h If 
 
 »' . - T 
 
 
 fe■:^ 
 
 o^ -stc^-te-TT^e-n-t \<bsu^<^ on "tine- 
 
 ?S->5f^>r-^'s 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 BX 
 
 9084 
 
 .H6 
 
 1890 
 
^^ PRINCETON, N. J. •» 
 
 
 BX 9084 .H6 1890 
 Howie, Robert. 
 Reply to letter of Professoi 
 Blaikie, D.D. , LL.D. , to 
 
REPLY TO LETTEll'/^^^tj!^^ 
 
 OF ^ ''""' ^^"' '" 
 
 PROFESSOR BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 TO 
 
 REV. ANDREW A. BONAR, D.D. 
 
 ON STATEMENT ISSUED 
 
 ON THE DODS AND BRUCE CASES. 
 
 REV. ROBERT HOWIE, M.A. 
 
 SECOND EDITION WITH POSTSCRIPT, 
 COMPLETING FIVE THOUSAND. 
 
 GLASGOW : 
 
 DAVID BRYCE AND SON. 
 
 EDINBUKGH: ANDREW ELLIOT. 
 
 1890. 
 
 PRICE SIXPENCE. 
 
1 
 
EEPLY. 
 
 The following letters to Dr. Blaikie on the Dods and Bruce cases 
 (Appendix 1.) were sent to him in reply to letters received 
 from him immediately after the rising of last Assembly. As 
 his letters to me related to a public question, and to my action 
 in public, and as he had written to me twelve years before on 
 the same subject (in connection with the former case against 
 Dr. Dods, while two years afterwards he again opened communi- 
 cations regarding it), I intimated to him that, on this occasion, 
 / reserved my right to puUisli my replies, and at the same 
 time requested permission to publish his letters to me. That 
 permission he refused, on the ground that his letters to me 
 were " private," and that if they had been intended for publi- 
 cation they would have been written in a different form. At 
 the same time, he intimated that he was anxiously considering 
 the duty of bringing some views on the subject before the 
 public. So long as he advocated his views in private, I did not 
 feel at liberty to drag them to light, notwithstanding the special 
 reservation of my right to publish my side of the correspondence. 
 Now, however, that he has in his Letter to Dr. Bonar, just 
 published, animadverted on the " Statement " for which, equally 
 with Dr. Bonar and others, I am responsible, and has, at the 
 same time, given expression, though in a somewhat more 
 expanded form, to the views previously communicated to me, I 
 feel that I do him no injustice when I now publish my letters. 
 I do this the rather because it will be seen that, hy anticipation, 
 I have in these letters replied to the leading statements in 
 
regard to Holy Scripture made iu the published Letter to Dr. 
 Bonar. 
 
 Though I regret to differ from Dr. Blaikie, for whom I have 
 a high personal regard, I am not sorry that, by the publication 
 of his Letter to Dr. Bonar, he has thrown new light upon the 
 real meaning and import of the deliverance of last Assembly, 
 in the case of Dr. Dods, as also by implication in the case of 
 Dr. Bruce, though, strange to say, he has not a word about 
 the latter — except on the Title-page. 
 
 This complete silence on the part of Dr. Blaikie in regard to 
 the latter case, as also in regard to the views of Dr. Dods on 
 the Divinity, Atonement, and Resurrection of our Lord, is very 
 noteworthy, the more especially when account is taken of the 
 large amount of space occupied by references to these matters 
 in the " Statement " so severely criticized. How is his com- 
 plete silence on these points to be explained ? Is it because 
 Dr. Blaikie felt that, even with his own loose views on 
 Inspiration, and his eagerness to vindicate his colleague to the 
 utmost, he could not conscientiously say a single word in the 
 way of defending or even apologizing for the statements made 
 by Dr. Dods in regard to the Divinity, Atonement, and Eesur- 
 rection of our Lord, and that he could far less justify, even to 
 the smallest extent, the utterances of Dr. Bruce referred to in 
 the " Statement " ? If these were the reasons for the ominous 
 silence of Dr. Blaikie on these points, surely as he seeks to ex- 
 plain his vote in the case of Dr. Dods (with what amount of 
 success I leave the readers of his Letter to judge) it was still 
 more imperative on him to try also to explain his vote in the 
 case of Dr. Bruce, in favour of a motion which not only 
 declares that there is " no ground for a process against him 
 as teaching doctrine opposed to the Standards of the Church," 
 but " represents feebly and inadequately the gravity of the case," 
 and even " fails to give adequate expression to the strongly con- 
 demnatory opinion of the College Sub-Committee." 
 
