of Cambridge, Spurgeon, and many others. 
 
 But not with the views of these theologians only are the views 
 of the author of this sermon completely at variance. They are 
 also directly opposed to the doctrine taught upon the subject in 
 the Westminster Confession of P'aith, to which we have all 
 solemnly pledged adherence. Thus, in chap. L section r, it is 
 declared, that " it pleased the Lord, at sundry times and divers 
 manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His 
 church ; and afterwards .... to commit the same wholl}' 
 to writing." In these words, not the revelation of Himself only, 
 but the committing of that revelation to writing, is ascribed 
 directly to the Lord — the one as much and as directly and imme- 
 diately as the other ; so that the Lord, according to the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, is as much, and as fully, the author of the record of 
 the revelation, as He is of the revelation itself ; and if so, then that 
 record, in other words, the Bible, must be entirely free from in- 
 accuracies and mistakes, as free as the revelation which it em- 
 bodies ; for we cannot dare to say that anything written by the 
 Lord — any writing of which God is the author — -can be imperfect 
 or inaccurate. In direct opposition to this, however, the writer 
 of this sermon maintains that the record referred to, the Bible, 
 is imperfect, and does contain " inaccuracies such as occur in or- 
 " dinary writings through imperfect information or lapse of 
 " memory ; " and, therefore, cannot be as really and as completely 
 the work of God as the revelation it contains. 
 
 In section 2 of this same chapter of the Confession, it is declared 
 that " Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God 
 written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New 
 " Testaments, which are these — Genesis, Exodus," &c. (giving the 
 names of them as contained in our Bibles) " all which," it is 
 added, " are given by inspiration of God, to be," not simply to 
 contain, " the rule of faith and life." 
 
 Here we have the Holy Scriptures not only expressly declared 
 to be — not the word of man — not the word of prophets or of 
 apostles merely, but the Word of God — the Word of God written, 
 having been, through the instrumentality of men, committed to 
 writing by the Lord himself; but all the books of the Old and 
 New Testaments declared to have been " given by inspiration of 
 God to be the rule of faith and life." Having been thus given, 
 and being thus not the word of man, but the Word of God, the 
 Scriptures as a whole must be a perfect and an infallible rule. 
 Accordingly they are actually declared to be so in section 9. 
 
 So far, however, is the writer of this sermon from regarding 
 them in this light, that he declares that "it is impossible to 
 affirm that all the statements contained in Scripture are strictly 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 accurate — impossible, that is, to claim for Scripture an absolute 
 infallibility." 
 
 This, however, is just what the authors of the Confession do 
 claim for Scripture. Thus in section 4 of this first chapter the 
 authorship of holy Scripture is unequivocally ascribed to God, 
 He being, in express terms, declared to be " the author thereof." 
 But surely if God, who, as declared in this section, is " truth 
 itself," is the author of Scripture, it must be possessed of 
 ■'absolute infallibility," and all its statements be "strictly 
 accurate." 
 
 Accordingly, in section 5th, " the Holy Scripture" is spoken 
 of as being a record of " infallible truth and divine authority." 
 Nevertheless, the writer of this sermon declares that " there are 
 " inaccuracies in the gospels and elsewhere sufficient entirely to 
 " explode the averment of infallibility." 
 
 It will be seen from section 8th that it is of the Scriptures as 
 originally given that the infallible truth and divine authority 'of 
 which the authors of the Confession speak, are predicated. 
 Although, as declared in this same section, the Hebrew and 
 Greek Scriptures have, by God's singular care and providence, 
 been kept "pure" in all ages — that is, preserved from the 
 introduction of any error in doctrine or fact — no one pretends 
 that, at this distance of time, and when the original documents 
 are lest, we have in every instance the very letter, or even the 
 very word, that was originally written. 
 
 Even as regards the original documents, no intelligent defender 
 of plenary inspiration and absolute infallibility would ever think 
 of denying that difficulties of various kinds, apparent discrepan- 
 cies, and seeming contradictions have from the first been found 
 in them — difficulties which it may not be possible with our 
 present knowledge of the facts fully to solve, and apparent 
 discrepancies or contradictions which we may not be able 
 completely to clear up or harmonize. The presence, however, 
 of such difficulties or apparent discrepancies is by no means 
 incompatible with the plenary inspiration or absolute infallibility 
 of the Scriptures ; nor would any one intelligently acquainted 
 with the subject ever think for a moment of adducing them as 
 a proof of the contrary, and just because " it is impossible," as 
 Dr. Bannerman remarks (p. 559) "to assert and to prove that any 
 one of those difficulties which appear to be the most formidable, 
 and confessedly remain unexplained, is inexplicable." "It is im- 
 " possible to say in regard to any one difficulty which at present 
 " presses upon Scripture interpretation, that no amount of addi- 
 "tional knowledge that God could give would clear up all that 
 " now waits explanation, or shed light on what is now confessedly 
 "enveloped in darkness. And if it be impossible to prove this 
 " in any case, the probability that the difficulty or apparent con- 
 " tradiction is really due to our ignorance, is much greater than 
 " the presumption that it results from untruth in the case of the 
 " sacred volume." The course, therefore, which true philosophy, 
 
19 
 
 no less than Christian wisdom, dictates as that which ought 
 invariably to be followed in regard to all such difficulties and 
 apparent contradictions is that which Justin Martyr, as recorded 
 by Dr. Lee of Dublin in his very learned work (p. 84), adopted 
 when pressed by a Jewish opponent to allow the existence of 
 contradictions in the Bible : " I dare not," he replied, " either 
 "imagine or assert that the Scriptures contradict each other; 
 " but were any passage to be adduced which has even the 
 "semblance of being opposed to another, being altogether per- 
 " suaded that no such opposition really exists, I will rather 
 "confess that I myself do not understand what is said." 
 
 A remark or two on one other point, and I am done. At 
 pages 6 and 7 of the preface we find the following extraordinary 
 explanation of the history of belief in one's own mind : — 
 
 "There need be no mystery about the actual history of behef in one's own 
 mind. An Epistle of Paul's comes into my hands, and I find that the 
 writer claims to have received a revelation and to be specially commis- 
 sioned to teach it. But do I at once accept his statement, or how do I 
 know that this is a true representation ? I read on and am convinced. I 
 believe he has received a revelation, because to me it is a revelation; (!) 
 and I accept him as authoritative because his claim is consistent. (.'') I 
 may not be able at once to accept all he teaches ; I cannot accept it merely 
 because it comes to me with authority. I can only accept in doctrine that 
 which fits itself in with my previously received ideas and my stage of 
 mental growth. When the doctrine of the Trinity is conveyed to me, I 
 accept this because I find in it the root which the facts of redemption 
 require. But if as yet I have not received the leading facts of redemption, 
 I shall be unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, on whatsoever 
 authority announced. (!) But having accepted Paul or any one as an 
 authoritative teacher, it is of course at my own risk I disagree with him in 
 any one particular. He remains the authority and not 1. And so long as 
 there remains in his writings something which I cannot accept and assimi- 
 late to the rest of my belief, I hold his authority over my own head as a 
 warning, and seek through the Apostle to attain to the very mind of Christ 
 Himself." 
 
 The rationale here given of the rise and progress of belief in 
 the divine truth of any statement or doctrine of the Bible, I 
 regard as utterly inconsistent with the actual facts of the case, 
 and feel thoroughly persuaded that no one ever was, or ever will 
 be, brought in the way indicated to a believing reception of any 
 portion or doctrine of Scripture as the very truth of God. Not 
 only so, but I am utterly at a loss to conceive how the writer of 
 these statements can reconcile the sentiments expressed in them 
 with the doctrine of the 4th section of chap. i. of the Confession 
 of Faith. " The authority of the Holy Scripture," it is therein 
 declared, " for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, de- 
 " pendeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but 
 "wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and 
 "therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God." 
 
 According to the authors of the Confession, it is with God, 
 the divine author, that we are brought into contact when dealing 
 with any portion of Scripture, and not merely with Paul, or any 
 of the other human authors. It is to the character and authority 
 
20 
 
 of God, as speaking- to us in it, and not to that of the human 
 writer that we are to have respect ; and it is on His authority, 
 and on that alone, that we are to beHeve and obey that which is 
 therein addressed to us. 
 
 According to the statement just quoted, it is simply with the 
 human author that we have to do. God is not once mentioned 
 from beginning to end of it. Paul is the only one whose authority 
 is recognized. The authority, it is true, which is attributed to 
 him, is possessed, even in the writer's own opinion and experi- 
 ence, of very little weight or influence. For he tells us that, 
 even after he has believed that Paul " has received a revelation," 
 and has accepted him as an " authoritative teacher, specially 
 " commissioned to teach '" that revelation, he cannot accept what 
 he teaches, merely because it comes to him with authority — " he 
 can only accept in doctrine that which fits itself in with his 
 previously received ideas, and his stage of mental growth." 
 
 In dealing with a brother, who was understood to have 
 declared that, if certain doctrines were taught in the Bible, he 
 would reject them as conflicting with the dictates of reason and 
 the moral sense, the U. P. Presbytery of Edinburgh felt called 
 upon to require from him an answer to the following question : — 
 " When we have arrived at a thorough understanding of the 
 " meaning and design of any passage of Scripture, are we not 
 " bound to receive the doctrine it contains as the authoritative 
 " revelation of the mind of God to us, in the subject to which it 
 " relates, whether it coincides with our preconceptions, or with 
 " the dictates of our reason or not ? " Is there not but too much 
 room for some such question being put to the author of this 
 sermon, in connection with the statements just referred to ? 
 
 The sentiments expressed in this last quotation furnish a very 
 striking instance and illustration of the baneful influence which 
 the views propounded in this sermon are fitted from their very 
 nature to exert. 
 
 No sooner does a person adopt these views, and begin to 
 believe that there are " inaccuracies in the Bible, such as occur in 
 " ordinary writings through imperfect information, or lapse of 
 " memory," than he comes to it not as a humble disciple, to hear 
 what God the Lord would say unto him ; but " as a master to 
 " sit in judgment on it as sisted to his bar, and bound to render 
 " up to him a confession of its errors, and not a declaration of its 
 " one and authoritative truth." Not this only, but no one who 
 denies the plenary, supernatural inspiration of the Bible, and 
 believes that there are mistakes in it such as occur in ordinary 
 writings, can ever feel certain that any portion of the Holy 
 Scriptures is the infallible truth and Word of God. This, and 
 nothing short of this, is the natural and necessary result of the 
 adoption of the views published to the world, defended and com- 
 mended to the acceptance of all, by the author of this sermon. 
 Hence it is that I regard them as so very dangerous ; regard 
 them as fitted to undermine all faith in the infallible truth and 
 
21 
 
 divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and thus to subvert the 
 very foundations of Christianity ; fitted not to turn sceptics into 
 believers, as the author vainly imagines, but to make believers 
 sceptics. Hence it is that I have felt it to be my duty to submit 
 to the Presbytery the motion now on the table. 
 
 SPEECH II. 
 
 Free Presbytery House, 
 27//^ November, 1877. 
 
 The first point with which my motion * deals particularly, is the 
 
 * The three motions submitted in the first instance to the Presbytery were 
 the following : — 
 
 1st, Dr. Adam's in these terms — "The Presbytery approve of the report of 
 the committee now submitted, and, in accordance with the conclusions of it, 
 rtnd that the sermon of Dr. Dods is open to grave objection in the respect, 
 and on the grounds specified in the report ; also, that for the reasons there 
 stated the desirableness of not continuing the publication of the sermon, at 
 least in its present fonn, should be represented, as it hereby is, to Dr. Dods ; 
 but, at the same time, they find that they are not called to institute any pro- 
 cess, or take any further action in the matter." 
 
 2nd, My own, as an amendment to Dr. Adam's — " Whereas the sermon 
 and preface referred to in the report now on the table contain numerous very 
 objectionable statements and opinions ; whereas, in particular, the direct or 
 indirect denial in said sermon and preface of the miraculous inspiration of the 
 sacred writers, and of the plenary inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, 
 :ind the assertion that the inspiration of the sacred writers was simply a 
 spiritual gift, and that the Bible contains errors and inaccuracies such as 
 occur in ordinary writings through imperfect information or lapse of memory, 
 are contrary to, or inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture, the teaching 
 of the Confession of Faith, and the doctrine hitherto held and professed by 
 this Church, fitted to subvert all faith in the infallible truth and divine author- 
 ity of the Bible as the Word of God, and therefore deserving of the decided 
 condemnation of the Presbytery ; and whereas, nevertheless, the committee 
 by whom the aforesaid report was prepared and submitted to the Presbytery, 
 while taking exception more or less strongly to the language occasionally 
 employed in said sermon and preface, to the speculations occasionally 
 indulged in, and to the mode and form adopted in some instances by the 
 author in the representation of his views, do not see anything seriously objec- 
 tionable in the views themselves, or express any condemnation of them ; but, 
 on the contrar)', apologise for them, and even vindicate and defend the author 
 in holding them, declaring them to be such as have been held and advocated 
 by the ablest and most orthodox theologians, and therefore recommend the 
 Presbytery to take no further action in regard to them — the Presbytery, on 
 the foregoing grounds, decline to approve of the said report or to adopt the 
 recommendation with which it concludes, strongly condemn the aforesaid 
 views, censure the publication of them as fitted to be most unsettling and 
 injurious, especially to the young, enjoin the author to withdraw the sermon 
 and preface in which tlie)' are promulgated from publication, and appoint a 
 committee to confer with him as to the views in question and to report." 
 