 But whatever his reasons for so complete a silence in the 
 case of Dr. Bruce, the interpretation he gives of the meaning 
 of the deliverance in the case of Dr. Dods, and the explanation 
 he gives of his own vote, show very clearly the justice of the 
 severe strictures passed on that deliverance by those who 
 
compiled the " Statement." I know that an earnest attempt 
 has been made since last Assembly to quiet the fears and 
 anxieties of those who were alarmed by the continual 
 reiteration, by Dr. Dods, of the view that there were " errors " 
 in the Scriptures as originally given, and of the view that 
 some of the things " commended, or even commanded " in the 
 Old Testament were " immoralities." They have been given 
 to understand that the deliverance of the Assembly con- 
 tained an emphatic condemnation of the views in question, and 
 that no minister or professor of the Church would dare, after 
 such a condemnation, to propagate these views anew in public. 
 In proof of these averments, their attention has been called to 
 the terms of the deliverance, viz. : " She (the Church) views the 
 use of the term 'mistakes and immoralities' to describe recognized 
 difficulties in the Scriptures as utterly unwarranted, and fitted 
 to give grave offence." They have been assured, moreover, that 
 the opening words of the deliverance (viz., that " The writings 
 •of Dr. Dods do not afford ground for instituting a process 
 against him as teaching what is at variance with the Standards 
 of the Church") do not grant ecclesiastical toleration to his 
 views in regard to Holy Scripture, but simply mean that, in 
 the judgment of the Assembly, it was not advisable or expe- 
 dient to institute a process. 
 
 If the anxieties of any have been really allayed by such a 
 mode of interpreting the deliverance of the Assembly, the 
 published Letter of Dr. Blaikie will doubtless come to them as 
 a strange surprise. It will show them what is the real meaning 
 to be attached to that deliverance. It will give them, more- 
 over, most convincing proof that the very views in regard to 
 Holy Scripture, supposed by them to be condemned and not 
 tolerated, are now publicly re-affirmed and even defended at 
 great length. These views have been so re-affirmed by Dr. 
 Dods in an article in the British Weekly, of date October 
 2, 1890. That article (which so flagrantly misrepresents 
 the opinions of those opposed to him, whom he describes as 
 " uninstructed Evangelicals," who " have been combining with 
 Secularists, Atheists, and anti-Christians in general, to betray 
 the Christian position ") is only what, in view of his previous 
 misrepresentations and " intemperate " utterances, might have 
 
been expected of Dr. Dods, and proves conclusively that he 
 at least does not intend to be silenced in regard to his favourite 
 tenets by the deliverance of last Assembly. The attitude now 
 publicly assumed by Dr. Blaikie will probably be of still greater 
 use in opening the eyes of the public to the real meaning and 
 import of that deliverance. When it is seen that he publicly 
 adopts, and even argues in defence of the views supposed to 
 be condemned by the Assembly, and justifies his joining in that 
 apparent condemnation, on the ground that it referred not to 
 the views themselves, but simply to the "form and manner" 
 in which they were expressed by Dr. Dods ; when, moreover, 
 he complains that even in this qualified condemnation there 
 was exhibited, on the part of the Assembly, a tendency to 
 " hysterics," it will doubtless be generally felt that a deliver- 
 ance so skilfully constructed as to enable its supporters thus 
 " to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare " cannot 
 carry much weight, either as a condemnation of error, or as a 
 vindication of Divine truth. I am curious to know whether 
 Drs. Adam and Eainy endorse the interpretation now publicly 
 given by Dr. Blaikie of the meaning of the deliverance of the 
 Assembly. 
 
 In his Letter to Dr. Bonar, Dr. Blaikie stigmatizes as a "most 
 uncharitable document," the " Statement " on which he animad- 
 verts. He rebukes us for being " so combative," " when we 
 might be conciliatory." He is " amazed " because those who 
 subscribe the " Statement " venture, in a perfectly respectful 
 manner, to intimate to their brethren that "grave questions will 
 arise as to the possibility of a Church whose members are not 
 at one on matters so fundamental continuing united," if, after the 
 use of all competent means, " an equally authoritative declara- 
 tion" cannot be obtained from a future Assembly, such as will 
 rectify the wrong done by last Assembly, and make it manifest 
 that the Church still believes (even as she asks her ministers 
 and professors to declare, before ordination or induction, that 
 they believe) " the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to 
 be the Word of God ; " that " God (who is Truth itself) " is the 
 "Author thereof"; and that, as given by their Divine Author, 
 they are of "infallible truth and Divine authority." 
 
 Without fear of contradiction, I venture to say tliat Dr. 
 
Blaikie is the last man in the Church who should express him- 
 self in the way I have j ast indicated. In his first letter to me, 
 of date April 20, 1878 — a letter to which no mark of privacy 
 was attached — he informed me that if the views were "enforced" 
 which I then publicly advocated in regard to Holy Scripture, 
 and which were the same as those I now advocate, he " should 
 have to leave the Church, or at least resign" his "professorship." 
 Moreover at last Assembly we were told that our request could 
 not be granted, when some of us urged the leaders to omit the 
 opening statement from the motion of Dr. Adam, and when we 
 assured them that if that were done, we could see our way to 
 vote for it, believing, as we did, that in the body of the motion 
 there was a lond fide condemnation of the views of Dr. Dods 
 in regard to Holy Scripture, and not merely of the "form 
 of expression." We could have done this, without doing 
 violence to our consciences, though we did not regard it, even 
 when thus amended, as entirely satisfactory. The main reason 
 given for the refusal of our request was that some of those 
 consulted in the framing of the motion, and who were expected 
 to support it, would on no account agree to such an omission 
 of what was considered by them its most essential part. In 
 this connection the name of Dr. Blaikie transpired. We were 
 told that if the opening words were omitted, some 300 ministers 
 might leave the Church, or might require to be taken under 
 discipline. In view of these facts, it ill becomes Dr. Blaikie to 
 rebuke his brethren for the want of a " conciliatory" spirit, and 
 for hinting " ominously at a coming disruption." 
 
 Those who have issued the "Statement" do not wish "disrup- 
 tion," far less do their words imply secession. For myself I 
 would deplore even " disruption " as one of the greatest of 
 calamities, and will do all I conscientiously can to pre- 
 vent it. 
 
 In point of fact, as I have the means of knowing, the 
 issuing of our " Statement," so far from tending to bring about 
 a " disruption," has meanwhile prevented many persons from at 
 once leaving the Church in consequence of the decisions of last 
 Assembly, affording as it does a means of publicly protesting 
 against these decisions, and thus, so far, giving present relief to 
 aggrieved consciences. As showing, on the one hand, the 
 
- 8 
 
 strength of couviction held on this subject, and on the other, 
 that the " Statement " is not extreme, it is noteworthy 
 that almost the only objections taken to it have been that our 
 strictures on the decisions of the Assembly are not severe 
 enough, and that the action we propose is not sufficiently 
 energetic. ■ Not a few are displeased, and some have even 
 withheld their adherence to the " Statement," because in 
 it we do not commit ourselves to an immediate " agita- 
 tion " through public meetings, but rather propose that " in 
 the first instance " an opportunity should be given to the 
 radical courts of the Church of saying whether they are pre- 
 pared to overture next General Assembly to rectify the wrong 
 done by last Assembly — in so far as it can be rectified — by 
 giving, apart from the views of individuals, a clear and unam- 
 biguous declaration of the belief of the Church in regard to 
 Holy Scripture — a declaration in harmony (1) with the doctrine 
 hitherto maintained by the Church, (2) with the plain import 
 of the Confession of Faith, (3) with the testimony of Scrip- 
 ture regarding itself, and (4) with the testimony of our Lord 
 Himself. 
 
 But while those who compiled the " Statement " have thus 
 done their best to prevent the separation of individuals from 
 the Church, and even " agitation " through public meetings, 
 until it is seen whether the Church Courts are prepared to take 
 any action in the matter, it is just as well that our brethren 
 should know, that there are certain truths so vital and funda- 
 mental — so connected with the honour of God — so intertwined 
 with all our personal hopes of salvation, and the maintenance 
 of which is so essential to the true prosperity of the Church 
 and the success of the Gospel ministry — that many of us 
 could not, with a good conscience, continue permanently in 
 connection with a Church which, after her testimony in 
 regard to them has been tarnished, would persistently refuse 
 to give, when asked to do so, a clear and unambiguous declara- 
 tion of her belief in regard to them. 
 
 And the truths which Dr. Blaikie seems to controvert in his 
 Letter to Dr. Bonar are of that nature. 
 
 Dr. Blaikie represents the issuing of the " Statement " as a 
 " new agitation," which Dr. Bonar and others " propose to 
 
institute," and declares that it " will keep up noise, discontent, 
 and strife, without succeeding in its aim." 
 
 The agitation is not " new," and the responsibility for it and 
 for the " noise, discontent, and strife," with which it has been, 
 or may yet be accompanied, must be placed on the right 
 shoulders. Dr. Blaikie himself wiote thus to an American 
 paper at the beginning of this year : — " There is a strong feeling 
 against him (i.e., Dr. Dods), too, for having caused so much pain 
 to good men, and so much disturbance to the Church without 
 any attempt to mitigate the distress he occasioned." And yet 
 Dr. Blaikie now joins him in causing pain to good men, and 
 seeks to blame them for the " disturbance " it may occasion. 
 
 In the days of Israel's degeneracy, Ahab put the question, "Art 
 thou he that trouble th Israel ? " He was quickly silenced by the 
 cutting response of the fearless prophet of Jehovah : — " I have 
 not troubled Israel ; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye 
 have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast 
 followed Baalim." 
 