 3rd, Dr. A. Bonar's in these terms — " The Presbytery receive the report, 
 and record their thanks to the convener and committee. In the line of the 
 
22 
 
 character of the views propounded in this sermon * regarding 
 the inspiration of the writers of the Holy Scriptures, and regard- 
 ing the infalHbiHty of the Scriptures. The ground I take is, 
 that the teaching of this sermon on these points is contrary to, 
 or inconsistent with the Word of God, the Confession of Faith, 
 and the doctrines of this Church. Could I not take this ground, 
 I should not feel warranted in occupying a position of antagon- 
 ism to the sermon at all, or in moving a single hairsbreadth in 
 the line of its condemnation. Nor can I see on what other 
 ground any minister or member of this Church is entitled to 
 give any judicial disapproval of the sermon, or to enjoin, or 
 even to call for its withdrawal. It is only when we take our 
 stand upon the Word of God, and the subordinate standards of 
 the Church, and to the extent to which we are warranted in 
 doing so, that the author of this sermon can justly be required 
 or reasonably expected to bow to any decision to which we 
 may come. 
 
 This, however, by the way. The question with which I have 
 specially to deal is this, — Is it really the fact, as alleged in my 
 motion, that the teaching of this sermon is such as it is there 
 declared to be ? That it is so, I have no more doubt than I 
 have that I am now addressing this Presbytery. Nothing, did 
 time permit, could be more easily or conclusively demonstrated. 
 All, however, that I mean to do is simply to indicate in what 
 the contrariety or inconsistency between the teaching of the 
 sermon on the one hand, and the teaching of the Scriptures, the 
 " Confession of Faith," and the Church, on the other, consists. 
 Now, I presume, it will be admitted that, speaking where I now 
 speak, I am entitled to assume that the doctrine of Scripture, of 
 the " Confession of Faith," and of this Church, on the points in 
 question is identical. What, then, is that doctrine ? It is, as I 
 understand it, that the writers of the Holy Scriptures were so 
 specially and miraculously qualified by the Holy Spirit for the 
 reception or selection of the facts and truths which God willed 
 to constitute his written Word, and so constantly and effectually 
 guided and assisted by Him in the reception or selection of these 
 facts and truths, and in committing them to writing, that only 
 that which God willed to be thus committed to writing was 
 actually written by them. In no instance were they to any 
 extent left to themselves, or to their own unaided resources. 
 In all their official sayings and doings they enjoyed the special 
 miraculous assistance and direction of the Holy Spirit. " Holy 
 men of God," we are assured, " spake " and wrote " as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost." This, moreover, held as true 
 
 strictures of the report, the Presbytery disapprove of the sermon and preface, 
 especially of those parts that seem to limit the sphere, and lower the idea of 
 inspiration ; as also of those that appear to assert the existence of real errors 
 in the Holy Scriptures sa originally given, and they intimate to the author 
 that they regard it as his duty not to carry the publication any farther." 
 * When the sermon is spoken of, the preface is included. 
 
of the writers of the New Testament as it did of those of 
 the Old. 
 
 Hence it was that the apostles, although already spiritual 
 men, were enjoined to tarry at Jerusalem until they should be 
 endued with the supernatural, miraculous power of the Moly 
 Spirit from on high — obviously implying that until thus endued 
 they were not qualified for the work given them to do. Hence, 
 also, it is that the apostles not only speak of the Holy Spirit 
 as testifying in the Old Testament prophets of the sufferings of 
 Christ and of the glory that should follow, and declaring that 
 "all (Old Testament) scripture was given by inspiration of God," 
 but also affirming that they themselves preached the gospel with 
 the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, and that they did so, 
 not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the 
 Holy Ghost teacheth. In short, the writers of the Bible every- 
 where speak of themselves as having, in the performance of their 
 official work, enjoyed the special miraculous assistance and 
 direction of the Holy Spirit — so much so that what they taught 
 God taught, and what they wrote God wrote. At the same 
 time, when thus engaged in committing to writing the facts and 
 truths God willed them to record, they were left as completely 
 to the full and unfettered use of all their mental faculties, and to 
 the employment of their own style and mode of expression, as 
 if they had enjoyed no such divine direction or assistance at all, 
 but been left entirely to themselves. 
 
 The result is that, unlike any other book in existence, the 
 Bible is possessed throughout of a double authorship — a divine 
 authorship, and a human authorship — so much so, that on the 
 one hand, it is as truly and perfectly the word and work of God 
 as if man had had nothing to do with it, and it had, like the ten 
 commandments, been written by the finger of God Himself, and 
 on the other, as truly and perfectly the word and work of man 
 as if God had taken no part in it. Accordingly, in the first 
 chapter of the Confession of Faith, as shown on a former 
 occasion, it is not only declared that all the books of the Old 
 and New Testaments were given by immediate inspiration of 
 God, but that God is the Author of them. Not only so, but the 
 committing to writing of the revelation of Himself and of His 
 will contained in the Scriptures, is also expressly ascribed to 
 Him. "It pleased the Lord," it is declared in section first, "at 
 " sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to 
 "declare that His will unto His Church, and afterwards to com- 
 " mit the same wholly unto writing." 
 
 Here it will be observed, that not the revelation of Himself 
 only, but the committing of that revelation to writing, is directly 
 ascribed to the Lord — the one as much, and as immediately and 
 directly, as the other, so that, according to the Confession of 
 Faith, the Lord is as much the Author of the record of the 
 revelation as He is of the revelation itself In these circum- 
 stances, that record — viz., the Holy Scriptures — must, in respect 
 
24 
 
 of its verbal framework, be as entirely free from errors and 
 inaccuracies as the revelation it embodies. If God avIio, as 
 declared in section fourth, "is truth itself',' is "the Author of the 
 Scriptures," and if these Scriptures are, as declared in sections 
 second and fourth, " the Word of God written," they must be 
 possessed of "absolute infallibiHty," and all their statements 
 be "strictly accurate." In every respect they must be that, and 
 only that which God willed them to be. This, accordingly, is 
 just what in section 5 is predicated of the Scriptures as the 
 Word of God." They are declared to be characterized by " in- 
 fallible truth and divine authority." 
 
 Such, I submit, is a correct representation of the doctrine of 
 the Word of God on the one hand, and of the Confession of 
 Faith on the other, in regard to the special miraculous inspira- 
 tion of the writers of the Scriptures, and to the perfect accuracy 
 and infallible truth of these Scriptures, as that doctrine has 
 hitherto been held and professed by this Church. That it is so 
 will by and by be made abundantly evident by quotations from 
 the writings of men whom all must acknowledge to have 
 been the ablest and most competent expounders of the doctrine 
 of the Church on the points in question. 
 
 Meantime, let me endeavour briefly to show how completely 
 at variance with all this the views propounded in this sermon 
 are. In order to be able to exhibit fully the author's views on 
 the questions at issue, one would require to quote almost the 
 whole of what he says from page 19 to page 25 of the sermon, 
 and on pages 8, 9, and 10 of the preface. I take it for granted, 
 however, that this is unnecessary, and shall content myself with 
 simply giving a vidimus — first, of what is taught in regard to 
 the character of the inspiration of the writers of the Bible, and 
 then of the character of the Bible as the result of that in- 
 spiration. 
 
 Here, as I have been charged with misunderstanding and mis- 
 representing the opinions of the author, and mixing up what he 
 meant to be regarded as questions of revelation with questions 
 of inspiration, I must be allowed to ask the Presbytery to note 
 that although, at the top of page 19, he professes to inquire 
 into the special equipment of those who were chosen to record 
 the revelations which God made, he confines his attention 
 almost exclusively to the way in which they received these 
 revelations, and says but little or nothing as to the way in which 
 they were enabled to record them. So much is this the case, 
 that the question he proposed to answer should not have been, 
 " What was the special equipment of the sacred writers for 
 recording the revelations given them } " but " What was their 
 special equipment for receiving these revelations } " or, i^ other 
 words, their special equipment for obtaining a knowledge of the 
 facts, incidents, and truths which they had been chosen to com- 
 mit to writing. 
 
 This, at least, is the question to which the author almost ex- 
 
^5 
 
 clusivcly confines his attention. And Avhat is the answer he 
 gives to it? He gives us, first, their personal quahfications, and, 
 secondly, their providential qualifications, and then shows how 
 these combined to produce the Scriptures. 
 
 In the first place, they were " spiritual men," possessed of a 
 high degree of spirituality of mind. They had " given them- 
 selves up to God," and been "emptied of self-seeking and 
 worldly ways of looking at things." They were " in .sympathy 
 with the purposes of God " and " imbued with his Spirit." They 
 "had the Spirit of Christ," as every true believer has, and so 
 " coincided with him as to what was important and what was 
 little in his life." 
 
 In the second place, they had "held lifelong fellowship with 
 God.'' "They had kept company with the Lord in his lifetime." 
 They had their " knowledge of the facts " to be recorded " at 
 first hand." " They were the men before whom the revelation 
 was made." They were " eye-witnesses," or " had their facts 
 from those who were so." 
 
 The result was that they " were so impressed " with what they 
 thus saw and knew, and had such a perception of " its meaning " 
 and importance, that they were " moved to preserve and per- 
 " petuate this impression for the sake of others." 
 
 This, and only this, according to this sermon, was the special 
 equipment of the evangelists, and other historical writers of 
 scripture " for recording the revelations given them." 
 
 Now, it must be obvious to all that there is nothing super- 
 natural or miraculous in all this — nothing more than a high 
 degree of enlightening, sanctifying grace, such as may be pos- 
 sessed by any believer, combined with exceptionally favourable 
 opportunities of becoming acquainted in the ordinary way with 
 the facts to be recorded. 
 
 Nor, in fact, is anything supernatural or miraculous here 
 claimed for these sacred writers. Not only so, but they are 
 represented as themselves indirectly denying that they either 
 needed or enjoyed any such miraculous assistance. " Never," 
 it is alleged, " do they (the apostles) ask us to take their word 
 " for a thing which they had not good means of knowing in the 
 " ordinary way, or come before us as men who, by a process 
 " called inspiration, were made aware of facts which had not 
 " come within their own observation or knowledge ; neither do 
 " they bid us accept their testimony as infallible " — all which, as 
 formerly demonstrated, is directly contrary to the facts of the 
 case.* 
 
 Such, according to this sermon, is the so-called inspiration of 
 the writers of the historical portions of the Bible. There is not 
 an iota of the miraculous or supernatural in it. The view here 
 given of it is purely and essentially rationalistic. 
 
 Nor is the view given us of the inspiration of the prophets and 
 apostles a whit more satisfactory. " I can say little or nothing,' 
 
 * See page lo. 
 
26 
 
 the author declares, "about the inspiration of the prophets." 
 " Similarly of the apostles." " I desire, as Paul himself obviously 
 " did, to bring the revelations made by God into the foreground, 
 " and to allow the inspired state of the human mind to fall back 
 " into a secondary place." " I, for my part, do not care what 
 "meaning a man attaches to the word 'inspired,' nor indeed, 
 " whether he says these epistles are inspired or not, so long as he 
 "accepts their teaching." 
 
 But if this was the only inspiration which the writers of the 
 Holy Scriptures enjoyed, then, as it is incident to men, even 
 the most spiritually minded, to err, it is very obvious that it 
 could neither be a perfect safeguard to themselves against 
 errors and mistakes in what they wrote, nor a perfect guarantee 
 to us of the absolute infallibility of their writings. Nor, in fact, 
 according to this sermon, was it either the one or the other. 
 Not only, it is declared, were they liable to make mistakes, but 
 they actually did so. The result accordingly is, that the Bible 
 contains such errors and inaccuracies as are to be found " in 
 ordinary writings through imperfect information or lapse of 
 memory," and so is not and cannot be possessed of absolute 
 infallibility. In proof of these statements, I need only refer you 
 to what is quoted from the sermon in the first paragraph of 
 the third section of the Committee's Report.* 
 
 Such, then, are the views in regard to the inspiration of the 
 Avriters of the Holy Scriptures, and to the infallibility of these 
 Scriptures, set forth in this sermon. These views I maintain are 
 not only utterly inconsistent with, but directly contrary to what 
 we have just seen is the doctrine of the Word of God, the 
 Confession of Faith, and the teaching of this Church; and I 
 cannot but regard it as a grievous calamity, and a cause of deep 
 humiliation to our Church, that such views should ever have 
 been promulgated from a Free Church pulpit, or from a Free 
 Church pen. And what I look upon as even more deplorable, 
 is that the promulgation of these views is not only apologized 
 for, but vindicated by those who occupy the high places of 
 our Zion. It was not thus in other days. How different the 
 teaching of those who were at once the acknowledged represen- 
 tatives, and the special ornaments of the Free Church. Hear for 
 example, what Dr. Chalmers, as quoted by the Rev. Mr. Knight, 
 in the Daily Review of December 7, 1877, says: — 
 
 "A pure influx of supernatural revelation is no guarantee for the faith of 
 the world, but a pure efflux is that with which alone we have to do or can take 
 cognisance of A partial inspiration would imply that the Word may not be 
 pure at the very point where the great purpose of the revelation was to be 
 fulfilled. Strange that here it should be corrupted when its grand object is 
 to enlighten us— that it should come purely to the writers, and impurely to 
 that world to which they ministered." 
 
 To the same effect is what the late Principal P'airbairn says on 
 * See App8ndix, page 47. 
 
27 
 
 the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, in his article on inspira- 
 tion in the " Imperial Bible Dictionary," page 788 : — 
 
 " On the supposition that the sacred writers were sincere and honest men — 
 seeking to con\c\ , not for sophists and disputers, but to plain and simple 
 minded persons like themselves, an impression in accordance with the native 
 import of their words — no conclusion may be more certainly drawn, than that, 
 according to their representations. Scripture in its totality — the collection as 
 a whole, and each particular part of it — was given by inspiration of God, and 
 is in consequence to be regarded as the peculiar and authoritative revelation 
 of his will to man." 
 