 Commenting on these words, and referring specially to the 
 state of things in Germany, where the views so strenuously 
 defended by Dr. Blaikie had their origin and in which their 
 full effect has become manifest, Krummacher writes as follows: 
 — " "What is the sin which Elijah expressly holds up to him as 
 the proper source of the whole calamity ? Is it his intemper- 
 ance, his covetousness, his frivolity, his unchaste life ? No, it 
 is his shameless unbelief; it is his wanton departure from 
 God's Word and statutes ; it is his blasphemous contempt of 
 what the living God had revealed and appointed in the world. 
 Blessed God, if this be the deepest crime, and the blackest 
 guilt in God's sight ; if, for this cause. He visits nations and 
 countries and cities with fire and sword ; what have we to 
 look for in an age wherein the forsaking of God's statutes is 
 become the fashion, and a heathenish rationalism has found its 
 way into the very cottage and the workshop; when the language 
 of the wicked servant, ' we will not have this man to reign 
 over us,' is becoming always more general, and the sound of 
 error is heard from so many pulpits and seats of learning, 
 from the highest to the lowest, as a real voice of Baal ; in 
 which true Christianity, the belief of the forgiveness of sins 
 
10 
 
 through the blood of the Lamb, is so frequently branded as 
 mysticism; and the real life of the soul in the Holy Ghost, 
 the life of love to the Saviour, and walking in His footsteps, 
 is so often decried as fanaticism ; and when Baal has so many 
 worshippers, who, in the gloom of Pantheism or Atheism, 
 scatter their incense in his nostrils, and build him altars ? 
 How will it at length fare with such a generation, if we do not 
 in good time fall weeping before the uplifted rod in the hand 
 of the great Preserver of men ? " 
 
 Very likely Dr. Blaikie may be ready to reply that this 
 state of things in Germany is only one of the illustrations of 
 how " it is quite possible that any concession on inspiration 
 would be taken advantage of by some for illegitimate pur- 
 poses." In view of his contention on this point, it is surely a 
 somewhat suggestive and startling coincidence, that in the very 
 number of the British Weekly (that, viz., of Oct. 30). which 
 contains a highly laudatory notice of the Letter of Dr. Blaikie 
 to Dr. Bonar, there is placed alongside of it the following 
 statement, which shows that in -HolLtnd " concessions on 
 inspiration " have produced the same kind of fruit as in 
 Germany : — " The goal of ' the followers of the more advanced 
 school of New Testament studies ' in Holland has surely been 
 reached. We are informed by the Scottish Bcview that a new 
 handbook of religious instruction has been published there, 
 the writer of which thus summarizes for Dutch children the 
 facts underlying the Gospel : ' All that can be said to be 
 historically certain is that there lived among the Jews of the 
 past days, a commanding religious personality, to the partial 
 narrative of whose life various spirits felt themselves drawn 
 to contribute.' Here is a power unto salvation ! Some 
 among ourselves are looking with hope to something remarkably 
 like it." 
 
 When such admissions as to the practical outcome in Holland 
 of " concessions on inspiration " find their way even into the 
 columns of the British Weekly, Drs. Dods, Bruce, and Blaikie 
 ought to beware lest similar advantage be taken by-and-bye 
 in Scotland, of the concessions they make or endorse, and thus 
 that they be held responsible before God and man for like 
 disastrous results of their teaching. 
 
11 
 
 After his striking article on " The Old Pulpit and the New " 
 (in The Theological Eeviciv of April last), I am " amazed " that 
 Dr. Blaikie should stigmatize, as " an argument of unbelief," 
 all that appears in the "Statement" under the third heading, 
 viz., " Because the view now tolerated alters entirely the re- 
 lation of the Church and of the individual to the Scriptures, 
 and is sure to lead to their rejection even as a Rule of Faith 
 and Life." 
 
 It would have been more to the point if he had attempted 
 to meet the argument as it is there put. But that apart, in 
 the article to which I have referred. Dr. Blaikie more than 
 justifies the anxiety felt by many of his brethren as to the 
 possible developments of " the new critical views." He admits 
 that grave changes in the preaching of our younger ministers 
 have already taken place. He begins his article by telling 
 how he had, at the close of the preceding session, protested 
 against a charge made by a correspondent of The Noncon- 
 formist, viz., that " It was notorious that many of the younger 
 ministers of the Free Church had not only adopted the new 
 critical views, but had entirely given up the old evangelical 
 lines, and were preaching in a strain not a whit higher than 
 that of the late Dean Stanley." Six months after he had thus 
 uttered his protest, he is constrained to say : — " I am not sure 
 that I should have written so decidedly to-day as I did then." 
 " There is a change," he adds, " in the preaching of many of 
 the younger ministers of the Free Church, though it is far 
 from amounting to what has been alleged." Thereafter he 
 goes on to describe "the change" in words that form a severe 
 accusation against the younger ministers of a Church, that has 
 hitherto been specially distinguished for its fearless proclama- 
 tion of evangelical doctrine. "It is not," he says, "like a 
 return to the cold and heartless moderatism of last century. 
 It is often the preaching of earnest men bent on raising the 
 spiritual and moral life of their people. The complaint that I 
 hear against it is that there is not much of Christ in it ; or, 
 if He be set forth, it is His Person and personal influence 
 that are dwelt on ; but there is not much of His Atonement, 
 nor of the plan of Salvation for lost sinners. It does not deal 
 with men as children of wrath who have to be saved from 
 
12 
 
 condemnation. It does not make evident the difference 
 between the converted and unconverted, and seldom appeals 
 to men on the ground that * they must be born again.' It 
 would rather improve men and raise them up heavenward 
 than regenerate them . . . With reference to this style of 
 preaching, the complaint that older hearers make is that while 
 Christ is presented very fully as an example and as an influence, 
 He is not brought prominently forward as an atoning Saviour. 
 It is also complained that often, in historical and expository 
 lectures, amid much that is most interesting, there is little or 
 no mention of Christ at all." 
 