 "The doctrine of the Catholic Church," says Dr. Bannerman, in his work 
 on Inspiration, page 211, "has ever recognized in the written te.xt, as it came 
 from the pens of its authors, and viewed as distinct from the revelation con- 
 tained in it, the same purity that belongs to its source," (that is, God), " and 
 an infaUibility free from addition or admi.Kture of human error."' "They," 
 (the writers of the Holy .Scriptures), he says again at page 436, "were made 
 by inspiration infallible in all that they wi-ote, and entirely exempted from 
 the possibility of human error." " The supernatural element,"' he says again, 
 page 443, " in its reality and perfection as supernatural, was present through- 
 out the WHOLE of Scripture to give to ALL of it the equal seal of divine truth, 
 and the like stamp of divine authority. . . . The allegation that any part 
 of Scripture, even in the case where the facts or truths were best known 
 beforehand to the writers, could have been written without supernatural 
 inspiration, so as to have been what it now is, — the very truth of God, and 
 not of man, — and to have carried with it, what it now carries, -a divine and 
 not a human authority, — is an allegation entirely unfounded." 
 
 " The Spirit," says the late Principal Cunningham, " Sermons/' page 43, 
 "dictated 'the Scriptures,' using as his instruments those who are commonlv 
 considered and called the authors of the respective books, not preventing or 
 wholly suspending the use of their natural faculties, as is proved by the obvious 
 variety of styles which appears in the different books of Scripture, — varieties 
 which can sometimes be traced distinctly to the education and condition of 
 the particular authors, and which are in all cases individual peculiarities, 
 but so operating in and through their faculties, so guiding and superintending 
 them, as that the work composed by them, under His influence, was in ever\" 
 respect and altogether, the transcript of the mind of the Spirit — an exact 
 revelation of the will of God.' 
 
 " What," says the late Principal Candlish in his Lecture on " the Authority 
 and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures," in " Reason and Revelation," pp. 
 22, 23, "are we to understand by the Inspiration of the Bible? To this 1 
 answer generally, that I hold it to be an infallible divine guidance exercised 
 over those who are commissioned to declare the mind of God, so as to secure 
 that in declaring it they do not err. What they say or write under this 
 guidance, is as truly said and written by God, through them, as if their in- 
 strumentality were not used at all. God is in the fullest sense responsible for 
 every word of it.'' ..." They (the books of the Bible) are all His writings : 
 He is responsible for every word of every one of them,' (page 31). . , .. 
 "The uniform manner of speaking of the Old Testament which we trace in the 
 sayings and writings of Christ and His apostles in the New — is such as to be 
 wholly incompatible with any other idea than that of its full and verbal in- 
 spiration : and cannot but convey to a simple reader the impression that they 
 regarded every word of that (the Old) Testament as divine," (p. 36). 
 
 " But now," he says again in his Lecture on the Infallibility of Holy Scrip- 
 ture in the same work, pp. 70 and 71, "admitting and thankfully rejoicing in 
 this fact " (viz. that of our having the truth of the gospel presented to us by 
 different men, looking at it from different standpoints, and conceiving of it 
 somewhat differently from one another), " I urge it as what to my mind is 
 one of the strongest of all arguments for the full and infallible inspiration of 
 the apostolic writings. I cannot bring myself to believe that when God meant 
 to reveal His will to me, to you, to all in a matter, not of life and death merely, 
 
28 
 
 but of life and death for eternity . . . and when for that purpose He engaged 
 the minds and pens of men, who, being men, could at the very best know it 
 themselves only in part ; . • . He left these men to write without a superin- 
 tendence and unerring oversight that would secure the literal and verbal 
 accuracy of every sentence they composed; its being literally and verbally 
 correct and true. I will not do my God so great a wrong as to imagine 
 that He could so act. 
 
 " I may have to admit that there are difficulties in connection with these 
 precious remains, which I have not, in this remote age and country, the means 
 of solving. But I, for one, will be no maker of difficulties — no eager finder 
 of them ; nor will I make too much of them when they force themselves upon 
 me. I will not refuse a probable, or even a possible explanation of them, 
 merely because it does not clear up all, and make all certain. And most 
 assuredly, even in a desperate case, I shall consider it infinitely more pro- 
 bable that there is some mistake on my part — some error in my way of look- 
 ing at the matter .... that a few simple words from the writers would 
 at once remove it — and will remove it when I meet them in a better world — 
 than that either they should have undertaken, or that God should have 
 permitted them, to handle, as His authorised ambassadors, and the authori- 
 tative teachers of His Church in all ages, the deep things of His righteousness 
 and peace in any other words than those which His own Holy Spirit sanc- 
 tioned and approved." 
 
 " That is the very argument," Dr. C. further declares (Preface, p. 9), " that 
 I have urged at some length for our belief that all ' parts of Scripture must 
 be recorded with strict verbal accuracy,' if we are to be sure of our 
 having what is ' essential.' Or to put the statement in better Theology if 
 not in better English, I have argued that God, giving to us a Revelation of 
 His mind and will, in the manner in which it has seemed good to Him to 
 give it — that is, inixed up with mundane affairs and the sayings and doings 
 of men — secures its full and accurate conveyance to us — and can secure that — 
 only by Himself taking the oversight throughout of the very words in which 
 the whole complex record is framed .... This at all events is con- 
 sistent with the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of all Scripture which I 
 hold. And it is inconsistent with the idea of our distinguishing as to inspi- 
 ration, between the essential and the non-essential in Scripture which I 
 repudiate and abhor." 
 
 " Believing," (Preface, p. 15), "that every word of the Hebrew and Greek 
 Scriptures — so far of course as the right reading of texts can be critically 
 ascertained — is divine as well as human ; that every word of the Bible is 
 what it is and where it is by the direct will of the Holy Spirit, as truly as by 
 the purpose of the writer ; that the Holy Spirit is responsible for its being 
 what it is and where it is ; that it is the Holy Spirit's word as much as the 
 writer's. Only the Holy Spirit does not supersede the w-riter, or make him 
 write unnaturally. That is really all." 
 
 " I avow it (Preface, p. 21) as my sole aim" (that is, in his Lectures on 
 Revelation and Inspiration) "to advocate as best I may the great truth on 
 which the religion of Christ and the hopes of Christians depend — that not 
 only is the Word of God in the Bible, but that the Bible is itself in the 
 strictest and fullest sense, in every particular of its contents and in every 
 expression which it uses, the infallible word of the one only living and true 
 God." 
 
 Such is a specimen, and but a specimen of what has hitherto 
 been held and declared from the pulpits and professorial chairs 
 of the Free Church, in regard to the nature and extent of the 
 inspiration of the writers of the Holy Scriptures, and to the 
 absolute infallibility of these Scriptures. It will be admitted 
 that these quotations most fully bear out all that has just been 
 advanced as to the teaching of Scripture, the Confession of Faith, 
 and the Free Church upon the points in question ; and that 
 
more competent witnesses could not easily be adduced. Equally 
 obvious must it be that, if the views of these representative men 
 be a correct exhibition of the teaching of the Bible, and also of 
 the Confession of Faith, the views propounded in this sermon 
 are directly contrary to both ; and, therefore, as declared in my 
 motion, fitted to subvert all faith in the infallible truth and 
 divine authority of the Bible as the Word of God. I am very 
 far indeed, from saying, or thinking that the author intended 
 what he has written to have any such effect. It is not, however, 
 with the intentions of the author that we have to do, in judging 
 of the character and tendency of the contents of his sermon, but 
 with the contents themselves. If, therefore, the fact "that not 
 " only is the Word of God in the Bible, but that the Bible is 
 " itself, in the strictest and fullest sense, in every particular of 
 " its contents and in every expression which it uses, the infallible 
 " word of the one only living and true God," be, as declared by 
 Principal Candlish in the last quoted extract, " the great truth 
 " on which the religion of Christ and the hopes of Christians 
 " depend," then unquestionably the views promulgated in this 
 sermon, in which it is maintained that the inspiration of the 
 writers of the Bible was not an influence that precluded the 
 possibility of errors and mistakes in what they wrote, and that 
 " it is impossible to affirm that all the statements contained in 
 " Scripture are strictly accurate, impossible, that is, to claim for 
 " Scripture an absolute infallibility," are fitted to subvert the 
 faith of the Church in the infallible truth and divine authority 
 of the Bible. A fallible Bible, containing an indefinite number 
 of errors and mistakes, is not a Bible on whose testimony I, at 
 least, could with unwavering faith venture the eternal salvation 
 of my soul. Nor does it mend the matter to tell me that the 
 alleged errors and inaccuracies are of a trifling nature, and have 
 no bearing upon matters of doctrine or duty. The all important 
 question is, not, what is the character of the alleged inaccuracies, 
 but are there any such inaccuracies at all. If there are, then 
 how^ can I be infallibly certain that that portion of the Bible 
 on which I am relying is not an error^a mistake — and therefore 
 unworthy of credit. If one part is a mistake, so may another, 
 and another. If the writers may have been mistaken in a date, 
 so they may also in a doctrine — if mistaken as to some facts so 
 may they have been in all. Moreover, if the writers were fallible 
 in some things, although infallible in the great majority of the 
 facts and truths they wrote, where is the infallible "higher 
 criticism " to be found that will be able to separate the 
 tares from the wheat — the false from the true.? In short, I 
 cannot but regard it as one of the cruellest mockeries to assure 
 me that the Bible contains an infallible rule of faith and duty, 
 and in the same breath to declare that it contains " such inaccu- 
 " racies as occur in ordinary writings through imperfect infor- 
 " mation or lapse of memory." 
 
 Well may Dr. Adam declare of such inaccuracies, as he does 
 
30 
 
 in the following" quotation from his speech, that if they had been 
 introduced by transcribers they would have invalidated the divine 
 record, destroyed it as a reliable authority, and opened the way 
 for every kind of heresy and fancy: — 
 
 " S'ome of our friends," he says, " are ready to account for every thing 
 which causes difficulty by fathering it on the transcribers of the Scriptures 
 . . . . I maintain that few things are more perilous than to attribute to 
 any such source inaccuracies of which there is no trace in the whole history 
 of transcription, for by this means you invalidate the divine record, you 
 destroy it as a reliable authority, and open the way for the defence of every 
 kind of heresy and fancy." 
 
 Now, this may be all very true; but surely, if trying to account 
 for these alleged inaccuracies, and to explain apparent incon- 
 sistencies or contradictions, by attributing them to uninspired 
 transcribers be so very perilous, to attempt to account for them 
 by ascribing them to mistakes on the part of the original inspired 
 writers, as the author of this sermon does, must be infinitely 
 more so. How strange therefore that Dr. Adam, while speaking 
 so strongly of the perilous character of the former mode of 
 accounting for these alleged inaccuracies, should speak so gently 
 and apologetically of the latter, as he does in the folllowing: — 
 
 "It may be proper to state that personally I am no advocate of any such 
 theory. I see that it is encompassed with dangers, and may lead to serious 
 consequences. It may amount to little or it may amount to a very great deal. 
 No doubt much depends on how it is defined and limited. What is the 
 nature, and what is the range of the alleged inaccuracies ? How, when you 
 open the door for the entrance of small defects, can you shut it against those 
 who would bring in all sorts of errors.'' But then what I contend for is that, 
 while I may hold a stricter view of inspiration, and desire all others to do the 
 same, I am not entitled to enforce my view on all my brethren. I see nothing 
 in the Standards which binds or even permits me to cast out of the Church, 
 or launch its censures against, the man who honestly adopts the theory in 
 question, if he does so within due limits, docs it in a way which does not lead 
 him into error in other respects." 
 
 What are these due limits.'* When and by whom were they 
 fixed, and where are they to be found.'' What is the "way" in 
 which I may hold that the writers of the Bible were liable to 
 err, and that there are inaccuracies and errors in the Bible, 
 without running any risk of being led myself, or of leading 
 others into error in other respects .-^ Would it not have been 
 well before writing the above, to have answered the important 
 c]uestion previously propounded: "How, when you open the 
 " door for the entrance of small defects, can you shut it against 
 " those who would bring in all sorts of errors .-'" 
 
 .Such teaching, in short, as that contained in this sermon, 
 I regard as most unsettling and dangerous, and deserving of 
 the decided condemnation of the Presbytery and of the 
 Church. 
 
 The question, therefore, now arises, " Have the committee in 
 the Report * on the table condemned it .-• " They have done no 
 * Sec Appendix, p. 46. 
 
31 
 
 such thing. They do, it is true, condemn somewhat strongly tlic 
 language occasionally employed by the author, and disapprove of 
 the form or mode which, from time to time, he adopts in the 
 representation of his views, but they do not condemn or dis- 
 approve of the views themselves. At first sight they may seem 
 to do so, but on a closer examination of the language of the 
 Report, it will be found that they do not. There is not, from 
 beginning to end, a single word that indicates that they look upon 
 the sermon or preface as containing anything deserving of 
 condemnation as being contrary to the Word of God or the 
 Confession of Faith. 
 
 So far from this, it will be observed that in the concluding 
 paragraph of the report, the committee, while gently hinting 
 that, in so far as the form of the sermon is concerned, the author 
 would " probably do well " not to carry the publication of it any 
 further, they indirectly indicate that, in so far as the matter of it 
 is concerned, they see no serious objection to its continued 
 circulation. 
 