 This style of preaching Dr. Blaikie powerfully contrasts with 
 that of Disruption times, and utters such seasonable and 
 wholesome warnings as to the disastrous results that may be 
 expected to follow, that for the service thus rendered he 
 deserves the cordial thanks of all who love the old Gospel and 
 the truth as it is in Jesus. 
 
 But when Dr. Blaikie thus wrote as to these new-born ten- 
 dencies in the Free Church pulpit, I wonder that it never 
 occurred to him that such preaching as he deprecates is but the 
 natural outcome of the views in regard to Holy Scripture he 
 now advocates in his Letter to Dr. Bonar. At all events, seeing 
 he has felt it to be his duty to sound the note of alarm in 
 connection with " the new " pulpit, I humbly submit that he 
 need not be quite so irate when his brethren utter their solemn, 
 united, public protest against the new views of inspiration, 
 which in other lands have not only led to " the entire subver- 
 sion both of the objective truth and the binding authority of 
 the Bible," but to the repudiation of evangelical doctrine, and 
 even to the denial of the Supernatural. (See Appendix II.) 
 
 He tells us that we should desist, because, forsooth, our 
 " agitation will keep up noise, discontent, and strife, without 
 succeeding in its aim." 
 
 I have yet to learn that success in obtaining majorities 
 in Church Courts is the standard of duty in bearing testi- 
 mony to Divine truth. Martyrs, Confessors, and Covenanters 
 did not so reason. Elijah did not so reason when alone he 
 confronted, on the heights of Carmel, the 450 prophets of 
 Baal. Notwithstanding the disparity in numbers, he did the 
 
13 
 
 very thing which Dr. Blaikie seems to deprecate. He made an 
 appeal to the people. He sought to rouse their consciences 
 against the prevailing idolatry. Nor was the appeal in vain. 
 Jehovah answered by fire. " And when all the people saw it 
 they fell on their faces : and they said, The Lord He is the God; 
 the Lord He is the God." 
 
 The Lord God of Elijah can yet answer by fire, in a still 
 more glorious manner — can baptize with the Holy Ghost and 
 with fire — and can, with such a baptism, give experimental pi oof, 
 even to "common people," that the Bible is indeed His own AVord 
 of " infallible truth and Divine authority." Dr. Blaikie should 
 not be quite so confident, therefore, that failure will attend our 
 testimony among the people, even though, as he predicts, the 
 Church Courts (to whom, in the first instance, we intend to make 
 our appeal) should unhappily decide by majorities in favour of the 
 views he publicly defends, — even though a majority of the minis- 
 ters of the Free Church of Scotland should declare that they 
 personally hold that there were " errors " in the Scriptures as 
 originally given, and that " immoralities " were " commended, or 
 even commanded," in the Old Testament. • 
 
 From the oracular manner in which Dr. Blaikie declares 
 that, " carried out to its proper conclusions," our " Statement " 
 " would require a majority of the ministers of our Church to be 
 subjected to discipline," it is plain that he has persuaded him- 
 self that all who voted for the motion of Mr. Pienny in last 
 Assembly, and a great many more, personally hold the views 
 in regard to Holy Scripture which he publicly defends. 
 
 Considering the ability and prominent position of those who 
 propagate these views ; the special access they have to the re- 
 ceptive minds of young men now studying for the holy ministry ; 
 the apologies made for these views even by ecclesiastical leaders 
 who declare that they personally dislike them ; the sanction 
 given them by the declaration of last Assembly as not being 
 "at variance widi the Standards of the Church"; the le- 
 putation for culture and scholarship a young man obtains 
 through espousing them ; the adulation which is sure to be 
 lavished by a certain class of newspapers on the man 
 who thus throws old-fashioned beliefs to the winds ; the con- 
 tempt and scorn poured on those who dare to stand in the old 
 
14 
 
 paths, even though it be in fulfilment of solemn ordination 
 vows — considering all these things, I am prepared to admit that 
 the amount of sympath}^ manifested (especially among the 
 younger ministers of the Church) with the new views of Holy 
 Scripture now advocated by Drs. Dods, Bruce, and Blaikie, is 
 alarming enough. 
 
 But after making due allowance for all the untoward and 
 powerful forces at work, I will not believe that a majority of 
 the ministers of the Free Church personally hold that there 
 were " errors " and " immoralities " in the original Scriptures, 
 until I see it demonstrated by a decisive vote on the merits of 
 the question at issue — a vote uninfluenced by the engaging 
 personality of a Professor, and in wiiich the Church will 
 simply declare her own testimony to the "infallible truth 
 and Divine Authority " of the Word of God, in all its 
 statements — its statements of fact, as well as of doctrine and 
 duty. 
 