 This is not all. So far are the committee from condemning 
 the views on inspiration promulgated in this sermon that although 
 they " are clearly of opinion that the author has indulged in 
 *' speculation to an unwarrantable and perilous extent, regarding 
 " the nature and mode of inspiration ; " and " also think that he 
 " has instituted comparisons and made representations which have 
 '■■ a tendency to limit the sphere and lower the idea of inspira- 
 " tion," instead of blaming him for this, they apologize for 
 him. " It was natural for him," they say, " considering the 
 " course and design of his argument, to bring forward and insist 
 " much on the human element or agency in the production of 
 " Sacred Scripture." It will be noticed, too, that the way in 
 which the committee speak at the close of this paragraph of 
 the report (page 47), would lead one to suppose that the author 
 of the sermon had made certain balancing statements as to 
 the divine authorship of the Bible, although these statements 
 were not sufficiently explicit and prominent ; whereas the 
 fact is that, so far as I can discover, not one such balancing 
 statement is to be found in the whole sermon — not one 
 I'cference to the fact that the divine authorship underlies and 
 shines through all the human authorship of the Bible. The 
 part that God, by the miraculous agency of the Holy Spirit, 
 had in the inspiration of the writers of Scripture is entirely 
 ignored. 
 
 Not only so, but, although the word " supernatural " does not 
 occur from beginning to end of the sermon or preface, the 
 committee tell us that they " have no doubt that Dr. Dods holds 
 " most sincerely and strongly that the Sacred Scriptures were 
 " divinely and supernaturally inspired," and declare that " there 
 " can be no room for difference of opinion as to his orthodoxy in 
 " this respect." And what is the proof they adduce of this.'' Not 
 anything to be found in the sermon or preface, but " a written 
 
" communication laid before the committee," referring, I presume, 
 to the author's reply * to the letter of inquiry addressed to him 
 by the convener. 
 
 Now, in reference to this " written communication," I have to 
 say that, if the author still adheres to what is contained in this 
 sermon, then, either he uses the word "supernatural " not in the 
 sense in which it is employed by orthodox theologians, when 
 applied by them to inspiration, but in the sense simply of 
 spiritual ; for he distinctly declares in the passage quoted in the 
 report that the inspiration of the apostles was simply a 
 " spiritual gift," and " not an influence which served them instead 
 " of eyes or memory, but an influence which set them in the 
 " right attitude towards Him they were to reflect," which just 
 means that there was nothing supernatural, in the sense of 
 miraculous, about it. Or, if he uses the word in the orthodox 
 sense, then, holding as he does that there are inaccuracies in 
 Scripture, he must hold that the inspiration of Scripture is not 
 plenary, but partial, extending only to those portions of the 
 Bible which he believes to be free from error. ^ Or, if he means 
 us to understand that the whole of the Bible is divinely and 
 supernaturally inspired, then he must hold that the errors and 
 inaccuracies which he alleges are contained in it are divinely and 
 supernaturally inspired too ; or, in other words, that the Bible is 
 to a greater or less extent divinely and supernaturally erroneous. 
 Every one, however, knows that the very design of divine super- 
 natural inspiration is to exclude the possibility of error in any- 
 thing written under its influence. It must thus, I think, appear 
 to every unprejudiced mind that the burden which the committee 
 have laid upon the " written communication " in question is one 
 which it is altogether unable to sustain. 
 
 Still more unsuccessful have they been in their endeavour to 
 vindicate the orthodoxy of the allegation that " there are inac- 
 " curacies in the gospels and elsewhere," and that " it is impos- 
 " sible to affirm that all the statements in Scripture are strictly 
 " accurate — impossible, that is, to claim for Scripture an absolute 
 '•' infallibility." While they tell us that in their opinion the 
 author has given an unhappy prominence to these alleged 
 inaccuracies, they very obviously see nothing unsound and dan- 
 gerous in the belief of their existence, or in the promulgation of 
 that belief, but are of opinion that liberty ought to be granted, 
 not to the author of this sermon only, but to every minister 
 of this Church, to hold and propagate the same God -dis- 
 honouring doctrines. And what is the ground on which they 
 take up this position ? It is, as they tell us in their report 
 (page 48), that this doctrine "has been held and advocated by 
 " theologians of the highest authority, and of world-wide repu- 
 " tation for orthodoxy, not less than for ability and learning." 
 Nor do they content themselves with a mere vague allegation 
 to that effect, but condescend upon individuals of that description, 
 * See Appendix, p. 52. 
 
as having held and advocated the doctrine in question, and not 
 only so, but quote from their writings the passages in which that 
 doctrine, they allege, is actually advocated. In their report, 
 page 49, they, give us two lengthened quotations, the one from 
 Dr. C. Hodge, of Princeton College, America, and the other 
 from Scott the commentator. There are many strange things 
 in this report, but this is the most extraordinary of all. 
 
 A more complete perversion of an author's words and meaning 
 than that of which the authors of this report, doubtless 
 unintentionally, have been guilty, in adducing Dr. Hodge and 
 Scott as holding and advocating the existence of errors and 
 inaccuracies in the Scriptures, it would be impossible to imagine. 
 Why, sir, so far from these writers holding or advocating that 
 there are inaccuracies in the Bible, and that in consequence 
 of this the Bible is not absolutely infallible, they hold and 
 advocate the very opposite, and do so avowedly. In proof of 
 this, let me give you the following quotation from the very vol. 
 of the work of Dr. C. Hodge from which the Committee take 
 their quotations. 
 
 " Inspiration extends equally to all parts of Scripture. This is the fourth 
 element of the Church doctrine on this subject. This means, first, that all 
 the books of Scripture are equally inspired. All alike are infallible in what 
 they teach. And secondly, that inspiration extends to all the contents of 
 these several books. It is not confined to moral and religious truths, but 
 extends to the statement of facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographi- 
 cal. It is not confined to those facts the importance of which is pbvious, or 
 which are involved in matters of doctrine. It extends to everything which 
 any sacred writer asserts to be true." — Systematic Theology, vol. I., p. 163, 
 1871. 
 
 " The Inspiration of the Scriptures," he further declares, " extends to the 
 words. This is included in the infallibility which our Lord ascribes to the 
 Scriptures. . . . The thoughts are in the words. The two are insepar- 
 able. . . . Christ and His apostles argue from the very words of Scrip- 
 ture. . . Constantly it is the very words of Scripture which are quoted 
 as of divine authority.' . . . The very form in which the doctrine of 
 inspiration is taught in the Bible assumes that the organs of God " (the men 
 he employed) " in the communication of his will, were controlled by him in 
 the words which he used. ' I have put my words in thy mouth.' (Jen i. 9) 
 ' It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you' 
 (Matt. X. 20). ' They spake as the Spirit gave them utterance.' ' Holy men 
 of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' (2 Pet. i. 21)." "All 
 these, and similar modes of expression with which the Scriptures abound, 
 imply that the words uttered were the words of God." 
 
 Such is the way in which Dr. Hodge expresses himself And 
 yet the authors of this report deliberately adduce him as 
 holding and advocating the doctrine that there are inaccu- 
 racies in the Scriptures as originally given. Not only so, but 
 the very words which he has written to show, in reply to the 
 cavils and objections of sceptics and infidels, that there are no 
 real, but only apparent, discrepancies or errors in the original 
 documents, the Committee quote as proving that he held and 
 advocated the existence of such errors and mistakes. Nay, they 
 even go the length of representing the author of this sermon as 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 being less heterodox upon the point than even this veteran 
 theologian "of world-wide reputation." Tell it not in Gath! 
 But perhaps I will here be reminded of the speck of sandstone 
 spoken of, and asked if it does not afford at least a grain of 
 probability to the interpretation the Committee have put upon 
 Dr. Hodge's words. No, sir, not even a grain of probability. 
 
 Just look at what he says: (i) "These apparent discrepancies, 
 " although numerous, are for the most part trivial ; relating in 
 " most cases to numbers or dates." Mark, the discrepancies he is 
 dealing with are, in his estimation, only apparent, not real, 
 actual ones. (2) "The great majority of these are only apparent, 
 "and yield to careful examination" — that is, cease to be dis- 
 crepancies even in appearance. (3) "Many of these" — that is, of 
 the remaining apparent discrepancies — " may fairly be ascribed 
 to errors of transcribers." (4) "The marvel and the miracle is that 
 there are so few of these " — that is, of these alleged apparent 
 discrepancies — " of any real importance." Mark, it is still of 
 apparent, not of real, discrepancies that he is speaking. Some 
 of these apparent discrepancies he admits, as every intelligent 
 defender of the infallibility of the Bible admits, are such as, with 
 our present knowledge, we are unable satisfactorily to explain ; 
 but this, he declares, is no reason why the believer should 
 renounce his faith in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, or deny 
 its infallibility, especially since the whole of these apparent 
 discrepancies taken together bear no proportion to the Scriptures 
 as a whole. Here come in the words regarding the grain of 
 sandstone, on which the Committee, without the shadow of a 
 warrant, rely so much, and of which Dr. Adam has just spoken 
 so confidently and defiantly. "The errors in matters of fact" — 
 that is, as previously indicated, " those relating to numbers or 
 dates" — "which sceptics search out bear no proportion to the 
 " whole. No sane man would deny that the Parthenon was 
 " built of marble, even if here and there a speck of sandstone 
 " should be detected in its structure. Not less unreasonable is it 
 "to deny the inspiration of such a book as the Bible, because 
 " one sacred writer says that on a given occasion twenty-four, 
 " and another says that twenty-three, thousand men were slain." 
 It is still, you will observe, of the apparent discrepancies that 
 Dr. Hodge is speaking, his argument being that, even taking the 
 whole of the apparent discrepancies or errors that sceptics are 
 able to scrape together, they bear no greater proportion in 
 point of magnitude to the contents of the Bible than a speck or 
 two of sandstone, if found in the marble of the Parthenon, would 
 bear to the whole of that huge structure. And just as no one 
 would think for a m.oment of denying that the Parthenon is 
 built of marble, even should he detect such a grain of sandstone 
 in its structure, so no one ought for a moment to think of 
 denying the plenary inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, on 
 the ground of any or all of the apparent discrepancies or contra- 
 dictions that sceptics may be able to point out. Objections 
 
35 
 
 founded on the presence of such apparent errors, the Christian 
 need not hesitate to tread under his feet, especially as, if we had 
 all the light and knowledge that God could give us upon the 
 point, it would speedily be found that, just as such a speck of 
 sandstone as that referred to, even if found in the Parthenon, 
 did not originally form a part of the marble, but was subse- 
 quently introduced into it by some convulsion of nature, so 
 either the alleged errors or discrepancies of the Bible were not 
 real, but simply apparent, or had been introduced into the text 
 by transcribers, and formed no part of the original documents. 
 
 That this, and not Dr. Adam's " indubitable (!) inference," is 
 the real meaning of Dr. Hodge, and the only object he had in 
 view in making use of this illustration, and that nothing could 
 have been more foreign to his thoughts or intentions in using it 
 than the idea of inculcating that there are real errors, mistakes, 
 and inaccuracies in the Bible, is evident, not only from the 
 passages already quoted, but from the words which immediately 
 follow the quotations given in the report. They are the 
 following : — " Admitting that the Scriptures do contain, in a 
 " few instances, discrepancies which with our present means of 
 " knowledge we are unable satisfactorily to explain, they furnish 
 " no rational ground for denying their infallibility." 
 
 Should any further demonstration of the unwarrantableness of 
 the use which the Committee have made in their report of Dr. 
 C. Hodge's name and writings be required, it will be found in 
 the following letter which I had the honour and privilege of 
 receiving from that venerable gentleman on Saturday last, and 
 which, with the Presbytery's permission, I shall now read. 
 
 Princetojt, 2nd Nov., 1877. 
 
 My Dear Sir, — It would be very presumptuous in me to take part 
 in any theological discussion going on in your venerable Presbytery. 
 You condescend, however, to ask me what views I intended to present 
 on the doctrine of Inspiration in my work on Systematic Theology. I 
 think I may Avithout impropriety answer that question without assuming 
 that any great importance attached to any views of mine. 
 
 In order to avoid, as much as possible, even the appearance of taking 
 part in a controversy with which I have no right to interfere, I write 
 this letter before reading any of the documents you were good enough 
 to send me. 
 
 All I purpose to do, is to state as briefly and as plainly as I can what 
 I intended to teach in my Systematic Theology. 
 
 1. I recognise the obvious distinction between 'Eevelation and Inspir- 
 ation. The former is the communication of truth to the mind. The 
 latter renders its subject trustworthy, i.e., infallible in communicating 
 truth, orally or by writing, to others. 
 
 2. The modus operandi of the Spirit is inscrutable, as it is in regene- 
 ration, and the gifti of miraculous powers. All we know about it is 
 from its effects. These are to be learned from didactic statements of 
 the Scriptures, and from their phenomena. From the former we 
 learn — 
 
36 
 
 First, That inspiration rendered its subject the spokesman of 
 God — that is, a prophet. An inspired man stood in the same 
 relation to God, that Aaron stood to Moses in his intercourse with 
 Pharaoh. What Aaron said to Pharaoh Moses said through him. 
 What the prophet said, God said. " I will put my words into j'our 
 mouth." " Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost." Therefore what David said the Holy Ghost said. 
 What Jeremiah said the Holy Ghost said. Our Lord said to his 
 apostles, "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of my Father 
 that speaketh in you." It is recorded that the apostles " spake 
 as the Spirit gave them utterance." 
 
 Second, This divine authority, or infallibility, attaches to every- 
 thing which inspired men taught, that is, to everything which 
 they asserted to be true, whether fact, doctrine, or moral principle. 
 
 Third, It extends to the words. The thought is in the words. 
 If the words be incorrectly chosen, the mind of the Spirit is 
 incorrectly communicated, or not communicated at all. This 
 seems to be explicitly asserted in the Scriptures. Holy men 
 sjDake as they were moved — they spake as the Spirit gave tliem 
 utterance — it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of my Father 
 that speaketh in you. The apostle says, " We speak, not in the 
 words which man's ^visdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost 
 teacheth." The sacred writers quote, and argue from the words, 
 sometimes from a single word, of Scripture as the Word of God. 
 