 I am confirmed in the belief that things are not yet quite 
 so bad as they seem, because not a few of those who 
 voted for the motion of Mr. Eenny (including even some 
 most prominent in its advocacy), have assured me, since 
 the Assembly, that they personally agree with the views 
 I advocate, and that equally with myself they condemn the 
 views of Dr. Dods. They usually add, that they condemn 
 still more emphatically the views of Dr. Bruce. So many indeed 
 have thus spoken to me, that I still cling to the hope that 
 when, in our Church Courts and in the Confession of Faith 
 Committee, the matter comes up for discussion, it may happily 
 yet be found that among our ministers generally, and even 
 among our Professors, there is, after all, less divergence of view 
 than at present appears. 
 
 I cling the rather to this hope, because the published Letter 
 of Dr. Blaikie shows plainly that he occupies an utterly un- 
 tenable position on this whole question — a position from which 
 I hope he will be driven as the controversy proceeds. He 
 makes certain admissions in regard to the Word of God which 
 are utterly inconsistent with the view for which he so eagerly 
 contends throughout his Letter. It is evident, moreover, that 
 he is labouring under some misconceptions as to the views of 
 
15 
 
 those whose " Statement " he criticises. These misconceptions 
 seem to warp his judgment on the question as a whole. 
 
 It is true that he has so profited by what I said iii my 
 first letter on the point, that at length he has got rid of 
 the delusion that those opposed to Dr. Dods contend for 
 " verbal dictation," or, in other words, for the " theory of 
 mechanical inspiration," He is at last candid enough to 
 admit that the theory in question "is now all but abandoned." 
 As this " theory of mechanical inspiration " is the man of 
 straw at which the batteries of Dr. Dods and his supporters 
 have for years been directed, let us hope that when, on 
 the testimony of Dr. Blaikie, they discover that such a theory 
 is "now all but abandoned," they will forthwith cease from 
 industriously placing a false issue before the Church, by repre- 
 senting us as contending for that theory. I adhere to what I 
 published on this point 1 2 years ago : — " I know of no one who 
 holds such a theory. For myself, I cannot apply the word 
 ' mechanical ' either to the Spirit of God or to the spirit of 
 man.' On tlie contrary, we hold that the sacred writers were 
 not machines in any sense ; that their mental powers were not 
 superseded ; that there was no interference with the exercise of 
 their distinctive mental peculiarities and idiosyncrasies. In- 
 stead of holding the mechanical theory, we will do all we can 
 to prevent the Church from being committed to any theory on 
 the subject. What we deem essential is not the mode, but tlie 
 product of inspiration, viz., a Book of ' infallible truth and Divine 
 authority.' " 
 
 But while Dr. Blaikie at length admits that " the theory of 
 mechanical inspiration" is "now all but abandoned," he criticises 
 our " Statement," on the supposition that somehow we are 
 seeking to commit the Church to the views of Dr. Cunningham 
 or of Dr. Hodge, or to what has been called " plenary verbal 
 inspiration." Now, while it is doubtless true that many who 
 subscribe the " Statement " do believe in " verbal inspiration,** 
 (even as Dr. Blaikie in a letter written to me ten years ago said, 
 in correction of a statement previously made by him, — " I do 
 believe in verbal inspiration, what I cannot receive is verbal 
 dictation ") it is a noteworthy fact that from the beginning to 
 the end of the " Statement," there is not a single word commit- 
 
16 
 
 ting any one who signs it to " verhal inspiration," far less any 
 proposal to commit the Church to it. What we contend for 
 is such a doctrine of inspiration as implies immunity from 
 error for all the statements of the Scriptures as originally 
 given. In other words, we accept the phraseology employed by 
 the College Sub-Committee in describing the views of some of 
 its members. We " believe all statements of the original 
 Scriptures to be true in the sense divinely intended : that 
 sense being also consistent with a fair use of words, within the 
 range of legitimate human speech." We are simply amazed 
 that there should be a single member of the College Committee 
 who does not accept that as a statement of his personal belief. 
 So little, moreover, do we contend, as Dr. Blaikie supposes we 
 do, for " ipsissima verba," in the case of reported speeches, that 
 we go out of our way to express agreement with the College 
 Sub-Committee when it makes the following statement, which I 
 now quote in extenso because of its value in this connection : — 
 "While different views may be taken of the doctrine of 
 Inspiration, all views alike are consistent with admitting 
 different accounts of the same transactions. Accounts may 
 vary in the expression, in the fulness or the compression of 
 the report, in the aspects which receive emphasis or prominence, 
 and yet be all alike true, and each valuable in its own kind and 
 from its own point of view. As regards reports of sayings 
 and discourses, inspiration does not guarantee verbatim report- 
 ing, more than any other kind of reporting. Discourses may 
 be reproduced (more or less fully) in the very words used, or 
 only in their effect and substance ; and there is no reason why 
 inspiration should not avail itself of any or all of the ways in 
 which reliable accounts can be given. It is of some import- 
 ance for the expositor to judge correctly on what principle the 
 reports he deals with have been framed." 
 