 Fourth, It follows from what has Ijeen said that the record is 
 inspired, or infallible. This the apostle asserts (2 Tim. iii. 16), 
 " All Scripture (or every Scripture — every part of the sacred 
 writings) is given by inspiration of God." The Scriptures — 
 what is written — cannot be broken. Such is the declaration of 
 Christ. It is the Avritten word to which our Lord and the 
 apostles constantly refer as of divine authority. The ultimate 
 appeal as to all matters of fact, truth, or duty, was to the written 
 word. 
 
 From the phenomena of Scri2)ture we learn — 
 
 First, That the sacred writers were not mere machines. In- 
 spiration did not destroy their intelligent consciousness or self- 
 control. 
 
 Second, It did not interfere with their characteristic peculiarities 
 of thought, speech, or style, any more than it did Avith their 
 handwriting. Paul seems to intimate that his handwriting was 
 rather peculiar. The Spirit so controlled the sacred penmen in 
 the use of their gifts and faculties, that they should say just what 
 He would have them say. 
 
 According to this doctrine of inspiration, there cau be no errors 
 in the teachings of the Bible. One part cannot contradict any 
 other part, nor can what the Bible declares to be true as to fact 
 or doctrine be inconsistent Avith any other fxct or doctrine known 
 to be true from other sources. That there are great difficulties in 
 the way of this doctrine, is a matter of course. The same is true 
 in regard to the doctrines of revelation — the Trinity, the person 
 of Christ, the work of the Spirit. It is no less true of the doc- 
 trines of natural religion, and, in short, of every department of 
 knoAvledge. Who can form any theorj' of the union of the soul 
 
37 
 
 and body, which is not beset with difficulties which he cannot 
 solve 1 
 
 It is to be remembered that it is of the Bible as it came from the 
 hands of the sacred writers — i.e., of tlie true text, and of the Bible as 
 properly interpi'eted — that this infallibility is asserted. There may 
 be discrepancies between one part of the Scripture and other parts, 
 arising fx'om errors of transcribers. Far more numerous and important 
 . difficulties have their origin in erroneous interpretations. Everybody 
 knows that the Bible was for ages understood to teach that the sun 
 moves round the earth. Does any man now so understand it 1 In- 
 crease of knowledge will shed increasing light on the Bible ; not 
 correcting it, but bringing out more clearly its true meaning. Should 
 we find in the Bible here and there phenomena which we cannot 
 reconcile with what the Bible teaches of itself, that cannot be a 
 rational ground for rejecting those teachings. It is so in nature. 
 There are organs and rudiments of organs in animals, the use of which 
 no physiologist can explain. No theist allows that fact to shake his 
 faith in the doctrine of design. We do and must believe that God 
 fashions our body, although He allows malformations sometimes to 
 occur. So it is with the Bible. It is and remains the Word of God, 
 although there may be things in it which we cannot explain. 
 
 I cannot rid myself of the impression that there is something absurd 
 in my writing you such an ABC letter as this, merely to prove that 
 an old man in America believes the common Church doctrine of inspira- 
 tion. The accepted formula to ex[)ress the doctrine of the Church 
 in all ages, on this subject, is, that the Scriptures were written Didante 
 Spiritu Dei, so that whatever the Bible teaches God teaches. If this be 
 true, our feet are on a rock. If it be not true, we are standing on 
 cjuicksand. 
 
 The dear old Church of Scotland is the brightest star of the Refor- 
 mation. May its lustre never be dimmed, until it is lost in the glory 
 of the second coming of the Lord ! 
 
 Your fellow-labourer in the Gospel, 
 
 (Signed) CHARLES HODGE. 
 
 P.S. — If there be anything in this paper inconsistent with what is 
 written in my book, it is because I failed to make myself understood. 
 What I have here written I was taught in my boyhood, and have 
 always intended to teach. 
 
 (Signed) C. H. 
 
 How diametrically opposite all this is to the teaching of the 
 sermon and preface before us, in which the apparent discrepan- 
 cies and inaccuracies of the Bible are declared to be real errors 
 — errors which existed from the very first, and which no amount 
 of additional light or knowledge could show to be anything 
 else than downright mistakes — mistakes which, in the author's 
 judgment, are utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of the infal- 
 libility of Scripture, which he accordingly emphatically denies. 
 And yet the Committee have the courage to tell us that the 
 author of this sermon contends for nothing more than is covered 
 by the quotations they give us from Dr. C. Hodge! 
 
After what we have thus seen in reference to Dr. Hodge, it is- 
 scarcely necessary that I should detain the Presbytery by any 
 lengthened exposure of the equally inapplicable and misleading 
 character of the quotation given us in the report from Thomas 
 Scott. As pointed out by several of the dissentients from the 
 report, not only do the words quoted from Scott not give the 
 slightest countenance to the idea either that there are, or that he 
 held that there were, errors and mistakes in the Bible such as are 
 spoken of in this sermon, but they are directly at variance with 
 all such teaching, as every candid and unprejudiced reader of 
 the extracts quoted in the report will at once perceive. So far 
 from holding and advocating that there are real errors and 
 mistakes in the Bible, and on the ground of them denying the 
 Bible's infallibility, Scott himself tells us, in the introduction to 
 his Commentary on the Bible, where his article on inspiration 
 originally appeared, that his object in writing it was to coun- 
 teract the mischief which was at the time being done to the 
 truth by many learned and eminent men, who, in standing forth 
 as the champions of the Bible, appeared to him to have betrayed 
 the cause, by giving up its plenary inspiration and admitting 
 that certain portions of it were entirely of human production, 
 and so might be more or less incorrect and erroneous. " It 
 "would," he declares, "be waste of time to attempt to prove 
 " either the authenticity or genuineness of the sacred writings, 
 " unless in entire subserviency to the demonstration that they 
 "are divinely inspired. All the works and words of mere men 
 " are fallible, and may be erroneous ; and the desideratum (that 
 " which is especially wanted) is an infallible standard, to which 
 " all other books and instructions of every kind may be referred, 
 " with which they may be compared, by which they may be 
 "judged. Now, if the sacred writings are indeed 'the Word of 
 "' God,' if 'all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,' we have 
 " this desideratum, and have nothing further in this respect to 
 " expect or desire . . . ." " Every sentence," he further 
 declares, " must be considered as the sure testimony of God, in 
 "that sense in which it is proposed as truth. Facts occurred, 
 " and words were spoken, as to the import of them, and the 
 " instruction contained in them, exactly as they stand here 
 " recorded. . . . On this ground, all difference or disparity 
 "between one and another of the sacred writers is wholly 
 "excluded. Moses, Jeremiah, David, and Isaiah; Paul, Peter, 
 "James, and John are all supposed to speak, or write, 'as they 
 " ' were moved by the Holy Ghost' They are the voice, but the 
 " Divine Spirit is everywhere the speaker. They wTite indeed 
 " in such language as their different talents, education, habits, 
 " and associations suggested or rendered natural to them ; but 
 "the Holy Spirit so entirely superintended them, when writing, 
 " as to exclude every improper expression, and to guide them to 
 " all those which best suited their several subjects: 'which things 
 " ' we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but 
 
39 
 
 "'which the Holy Ghost teachcth.' Many particulars which 
 "philosophers, or orators, or critics think inaccurate may consist 
 '' with this complete inspiration ; but every kind and degree of 
 "misrepresentation, as springing from popular or national preju- 
 " dices or opinions, or as calculated to mislead the humble 
 "believer or to sanction error, must be totally excluded." 
 
 This is what Scott declares, and yet this is the man who, 
 according to the Committee, held and advocated that there are 
 inaccuracies, errors, and imperfections in the Bible, such as are 
 sufficient to explode the averment of its infallibility! Whatever 
 the Committee may still think, I am persuaded that the impres- 
 sion of most of the other members of Presbytery will be, not 
 only that the Committee have, doubtless unintentionally, done a 
 grievous wrong to these two authors, but that two more thorough- 
 going opponents of the views promulgated and advocated in this 
 sermon, or two abler or more decided advocates of the plenary 
 inspiration and absolute infallibility of the Holy Scriptures 
 could not easily be found. 
 
 The Convener of the Committee, however, has not contented 
 himself with " running the risk of damaging the fair name " of Dr. 
 C. Hodge and Thomas Scott ; but has done so also in the case of 
 Matthew Henry, Richard Baxter, and John Howe, although with 
 just as little warrant, and quite as little success. No one ac- 
 quainted with the writings of these men could have listened to 
 the use made of them, without being amazed that such names, 
 or such quotations should ever have been adduced for such a pur- 
 pose. Neither the quotation from Baxter, nor that from Howe has 
 the slightest bearing upon the question in dispute. Both of these 
 writers, in the passages adduced, are speaking, not of the facts 
 or truths of Scripture, but of the styles and language in which 
 these have been recorded by the several writers — their object being 
 to show that, as admitted by all intelligently acquainted with 
 the subject, the diversities, or even what some may think defects, 
 and Dr. Bannerman calls "sinless deficiencies"* of style and 
 
 * I was amazed at the use made by Dr. Bruce, at the adjourned 
 debate, of the expression " sinless deficiencies " employed by Dr. Banner- 
 man. After quoting passages from Richard Baxter's preface to his Para- 
 phrases on the New Testament, in which that writer speaks of the error 
 of holding with regard to the Scriptures " that there is no human imper- 
 fection of the penman found in phrase, word, or method " ; he went on to say, 
 — I quote from the Daily Mail, — " It appears, then, that there is good 
 " authority for thinking that it may serve a good purpose to speak frankly on 
 " suitable occasions concerning the ' sinless deficiencies of Scripture,' to use a 
 "phrase of Dr. Bannerman. Of course all this is on the supposition that a 
 " minister in our Church is at liberty to hold and express such opinions as those 
 " of Osterzee or Baxter. I believe that there is such liberty. I hold that a man 
 " is at liberty to say not only that there may be, but that there are such things 
 " in Scripture as Dr. Dods alleges." 
 
 In these words, Dr. Bruce, it will be observed, speaks, I trust unintention- 
 ally, of the things, i.e., the errors or inaccuracies which Dr. Dods alleges are 
 to be found in Scripture, as if they were of the same description, and belonged 
 to the same category, as the " sinless deficiencies " spoken of by Dr. Banner- 
 
40 
 
 language, arising from diversities of education, constitution, 
 temper and genius, constitute no argument against the perfection 
 and infallibility of the Scriptures, but, on the contrary, are to be 
 
 man, and the " imperfection in phrase, word, or method" spoken of by Baxter ; 
 whereas he cannot but know that they are radically different. Had " the in- 
 accuracies, errors, or imperfections," of which Dr. Dods speaks, been simply 
 " sinless deficiencies," that is, as Dr. Bannerman explains it, defects or 
 imperfections "of a literary kind," "to be traced in peculiaiities in gram- 
 mar, and idiom and style" — "sins against a pure dialect, or a right syntax, 
 or an Attic taste," no one that I know of would ever have thought of 
 calling in question his liberty to speak as "frankly" of their existence 
 as he chose. This, however, is very far from being their character. He 
 himself expressly affirms that they are such as occur in ordinary writings 
 through " imperfect information or lapse of memory," and are " sufficient 
 "entirely to explode the averment of infallibility" — inaccuracies, the exist- 
 ence of which make it "impossible to affirm that all the statements con- 
 " tained in Scripture are strictly accurate — impossible, that is, to claim for 
 " Scripture an absolute infallibility." How, in these circumstances, Dr. 
 Bruce should speak of these as amounting to nothing more than those of 
 which Bannerman and Baxter speak is to me inexplicable. 
 
 I agree, of course, with Dr. Bruce in thinking that it may serve a good pur- 
 pose to speak frankly on suitable occasions concerning the "sinless deficien- 
 cies " of Scripture alluded to, the existence of which cannot be denied, and 
 never, so far as I am aware, ever has been denied by any intelligent defender 
 of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Scriptures ; but it can never 
 serve anything but a most mischievous purpose to hold and maintain that 
 such errors and inaccuracies as those, of which Dr. Dods speaks, are to be 
 found in the Bible — errors and inaccuracies for the existence of which neither 
 he nor Dr. Bruce adduces a particle of evidence, and in reference to which 
 even Canon Farrar, as quoted by the Committee in their report, declares that 
 " neither the widest learning nor the acutest ingenuity of scepticism ever 
 " pointed to one complete and demonstrable error of fact or doctrine in the Old 
 " or New Testament." 
 
 At a subsequent portion of his speech, Dr. Bruce, in alluding again to the 
 expression " sinless deficiencies " employed by Dr. Bannerman, thus expresses 
 himself : " It is a suggestive phrase, and raises the question, — May there 
 " not be sinless deficiencies of another kind which even he was not prepared to 
 " admit .-^ May there not be sinless and harmless ignorance in the Bible 
 " writers, as well as sinless faults against grammar and pure style.'' You cannot 
 " settle that question a priori. It is a question of fact." Be it so ; but surely 
 it is a new way of determining questions of- fact, by adducing such argu- 
 ments as these, — " May there not be," &c., " May there not be," &c. If such 
 " may he's " are to be regarded as facts, it will be an easy matter to prove the 
 existence in the Bible of any kind of errors you please. If it be a question of 
 fact, and if the facts, as Dr. Bmce's statement implies, are such as answer the 
 question in the affirmative, it would surely be somewhat more to the purpose 
 to adduce them than gratuitously to allege and affirm their hidden existence. 
 
 Alluding to Dr. Martin, Dr. Bruce thus writes : "A writer already referred 
 " to says that God, in gracious condescension, owns as His book our present 
 " Bible, though not free from defects. Very good and very time. But why not 
 " carry the idea of gracious condescension further back, and say that God 
 "might, in gracious condescension, own as His book the original Scriptures, 
 "though not free of defects.? I believe this is the simple truth, the contrary 
 " position is a pure assumption without warrant, and not without practical 
 " danger." I had understood that Dr. Bruce, although he maintains that the 
 ministers of the Church arc at perfect liberty to hold and avow that there 
 are inaccuracies in Scripture such as those which Dr. Dods alleges, a 
 sufficiently advanced position for any one to occupy, did not personally 
 either hold or avoAv the actual existence of any such inaccuracies. I regret 
 exceedingly to find that I have been mistaken, and that, if Dr. Bruce 
 
41 
 
 regarded as a proof of the supernatural inspiration of their 
 writers. Had these honoured names been adduced as opposing- 
 what is called the " mechanical " theory of inspiration, the quota- 
 tions would have been more or less to the point, although, in so 
 adducing them, Dr. Adam would have been combating a mere man 
 of straw, as no one that I know of in the Presbytery, or I may say 
 elsewhere, now holds any such absurd theory. But that he should 
 have adduced them in support of the allegation of the author of 
 this sermon, that there are errors and mistakes in the Bible, is 
 simply inexplicable. So far from any of these authors holding 
 any such mischievous doctrine, they hold and teach the very re- 
 verse. " That all Scripture," says Matthew Henry, in the preface 
 to his commentary, "is given by inspiration of God, and that holy 
 " men spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 
 " we arc sure ; but who dare pretend to describe that inspiration ? 
 " . . . . But we may be sure that the blessed Spirit did not only 
 " habitually prepare and qualify the penmen of Scripture for that 
 "service, and put it into their hearts to write, but did likewise 
 " assist their understandings and memories in recording those 
 " things which they themselves had the knowledge of, and effectu- 
 " ally secure them from error and mistake .... And, no 
 " doubt, as far as was necessary for the end designed, they were 
 " directed by the Spirit, even in the language and expression." 
 
 " My reasons," says Richard Baxter, in vol. II., p. 217, of Virtue's edition 
 (London, 1838^, "why I take every history, chronology, genealogy in Scrip- 
 ture as certainly true, and every other word spoken by a true prophet and 
 apostle as by the Spirit, and not disowned by the Scripture itself, but such as 
 you accuse in the gospel, are these: P'irst, . . . This writing is part of 
 the preaching which Christ sent them for, and no doubt but the Spirit did 
 cause them to write all the substantial part; and therefore we have reason to 
 think that the smallest parts are from the same author, and that He assisted 
 them in the least as well as in the greatest. . . . Even their plain and 
 less accurate style and method may be best, as fittest to its use and end. 
 Secondly, There is no caviller that yet hath proved any falsehood or contra- 
 diction in any passages of the Scripture. Thirdly, The church which 
 received the Scriptures as God's Word did receive the whole as His word, 
 and as certainly true in every part." "He" (p. 219) "that first proveth the 
 truth of the Christian faith by solid evidence, may and ought to be certain of 
 
 does justice to his own views in the extract just quoted, he expressly de- 
 clares that he believes it to be the simple truth that God owns as His book 
 the Original Scriptures, " though not free of defects " ; and not only so but 
 declares the "contrary position a pure assumption without warrant"; and 
 that too without giving us anything else in proof of what he declares, or as a 
 warrant for his belief, than simply that "might not God" do as he alleges? 
 May I not, in these circumstances, retort his words upon himself, and say, " It 
 is a pure assumption without warrant." 
 
 But Dr. Bioice declares that the contrary position, although without warrant, 
 is " not without practical danger." The danger, however, as I take it, is all 
 the other way. Nor am I singular in this — Drs. Bannerman, Fairbairr, 
 Cunningham and Candlish take the very same view of the matter. I regret 
 exceedingly to find Dr. Bruce differing so decidedly from them. The practical 
 danger of his doing so wi'I, I cannot but fear, speedily be found to be dis- 
 astrously great — unspeakably greater than he seems to be able at present to 
 anticipate. May my fears be disappointed ! 
 
the truth, though he be not able to solve all seeming contradictions in the 
 Scriptures, or answer all objections which occur; yea, certain of every 
 particle thereof." 
 
 After what has thus been stated, am I not warranted in 
 saying that " no ingenuity will be here of the very slightest 
 avail" in obtaining support for the allegation that there are 
 errors and mistakes in the Holy Scriptures ; and not only so, 
 but that those who are bent upon apologizing for that allega- 
 tion should confine themselves to Riccalton, Auberlen, Osterzee, 
 Alford, Farrar, and Row, et hoc ge?ius om?ic, lest, instead of 
 damaging the fair names of others, they run the risk of damaging 
 only their own. 
 
 I might now have adverted to the extraordinary use which 
 has been made by the Committee in paragraph 4, section 4, of 
 their report (see Appendix) of the name of good Halyburton, 
 in vindication of that curious illustration of the way in which 
 sceptics form their canon of Scripture, to be found on p. 25 of 
 the sermon. I do not, however, intend to take up the time of 
 the Presbytery with any lengthened remarks upon any portion 
 of that specially apologetic department of the report, but shall 
 leave it to be dealt with by others. 
 
 I would simply ask the Presbytery to mark the way in 
 which the Committee apologize in paragraph (2) for that most 
 unwarrantable statement quoted from p. 10 of the sermon — "in- 
 " spiration does not preclude the necessity of acquiring informa- 
 " tion by the ordinary means." Not to dwell upon the way in 
 which the word inspiration is here improperly used in connection 
 with the acquiring of information, I would ask how, if what is 
 stated in this sentence be true, information or knowledge, not 
 acquirable by ordinary means, is to be obtained. It was proved 
 on a former occasion, in direct opposition to what the author says 
 at the foot of p. 19 and top of p. 20, of his sermon, that the his- 
 torical writers of Scripture, times without number, record facts 
 of which they could not possibly have a knowledge "by the 
 " ordinary means." How or whence, then, did they obtain their 
 knowledge of these facts, if " inspiration " or rather supernatural 
 revelation, " does not, even in such cases, preclude (or supersede) 
 " the necessity of acquiring information by the ordinary means " .<* 
 The Committee's remark, that God " honours the natural and 
 " makes use of it up to the utmost limits of its proper sphere," is 
 nothing to the point, seeing the author, in his sermon, acknow- 
 ledges no limits to its sphere, but affirms that it stands in no need 
 of any such limitation : "They never ask us," he says, "to take 
 "their word for a thing which they had not good means of know- 
 " ing in the ordinary way ; they do not come before us as men 
 " who, by a process called inspiration (revelation .'') were made 
 " aware of facts which had not come within their own observation 
 " or knowledge." Notwithstanding all this, the Committee tell 
 us that " nothing is more certain than that the author of the dis- 
 " course believes and teaches that the Scriptures are full of truths 
 
43 
 
 " which no unaided powers of men could ever have discovered, or 
 '• recorded as they stand in the Bible." Where they obtain this 
 information they do not tell us. It would puzzle them to find it 
 in the sermon, in so far, at least, as it bears upon the historical 
 portions of the Bible. In so far as the grounds for the statement 
 are not in the sermon, it is entirely beside the point. 
 
 In paragraph (3) the Committee tell us that they have the 
 author's " express assurance that he does not stand by " the state- 
 ment therein quoted. On turning to his letter, however, I find 
 that all he says is, that it is "much too broad and sweeping." Even 
 had it been fully and unreservedly withdrawn, its withdrawal 
 would not have altered the character of the teaching in the 
 sermon in the very slightest. So much is this the case that on 
 my objecting to it at a private conference of a few members of 
 Presbytery in the month of May, it was defended by the Convener 
 and several members of the Committee who are now so thankful 
 for its modification. 
 
 As regards the statement quoted in paragraph (4) of this 4th 
 section of the report, in which the author, in vindication of his 
 statement in the sermon (p. 25) that " he cares not whether a per- 
 son says the epistles of Paul are inspired or not, so long as he 
 accepts their teaching," gives us his rationale of the process by 
 which sceptics form their canon of Scripture, the Committee sav 
 that it seems intended to be but a strong way of expressing the 
 distinctive Protestant view of the self-evidencing power of Scrip- 
 ture. They evidently had not been able to make up their minds 
 as to what the meaning or design of the statement may be, and 
 so were not in a position to condemn or defend it. Accordingly, 
 it will be observed that they wisely abstain from adducing what 
 Halyburton says, as a corroboration of what the author says, 
 which was the only point that required confirmation, and the only 
 relevant use that could be made of Halyburton's testimony, but 
 proceed at great length to adduce his testimony to what did not 
 need any confirmation, as no one was calling it in question, viz., 
 the self-evidencing power of Scripture. Not only so, but the 
 Convener directed a great part of his speech to the establishment 
 of this point as one, in his estimation, " of very great importance," 
 availing himself at great length of the help of Dr. Owen. What 
 relevant bearing any thing quoted either from Halyburton 
 or from Owen had upon the question at issue it would be difficult 
 to perceive, especially, as Dr. Adam declared that the question 
 was not whether the Committee's interpretation of Dr. Dods' 
 statement was right or wrong, " nor any thing like it." 
 
 In the last paragraph of the report we have the conclusion to 
 which the Committee's examination of the Sermon has led them, 
 as to what is the duty of the Presbytery in regard to it. That 
 conclusion is that we should do nothing, and they recommend 
 accordingly. This is a conclusion which, looking at it even in 
 the light of the report, I cannot but regard as a very "lame and 
 impotent " one. Looking at it in the light of the sermon and 
 
44 
 
 preface, it is one which I trust this Presbytery will pause before 
 they adopt. I for one at least could not homologate it, or act 
 according to it, without feeling that I had betrayed my trust, and 
 been unfaithful to my divine Master, and to the interests of His 
 truth and cause. Hence the proposal in my motion that the 
 Presbytery should decline to approve of this report, or to adopt 
 the recommendation with which it concludes. 
 
 It is not alone, however, or even chiefly with the report that 
 as a Presbytery we have to do. We must deal with the doctrines 
 propounded in the sermon and preface reported on. These doc- 
 trines we have seen are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the 
 Word of God, the Confession of Faith, and the teaching of this 
 Church. This being so, they are deserving of the most decided 
 disapproval of the Presbytery. Accordingly it is further proposed 
 that we strongly condemn them on the grounds stated in the 
 preamble of this motion, and not merely "in the line of the 
 strictures of the report," as proposed in the motion of my 
 respected friend, Dr. Bonar, which would really be no condemna- 
 tion at all, so far as the essential nature of the views in question 
 is concerned. Anything short of what is proposed in my motion 
 I cannot but regard as trifling with an important and imperative 
 duty. 
 
 But if the doctrines, considered in themselves, deserve to be 
 strongly condemned, then it is clear that we cannot but regard 
 the publication of them, especially when continued so long, as 
 deserving of censure too. Not only so, but it is our imperative 
 duty to do what in us lies to put a stop to the further propaga- 
 tion of them. Accordingly, what I further propose is that the 
 Presbytery enjoin the author of them to withdraw from publica- 
 tion the sermon and preface in which they are promulgated, and 
 appoint a Committee to confer with him and report. 
 
 And now I am done. A most painful and unpleasant duty I have 
 had to discharge. Could I with a good conscience have shirked 
 it, most gladly and thankfully should I have done so. I have 
 no love for such work, neither have I any personal ends to serve. 
 Earnestly have I sought to have no other object in view than the 
 glory of God, the honour and integrity of His Word, and the 
 good of all concerned.* 
 
 * After consultation it was agreed on the morning of the 29th, previous to 
 the adjourned discussion, that Dr. Bonar and I should withdraw our motions, 
 and that the following should be proposed by Mr. Howie : — " The Presbytery- 
 thank the Committee and the convener for their diligence, and regret that they 
 cannot approve of the report or adopt the recommendation with which it 
 concludes ; disapprove of and censure the views set forth in the sermon and 
 preface regarding inspiration and the infallibility of the Bible as contrary to 
 the Word of God and the standards and teaching of this Church ; instruct the 
 author not to carry the publication any further, and appoint a Committee to 
 confer with him in regard to the views in question, and report." 
 
 This motion, on being put as an amendment to Dr. Adam's was lost — 51 
 (29 ministers and 22 elders) voting for it, and 54 (38 ministers and 16 elders) 
 voting for Dr. Adam's. 
 
 On this a Dissent and Complaint to the Synod in April was forthwith taken 
 
45 
 
 on the part of the minority. Reasons for this Dissent and Complaint, signed 
 by 47 of the minority, viz., 29 ministers, including the moderator who had 
 not a vote — all in short but one, and 18 elders, were lodged with the clerk 
 in due time, and are in the following terms : — 
 
 We, the undersigned, dissent from the judgment of the Presbytery on 29th 
 November, in the case of the Rev. Dr. Dods, and complain against it to the 
 ensuing meeting of the Free Synod of Glasgow and Ayr for the following 
 reasons, and for others to be urged at the bar of the Synod : — 
 
 1. Firstly, because, in the report approved of, the committee by whom it 
 was submitted do not bring before the Presbytery a full and faithful represen- 
 tation of the unscriptural and dangerous character of the views set forth in 
 the sermon and preface reported on, especially of those which bear upon the 
 inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scriptures, but on the contrary apologize 
 for them ; and not only so, but even vindicate the author in holding and 
 publishing that there were errors and inaccuracies in the Scriptures as 
 originally given, by declaring that the veiy same view has been held and 
 advocated by theologians of the highest authority, and of world-wide reputa- 
 tion for orthodoxy not less than for ability and learning." 
 