 I have italicized the words " all alike true," because they 
 constitute the pivot on which this controversy turns. We affirm 
 that whatever variety there may be in the forms of expression, 
 the accounts are " all alike true," and especially that they are 
 " true in the sense divinely intended ; that sense being also 
 consistent with a fair use of words, within the range of legitimate 
 human speech." We hold that there may be a true summary of 
 
17 
 
 a discourse as vxll as a true verbatim report. We hold further 
 that there may be a true record of the sayings of men or 
 devils, even though these sayings may themselves be untrue^ 
 for they may be truthfully recorded under the guidance of the 
 inspiring Spirit, in order that they may be refuted by counter- 
 statements of Divine truth, or in order that human or Satanic 
 wickedness may be set in a true light. 
 
 Dr. Blaikie writes as if we contended that the Bible 
 is the Word of God, in the sense of containing only the 
 direct utterances of God Himself, as the immediate speaker for 
 the time being. As, twelve years ago, I approvingly quoted 
 the statement of Dr. Fairbairn bearing on this point, cited in 
 my second letter, and as I then said that " We all hold 
 that there are other things in the Bible beside ' Divine Pievela- 
 tion strictly so-called ; ' " that " it contains a record of human 
 affairs, of the sayings and doings of men and angels, as well 
 as of the sayings and doings of God," I am at a loss to know 
 why Dr. Blaikie should so express himself as to imply that we 
 hold that there is nothing else in the Bible but " God's very 
 words." 
 
 I am also at a loss to know why he should seek to make it 
 appear that we deny that there was the use, by inspired writers, 
 of "pre-existing ""uninspired writings or statements." Dr. Blaikie 
 asks, "What are we to infer" from the fact of the incorporation 
 of these into the Scriptures ? His own reply is, " Simply that the 
 Holy Ghost guaranteed their substantial accuracy and allowed 
 their use, but not that He stood sponsor for every word." 
 Who, I wonder, ever supposed that when " pre-existing Docu- 
 ments " were used, or when " quotations are given from Greek 
 and other pagan poets," the documents so used or the words so 
 quoted were " inspired," or that the Holy Ghost " stood sponsor 
 for every word " ? 
 
 When in these pages, of which I am undoubtedly the 
 author, I quote here and there, sentences from the Letter of Dr, 
 Blaikie, do I thereby become " sponsor for every word " I quote, 
 or do I even guarantee " the substantial accuracy " of what is 
 quoted ? No ; I quote some sentences with the view of showing 
 that Dr. Blaikie makes statements, not merely substantially, but 
 totally inaccurate, and I become "sponsor" neither for his words, 
 
18 
 
 nor for his ideas, by the mere act of quoting. Everything 
 depends on the use I make of the quotations in my own produc- 
 tion, whether in the way of approval or of disapproval. If I make 
 a quotation from his Letter, and express approval of the idea or 
 truth it contains, I become to that extent " sponsor " for that, 
 but even in this case, every one knows that the idea or truth 
 is expressed not in my words, but in the words of Dr. Blaikie. 
 On the other hand, if I express disapproval of the idea or truth 
 contained in the quotation, I become " sponsor " not for it, but 
 for what I say in its refutation. Apply these plain common- 
 sense principles to the Word of God, and there can be no diffi- 
 culty in seeing that Dr. Fairbairn is right when he says that, 
 "In speaking of the inspiration of Scripture, respect must be 
 had to the distinctive characteristics of its several parts. And 
 where the sentiment uttered, or the circumstances recorded, can- 
 not, from its obvious connection or import, be ascribed to God, 
 the inspiration of the writer is to be viewed as appearing 
 simply in the faithfulness of the record, or the adaptation of 
 the matter contained in it to its place in the sacred volume. 
 Were it but a human idea, or a thought even from the bottom- 
 less pit, yet the right setting of the idea, or the just treatment 
 of the thought, may as truly require the guidance of the 
 unerring Spirit, as the report of a message from the upper 
 Sanctuary." 
 
 If Dr. Blaikie had kept in view these obvious distinctions, 
 he would not have ventured to cite the admitted use of pre- 
 existing materials as his first argument in proof of the view 
 that there were " errors " in the Scriptures as originally given. 
 A more grotesque line of argument, than the one followed on 
 that point, I cannot well conceive, betraying as it does from 
 first to last the strangest confusion of ideas. 
 
 In order to make out a case of so-called " error " under that 
 head. Dr. Blaikie says that the Holy Ghost " accepted " 
 " Matthew's forty-two generations, or three fourteens (Matt. i. 
 17), copied doubtless from the national archives, although we 
 know that there are omissions in them, rendering them not 
 absolutely correct." Here he assumes that there was error in 
 the national archives copied by Matthew, and " accepted " or 
 endorsed by the Holy Ghost. 
 