 2. Secondly, because the Presbytery while finding that the said sermon 
 and preface are open to grave objection, do so merely " in the respects and 
 on the grounds specified in the report ; " that is, not on the ground of the 
 matter or doctrinal teaching contained in them, but solely on the ground of 
 the manner or form in which that teaching is expressed ; whereas, they 
 ought to have condemned and censured the said sermon and preface as con- 
 taining views on the inspiration and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures and 
 other matters, contrary to or inconsistent with the Word of God and the 
 standards and teaching of this Church. 
 
 3. Thirdly, because the Presbytery have merely represented to the author 
 the desirableness of not continuing the publication of the sermon and 
 preface in the present form ; whereas, considering the unscriptural and 
 dangerous character of their teaching, he ought to have been instructed not 
 to caiTy the publication of them any farther, and the case disposed of other- 
 wise according to the laws of the Church. 
 
 4. Fourthly, because the decision of the Presbytery will, if unreversed, 
 authoritatively declare that any minister of this Church may, without chal- 
 lenge, not only hold, but also preach and publish such views as are promul- 
 gated in this sermon. 
 
 Robert Bremner, Andrew A. Bonar, Alex. Urquhart, Evan Gordon, Robert 
 Gault, Hugh M'Dougall, R. C. Smith, Robert Howie, James Nicoll, G. L. 
 Campbell, Henry Anderson, J. D. M'Meikan, William Jeffrey, John F. 
 M'Gregor, A. C. Fullarton, Hugh M'Intosh, William TuUo, John Stewart, 
 George Campbell, John Riddell, Alexander Andrew, R. M. Thornton, James 
 Fordyce, James Stewart, Alexander Rlurchison, J. Smith, James Drysdale, 
 G. W. Cumming, William Scott, ministers; Robert Marshall, Donald 
 Macpherson, Robert M'Callum, James Allan, H. M'Kinnon, Malcolm 
 M'Gregor, James Donald, George Munro, James Robertson, William C. 
 Morton, William Morton, John Buchanan, Allan Munro, Thomas iMacklin, 
 Thomas Laurie, Duncan M'Callum, John Wands, William Beith, elders. 
 
46 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DR. DODS' SERMON. 
 
 The motion in connection with which the Committee were 
 appointed was in these terms : — " The Presbytery, having special 
 respect to the difficulties felt and expressed by brethren regard- 
 ing the views of Dr. Dods on the subject of Revelation and 
 Inspiration, as stated by him in a sermon lately published, 
 entitled Revelation and Inspiration, resolve to appoint a Com- 
 mittee to consider deliberately whether the Presbytery is called to 
 take any action with reference to said views, and if so, of what 
 nature, and to report to a subsequent meeting of Presbytery." 
 The Committee have given their most careful attention to the 
 subject remitted to them, they have done so under a deep sense 
 of responsibility, and they now beg to report as follows : — 
 
 1. The distinction which Dr. Dods makes between revelation 
 and inspiration is a real one; it is also an important one in 
 certain respects, especially is it so for apologetic purposes, and it 
 is for these purposes that it is brought forward and insisted on in 
 the sermon. It is of no small consequence to show that divine 
 revelation, and with it the Christian faith, can be maintained, so 
 far as the real substance of them is concerned, apart from any 
 special theory of inspiration ; that even if adversaries could suc- 
 cessfully impugn the doctrine of inspiration altogether, they 
 would not thereby subvert the great historical verities of sacred 
 Scripture. This ground is often taken up in works on apologetics ; 
 and that the sermon belongs to this class of writings, and is to be 
 judged of accordingly, may be inferred from its structure, and at all 
 events is rendered certain by the express statement of the author 
 in the preface. But it is manifest that such a line of argument, 
 however legitimate and useful, exposes him who follows it to a 
 certain temptation and danger. He will be apt to j)lace revelation 
 in the front, and to throw inspiration for the time into the back- 
 ground ; and, unless he exercises the greatest care, he will at least 
 appear to magnify the one and depreciate the other. The Com- 
 mittee are of opinion that Dr. Dods has not sufficiently guarded 
 against this tendency, and that he does use language which, 
 however unintentionally, yet really, seems to cast doubt on the 
 necessity and the importance of divine inspiration. The proof of 
 the statement now made lies rather in the general strain of the 
 sermon than in particular passages, but they may point, in confir- 
 mation of it, to two such passages: "All that we need to 
 contend for is the historic credibility of the narratives. This 
 we can establish in the completest way ; anything beyond this is 
 not indispensable" (Preface, p. 4). " I, for my part, do not 
 
47 
 
 care what meaning a man attaches to the word ' inspired,' nor, 
 indeed, whether he says these epistles are inspired or not, so 
 long as he accepts their teacliing" (Sermon, p. 25). * 
 
 2. As regards inspiration, tlie Committee have no doubt that 
 Dr. Dods holds most sincerely and strongly that the sacred 
 Scriptures were divinely and supernaturally inspired. Whatever 
 may be thought of the clearness or obscurity of Dr. Dods' teach- 
 ing as to this in the sermon, in a written communication which 
 was laid before the Committee he gives his testimony on the 
 point in terms the most direct and unequivocal. There is, and 
 can be, therefore, no room for difference of opinion as to his 
 orthodoxy in this respect, which is the fundamental matter here 
 involved. It was natural for him, considering the course and 
 design of his argument, to bring forward and insist much on 
 the human element or agency in the production of Sacred 
 Scripture. That factor, though subordinate, is not less real 
 than the divine, as every intelligent reader of the Bible 
 must be aware. The Committee, however, are clearly of 
 opinion that in setting forth this aspect, of the truth Dr. Dods 
 has indulged in speculation, to an unwarrantaljle and perilous 
 extent, regarding the nature and mode of inspiration, thus pre- 
 senting a striking contrast to the Church's Standards, which 
 assert the great fact without laying down any theory on the 
 subject. They also think that he has instituted comparisons and 
 made representations which have a tendency to limit the sphere 
 and lower the idea of inspiration, as when he says, " The inspira- 
 tion of the apostles fitting them to preserve to the world the 
 life and character of our Lord, was not an influence which 
 served them instead of eyes and memory, but it was an influence 
 which set them in the right attitude towards Him they were to 
 reflect, and which made them sensitive to everything in Him 
 which Avas of the highest value" (p. 20). Again, "Inspiration, 
 in short, is a spiritual gift, and only indirectly a mental one. 
 It illuminates the mind as enthusiasm does, by stimulating and 
 elevating it ; it enriches the memory as love does, by intensifying 
 the interest in a certain object, and by making the mind 
 sensitive to its impressions and retentive of them. It brings 
 light to the understanding, and wisdom to the spirit, as purity 
 of intention does, or as a high aim in life does. But it is not a 
 gift conferring intellectual acuteness where that did not previ- 
 ously exist, nor imparting any superhuman power of knowledge." 
 (pp. 21, 22). t And finally on this point, they are deeply per- 
 suaded that he has given rise to much anxiety regarding his 
 views, by not connecting his vindication of the part which the 
 sacred writers had in the production of Scripture with sufiiciently 
 explicit and prominent balancing statements as to the divine 
 authorship, which underlies and shines through all the human 
 authorship of the Bible. 
 
 3. The chief difficulty connected with the sermon, it is believed, 
 lies in the fact that Dr. Dods holds a theory of inspiration which 
 consists Avith the existence of certain inaccuracies or errors in 
 
 * All quotations are made from the third edition of the Sermon, 
 t With reference to this statement, see Correspondence, p. 52. 
 
48 
 
 sacred Scripture. He makes statements like the following : " No 
 careful student of Scripture can well deny that there are in 
 accuracies in the gospels and elsewhere — inaccuracies such as 
 occur in ordinary writings through imperfect information or lapse 
 of memory" (page 9). "It is impossible to affirm that all the 
 statements contained in Scripture are strictly accurate — impossible, 
 that is, to claim for Scripture an absolute infallibility" (page 10). 
 " It has been considered infallible not only in regard to the reve- 
 lation it contains, but in regard to the whole form in which that 
 revelation is conveyed to us, and so Avlien errors and imjierfections 
 have been pointed out, those whose faith has rested on its verbal 
 and universal infallilnlity have received a violent shock*as if reve- 
 lation itself were being brought into danger" (pages 17, 18). "I 
 will not deny that he (Paul) was occasionally wrong in a date, but 
 is not the criticism which founds anything on that ludicrously 
 superficial" (page 24). Dr. Dods not only admits but maintains 
 that these alleged defects are of a trifling nature, that they are of 
 no real importance whatever, and that they have no bearing on 
 doctrine or duty, on faith or life. He holds that the Bible was 
 not intended to teach men history or science, to give them any 
 authoritative information on those matters in connection with 
 which the inaccuracies he contends for occur. 
 
 Here the Committee are constrained to express the conviction 
 that the whole mode of representation adopted on this part of 
 the subject is seriously objectionable. It appears to them that 
 Dr. Dods gives an unhapj^y prominence to these alleged inaccu- 
 racies, that he dwells on them in a way which, while far from 
 intended, is fitted to grate on the feelings of those who tremble 
 at the Divine Word. Thej^ greatly prefer to regard many of the 
 matters referred to as unsolved difficulties, and they cannot but 
 here quote the words of one who agrees with Dr. Dods in refus- 
 ing to accept a view of inspiration which excludes the possibility 
 of mistake on the part of the sacred writers. Dr. Farrar says, 
 '* It has, indeed, been often and emphatically denied that 
 this possibility of mistake could aS"ect them (the apostles) in 
 what they wrote. That they did so err I am not so irreverent 
 as to assert, nor has the ividest learning and acutest ingemilty of 
 scepticism ever pointed to one complete and demonstrable error of 
 fact or doctrine in the Old or New Testament." * But while they 
 cannot approve of the language employed in the sermon, 
 as little can they deny that the view maintained is one which 
 has been held and advocated by theologians of the highest 
 authority, of world-wide reputation for orthodoxy, not less than 
 for ability and learning. They have the assurance of Dr. Dods 
 that he really contends for nothing more than is covered by 
 the following quotations from the works of Dr. C. Hodge and 
 Tliomas Scott, the well known commentator ; and that indeed, 
 with reference to the importance of these inaccuracies, he would 
 be contented to express his meaning in terms rather falling 
 within than going beyond those which one of them employs. Dr. 
 Hodge thus writes — (1) "These apparent discrepancies, although 
 numerous, arc for the most part trivial, relating, in most cases, to 
 
 * BMe Educator, vol. I, p. 207. 
 
49 
 
 numbers or dates. (2) The great majority of them are only ap- 
 parent, and yield to careful examination. (3) Many of them may 
 fairly be ascribed to errors of transcribers. (4) The marvel and the 
 miracle is that there are so few of them of any real importance." 
 . . . "The errors in matters of fact which sceptics search 
 out bear no proportion to the whole. No sane man Avould deny 
 that the Parthenon was built of marble, even if here and there a 
 speck of sandstone should be detected in its structure. Not less 
 unreasonable is it to deny the inspiration of such a book as the 
 Bible, because one sacred writer says that on a given occasion 
 twenty-four, and another says that twenty-three thousand, men 
 were slain. Surely a Christian may be allowed to tread such 
 objections under his feet." * Thomas Scott, in his essay on In- 
 spiration, thus states the matter, " By the divine inspiration of 
 the Holy Scriptures, I mean such an immediate and complete 
 discovery by the Holy Spirit to the minds of the sacred penmen, 
 of those things which could not have been otherwise known, and 
 such an effectual superintendency as to those matters which they 
 might be informed of by other means, as entirely to preserve them 
 from all error, in every particular, which could in the least affect 
 any of the doctrines or commandments contained in their Avritings." 
 
 . . " Nor does it at all invalidate the complete inspiration of 
 the sacred writers, to allow that they expressed themselves in 
 common language, and wrote of things as men generally spoke of 
 them, rather than according to philosophical exactness, or in the 
 style that was used in the schools of the learned, during the ages in 
 which they lived. Supposed, or unimportant errors, or inaccuracies 
 of expression in such things, are not in the least inconsistent with 
 that entire divine inspiration of which we speak ; for the Scriptures 
 were not written to render us exact philosophers, or to instruct 
 us in ancient history and gedgraphy, but to make us wise unto 
 salvation. Nor do the few immaterial mistakes, which in a long- 
 course of years have crept in, through the errors of transcribers, 
 create any difficulty or uncertainty to the humble and teachable 
 inquirer, though they may give occasion to the self-sufficient to 
 cavil and object ; for ' the Lord taketh the wise in their own 
 craftiness.' " t 
 
 4. There are various remarks and expressions in the sermon to 
 which serious objection has been taken, and to some of these it 
 may be proper to advert very briefly. Thus : — 
 
 (1.) In the opening sentences of the discourse these words 
 occur : "We find in some of them" (that is, the sacred books of 
 other religions than the Christian), " a moral teaching, little if at 
 all inferior to that contained in our own." In the opinion of the 
 Committee that statement is much stronger than the facts of the 
 case warrant ; but they recognise the intention as being not 
 to disparage the Scriptures, for the statement is made to 
 give emphasis to the contrast drawn between these Scriptures 
 as presenting a clear, consecutive, and complete historical 
 account of God's revelation of himself to men, and all other 
 sacred books, which want this grand characteristic, whatever 
 their excellencies in certain respects. 
 
 * Thfiohrjj/, vnl. I, p. 169, 170. t Theol. ]Vort<, p. 1G4. 
 
 U 
 
50 
 
 (2.) At page 10 it is said that " inspiration does not preclude 
 the necessity of acquiring information by the ordinary means," 
 and the same idea is largely insisted on throughout the sermon. 
 Dr. Dods is dealing with the historical books of Scripture, and it 
 is an undoubted and remarkable feature of God's way of working, 
 that even in the case of miracles he honours the natural, and 
 makes use of it up to the utmost limits of its proper sphere. 
 But nothing is more certain than that the author of the discourse 
 believes and teaches, that the Scriptures are full of truths which 
 no unaided powers of men could ever have discovered, or recorded 
 as they stand in the Bil^le, where there is a height and depth, a 
 length and breadth, which these powers could not have reached 
 even when putting forth their greatest efforts and rising to their 
 noblest exercise. 
 
 (3.) At page 22 it is said that " inspiration is not a gift impart- 
 ing any superhuman power of knowledge." This language is diffi- 
 cult to reconcile with the idea of inspiration as a gift which raises 
 him on whom it is bestowed above the merely natural or ordinary 
 human sphere, and therefore the Committee are happy to have 
 Dr. Dods' express assurance that he does not stand by it, and that 
 it would have been corrected but for the difficulty of doing so 
 under the circumstances which had arisen. The explanation is 
 important, and the difficulty felt in connection with the words 
 ought to be regarded as satisfactorily removed. 
 
 (4.) Much fault has been found with the statement in page. 25 : 
 " I do not believe what Paul says, because I first believe him to 
 be inspired, but I believe him to be inspired, because he brings 
 light to my spirit which can only have proceeded from God." But 
 startling as the language at first is, it seems intended to be but a 
 strong way of expressing the distinctively Protestant view of the self- 
 evidencing power of Scripture. Any number of testimonies as to 
 this self-evidencing power might be adduced, but one taken from the 
 sainted Halyburton's Reason of Faith may suffice. "That whereon 
 all, to whom the word of God comes, are bound to receive it 
 with the faith above described, is not any particular word of the 
 Scripture bearing testimony to all the rest. As for instance, it 
 is not merely or primarily upon this account that I am bound to 
 receive all the written word as the Word of God, because the 
 Scripture says, 2 Tim. iii, 16, 'That all Scripture is given by 
 inspiration of God.'" "The formal reason or ground Avhereon I 
 assent to, or receive the whole Scriptures, and every particular 
 truth in them, and am obliged in duty so to do, is, the authority 
 and truth of God speaking in them, and speaking every truth 
 they contain, evidencing itself to my faith, when duly exercised 
 abouji them and attending to them, by their own distinguishing 
 light and power. Or when it is enquired, wherefore do ye believe, 
 receive, assent to, and rest on the Scriptures as indeed the Word 
 of God, and not of man 1 I answer, I do believe them, because 
 they carry in them, to my faith, an evidence of God, or do 
 evidence themselves by their own light and power to my faith 
 duly exercised about them, that they are the AVord of God, and 
 not of man."' (Prop, vii, x.) * 
 
 * Halyburton's Worlcfi, p. ,'531-2. 
 
51 
 
 In conclusion, the Committee are satisfied that the sermon is 
 open to grave objections, in the respects and on the grounds 
 already specified, and they do not wonder at the anxiety which 
 it has awakened. It is fragmentary and immnture, and in 
 it Dr. Dods, as they are persuaded, has not done justice either to 
 his own remarkable gifts and infiuential position, or to the weighty 
 and difficult subject whicli is here handled. In consideration of all 
 this, and very specially of the serious doubts and misapprehensions 
 as to his real meaning to which the sermon has given rise, he 
 would probably do well not to carry the publication any farther, 
 at least in its present form. But it is a relief to them, while 
 saying all this, to be able to add, that in their judgment the 
 Presbytery is not called to institute any process, or to take any 
 further action in the matter ; and they now beg to report 
 accordingly. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 I. 
 
 Letter from Dr. ADAM to Dr. DODS. 
 
 Glasgow, 24th Sept., 1877. 
 
 My dear Dr. Dods, — It Avill be a favour to myself, and it may 
 be helpful to the Committee, if you will kindly answer the follow- 
 ing questions : — 
 
 1. Am I right in believing, as I do, that you hold, and do not 
 mean by anything in your sermon to call in question, the divine 
 supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testaments 1 
 
 2. Do you regard the alleged inaccuracies which you speak of 
 in your sermon as in any way aff'ecting the Scriptures as a revela- 
 tion of doctrine and duty — a divine authoritative rule of faith and 
 life? 
 
 3. Does your view of bliese inaccuracies diflFer from that presented 
 in the two quotations whicli I enclose, the one from the theological 
 works of Thomas Scott, the other from those of Dr. C. Hodge ? 
 
 Add to the answers anything which you wish to be specially in 
 view of the Committee when considering the statements contained 
 in your sermon and preface. — Believe me, yours very truty, 
 
 J. Adam. 
 
 Rea^ Dr. Dods. 
 
 Note — The two quotations referred to in the letter are those given in the 
 foregoing Report, p. 48. 
 
5- 
 
 II. 
 
 Lettkr in Reply from Dr. DODS to Dr. ADAM. 
 
 13 BuKNBANK Gardens, 
 24th September , 1811. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In reply to yours just received I have to say, 
 1st. You are right in believing that I hold, and do not mean by 
 anything in my sermon to call in question, the divine super- 
 natural inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 
 2nd. I hold that the inaccuracies alluded to in my sermon in 
 no way affect the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures as an 
 infjillible revealed rule of faith and life. 
 
 3rd. The quotations from Scott and Hodge which you submit 
 to me, pretty accurately express my view of the inaccuracies in 
 Scripture. Only I object to Hodge's admission that there are 
 some of " real importance." I am not aware of any which have 
 any "real importance." 
 
 In connection with the first of your questions, I may add that 
 I regret to find that I have given occasion for its being asked. 
 On p. 22 of my sermon I have said that inspiration does not im- 
 part any superhuman power of knowledge. This expression is 
 much too broad and sweeping, and I would have withdrawn it 
 long since ; but this is one of the evils Avhich ecclesiastical pro- 
 cedure entails, that no alteration can be made on a document to 
 which the attention of the Church has been turned. All that I 
 could do in the circumstances I did : I wrote a preface by which 
 I desire that the sermon be interj^reted. 
 
 Regretting the trouble I am giving to j^ou and other friends, 
 I remain, yours very truly, 
 
 Marcus Dods. 
 
 III. 
 
 DISSENTS BY MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 Fkee Presbytery House, 
 Glasgow, November 5th, 1877. 
 
 We, the undersigned members of the Committee of Presbytery 
 appointed to consider the sermon on " Revelation and Inspira- 
 tion," recently published by the Rev. Dr. Dods, hereby intimate 
 our dissent from the report adopted by that Committee, in so far 
 as regards the following particulars : — 
 
 First. We dissent from, and disapprove of, the apologetic tone 
 apparent in several parts of the report, and especially the apolo- 
 getic way in which the report meets the charges that Dr. Dods 
 brings against the Scriptures as originally given, of containing 
 " inaccuracies such as occur in ordinary writings through imper- 
 fect information or lapse of memorj'^," of containing "errors and 
 imperfections," &c. At the top of page 5th of the report it is 
 
53 
 
 stated that while the Committee "cannot approve of the language 
 employed in the sermon, as little can they deny that the view 
 maintained is one which has been held and advocated by theolo- 
 gians of the highest authority, of world-wide reputation for 
 orthodoxy, not less than for ability and learning." The only 
 authors referred to in support of this statement are Dr. Charles 
 Hodge and Mr. Thomas Scott, the commentator, and the quota- 
 tions from them are not relevant, for they do not admit that any 
 errors were in the Scriptures as oruj'mally given \ on the contrary, 
 as shown by the context, and other portions of their writings, 
 they hold the Divine authorship of Scripture, and their infcillible 
 truth, as originally given. The clause in the quotation from Mr. 
 Scott, in which he speaks of " supposed, or unimportant errors, 
 or inaccuracies of expression in such things" as shown by the 
 preceding sentence, applies only to such things as arise from the 
 use of common language, rather than the language of philosophical 
 exactness. It is not correct, therefore, to say that these "theolo- 
 gians of the highest authority, and of world-wide reputation 
 for orthodoxy," agree with Dr. Dods, for they do not. 
 
 Second. We dissent from, and disapprove of, the last sentence 
 but one of the report as being far too weak and altogether inade 
 quate to meet the requirements of the case. Dr. Dods has given 
 a theory of inspiration in which he has ignored the Divine author- 
 shij) of Scripture ; in which he has denied the infallible truth and 
 Divine authority thereof, at least in so far as regards the " verbal 
 expression " in which God's revelation is communicated, * and in 
 which he has brought against the Scriptures as originally given 
 charges of containing " inaccuracies," " errors and imperfections," 
 and " imperfect information." The Committee's report admits 
 that Dr. Dods " has indulged in speculation to an umcarrantahk 
 and perilous extent;" that they "are constrained to express the 
 conviction that the whole mode of representation adopted on 
 this part of the subject is serioushj objectionable ; " that Dr. Dods 
 gives an unhappy prominence to these alleged inaccuracies, that 
 he dwells on them in a way which, while far from intended, is 
 fitted to grate on the feelings of those who tremble at the Divine 
 Word ; " that " the sermon is open to grave objections in the 
 respects, and on the grounds already stated ;" that " they do not 
 wonder at the anxiety it has awakened ; " and yet the only thing 
 proposed to be done, according to this report, is to say to Dr. 
 Dods that " Prohahhj he icoidd do well not to carry the lyuhlication any 
 farther, at least in its present form.'" From this we dissent, as far 
 too weak and altogether inadequate, and submit that the sermon 
 should be disappi'oved ,of by the Presbytery, and that Dr. Dods 
 should be enjoined not to carry the publication any farther. 
 
 a. c. fullarton, andrew a. bonar, john riddell, 
 William Jeffrey, James H. Dickson. 
 
 * See preface to Sermon of Dr. Dods, p. 9 at top. 
 
54 
 
 We dissent from the report — specially from the conclusion — 
 for the following and other reasons : — 
 
 I. The report implies that, though some views are set forth in 
 a seriously objectionable manner, and in language of which the 
 Committee cannot approve, yet no opinion is expressed which in 
 itself calls for disaj)proval or censure on the part of the Presby- 
 tery. Whereas, in our judgment, the publication contains state- 
 ments contrary to, or inconsistent with, the Word of God and 
 Confession of Faith, in so far as — 
 
 1. It is asserted that there are inaccuracies and errors in some 
 parts, of Scripture, such as occur in ordinary writings through im- 
 perfect information or lapse of memory, and from the erroneous 
 impressions of the human writers regarding ordinary matters not 
 being corrected (pages 9, 10, 17, 18, 3rd edition). This is incon- 
 sistent with the Confession, which declares the Holy Scripture to 
 be the Word of God written — that God is the author thereof — 
 that it is all given by inspiration of God — and is of infallible 
 truth and divine authority (Cap. I. 1, 2, 4, 5), and contrary to the 
 teaching of Scripture, which, throughout, asserts the purity, per- 
 fection, certainty of all the words of God — Psalms, xii. 6, &c., &c., 
 &,c. Our Lord constantly appeals to the very words of Scripture 
 — "It is written" — "Howreadest thou" — "Have ye not read 
 what David did" — "The Scripture cannot be broken," &c., &c., 
 &c. 
 
 2. The special equipment ascribed to the human writers who 
 were chosen to record the revelations is nothing more than a high 
 degree of sanctifying grace, with opportunity of knowing a revela- 
 tion at first hand, and historical facts in the ordinary way (pp. 
 19, 20, 21, 22). This is not inspiration, but something essentially 
 differing from it, and is therefore contrary to the foresaid state- 
 ments of the Confession, and to the Scripture itself. 2 Tim. iii. 16, 
 1 Cor. ii. 13, &c., &c. 
 
 II. The publication as a whole, in its general scope and tenor, 
 is of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in its bearing on the 
 doctrine of inspiration, as taught in Scripture and the Confession, 
 and as hitherto understood in this church. 
 
 III. The Presbytery is therefore called to disapprove and cen- 
 sure said publication on the grounds above specified, and to require 
 that it be withdrawn. 
 
 Alex. Urquhart, Henry Anderson, E. C. Smith, 
 Egbert Gault, George Campbell. 
 
 Glasgow, 5th Nov., 1877. 
 
 I dissent from the third section of the report. 
 
 (1) Because it does not contain a sufficiently explicit condem- 
 nation of those parts of the sermon and preface which seem to 
 affirm that there are real errors in the original Scriptures. 
 
 (2) Because, while the quotations from the theological works of 
 Dr. C. Hodge and Thomas Scott are of value, inasmuch as they 
 " pretty accurately express" Dr. Dods' " view of the inaccuracies 
 
55 
 
 in Scripture," the connection in which they are introduced is such 
 as to suggest an unfjiir representation of the views of tlie respective 
 authors, seeing it is manifest from the context and from other 
 portions of their writings that neither of them admits tliat there 
 are anj^ inaccuracies in the original Scriptures, " such as occur in 
 ordinary writings through imperfect information or lapse of 
 memory." 
 
 I dissent from the conchision of the report. 
 
 (1) Because, notwithstanding tlie instructions given to the Com- 
 mittee to advise the Presbytery as to its duty in this matter and 
 the strong condemnation expressed in the report, an expression 
 of the Presbytery's disapproval of the sermon is not recommended 
 
 (2) Because advice is given to Dr. Dods as to his probable duty 
 in reference to the continued publication of the sermon, instead 
 of being given to the Presbytery as to its duty in that matter, 
 which, in my judgment, is to enjoin Dr. Dods not to carry the 
 publication any farther, at least in its present form. 
 
 Egbert Howie. 
 
 I dissent from section three, as making a use of passages from 
 the writings of Dr. C. Hodge and Thomas Scott, which is unfair 
 to the writers and may be misleading to others ; and for the same 
 reason, though in stronger degree, I dissent from section four in 
 its use of a passage from the works of Halyburton. 
 
 James Nicoll. 
 
 ROBERT MACI.EIIOSE, I'P.INTrR, aLASO.OW. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01256 6164 
 
 348270 TJJ 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45115