19 
 
 Surely another explanation might be given, viz., that although 
 there was no error whatever in the national archives (and 
 it is not likely that there was), Matthew, for a special purpose, 
 made a selection from them, under the guidance of the Holy 
 Ghost, and that the genealogy as given by him is " true in the 
 sense divinely intended " — the divine intention obviously being 
 not to give all the links in the chain of our Lord's descent from 
 Adam, but simply to give as many as would show, in fulfilment 
 of the Divine promise, His unbroken descent, first from Adam 
 through the line of Seth to Xoah ; then from Noah through tlie 
 line of Shem to Abraham ; then through the line of Isaac, 
 Jacob, Judah, and David to Christ. With such an end in view, 
 only such details were given as were needed, but all given are 
 " true in the sense divinely intended." Matthew does not pro- 
 fess to give every link, and so" far from copying the im- 
 probable " error " of the national archives, Alford is doubtless 
 right when, commenting on verse 2, he says that " these 
 additions " (and his brethren) " probably indicate that IMatthew 
 did not take his genealogy from any family or public docu- 
 ments, but constructed it himself." 
 
 The division in Matthew's table into three fourteens is in 
 perfect accordance with a very common practice among the 
 Jews respecting genealogies. They thus resorted to artificial 
 arrangements for the purpose of assisting the memory. 
 As Dr. Fairbairn says, "Arrangements of this sort would 
 naturally lead to abbreviations of some of the divisions ; 
 as here, in the second portion of Matthew's table, three 
 links are left out to restrict the number to fourteen. 
 It is very probable, also, that some were omitted in the 
 last division ; since for the fourteen of Matthew, we have 
 twenty-two in Luke. But such omissions were constantly 
 made in the genealogical tables, even when there was no such 
 purpose to be served by it ; and was indeed rendered necessary 
 by the inconvenient length to which the tables, when kept in 
 full, often extended." Let the expositor once get hold of the 
 principle on which Matthew, under the guidance of the inspiring 
 Spirit, proceeded in constructing his table, and I defy him to 
 prove that there is any statement whatever made by Matthew 
 " not absolutely correct." 
 
20 
 
 The second argument used by Dr. Blaikie in favour of the 
 view that there were errors in the original Scriptures, that, 
 viz., based on " quotations," is equally inept and inconclusive. 
 
 The fact referred to by him in connection with quotations 
 from other parts of Scripture is not disputed. We all admit 
 that " the quotation often differs from the original." But the 
 question here is not as to the fact, but as to the proper 
 explanation of the fact, and the inference to be drawn from 
 it. Such a practice is no proof whatever that there were 
 " errors " in the Scriptures as originally given, and one is sur- 
 prised that Dr. Blaikie should seek to use it for such a pur- 
 pose. When it is remembered that the Bible, although written 
 by different human autliors, had one Divine Author throughout, 
 any difficulty which the fact occasions immediately disappears. 
 Just as Dr. Blaikie himself may, in other of his writings, 
 (in a different connection, in a somewhat modified form, and 
 for a slightly different purpose) cite an idea to which he had 
 formerly given expression, so under " the guidance and 
 sanction of the Holy Spirit," as Dr. Blaikie admits, " the New 
 Testament writers did make the modifications, on the ground 
 that they conveyed the spirit and substance of the passages 
 in a form perhaps better adapted to their immediate purpose." 
 
 The Divine Author of Scripture had doubtless important 
 ends to serve in thus guiding inspired writers in making such 
 deviations from the original. " Some of the deviations," says 
 Dr. Fairbairn, " are chiefly to be regarded as notes of 
 time, and on that account serve an important purpose (as 
 in Deut. v. compared with Exod. xx., showing the former to 
 have been meant to be a substantial, though not slavish 
 rehearsal of the latter). Others may be regarded as proofs 
 of the individuality of the writers — itself also in certain 
 respects a matter of considerable importance — and of their 
 desire to bring out some specific shades of meaning, which 
 might otherwise have been overlooked. Many of them find 
 their solution in the change of circumstances which rendered a 
 sort of explanatory or paraphrastic rendering of the original 
 advisable and proper. And while nothing in respect to doctrine 
 or duty is ever built on the variations introduced into passages, 
 subsequently employed or quoted, while often the greatest 
 
21 
 
 stress in tliose respects is laid upon the precise words of the 
 original, the freedom thus manifested in the handling of 
 Scripture is itself fraught with an important lesson, serving as 
 a kind of protest against the rigid formalism and a-aperstitious 
 regard for the letter, which prevailed among the rabbinical 
 Jews. Unlike these, the New Testament writers always exhibit 
 the deepest and most correct insight into the spirit and design 
 of the Old Testament passages they refer to, even when 
 showing an apparent disregard of the precise form. They showed, 
 as Auberlen remarks, that they knew how to read, as well as 
 to write Scripture. So that, when the matter is fully con- 
 sidered, and weighed in all its bearings, there is nothing in it 
 that militates against the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of 
 Scripture." {Bible Dictionary, p. 791.) 
 
 Dr. Blaikie says, that " Whatever alterations, therefore, the 
 inspired writers of the New Testament made must be held to liave 
 been within the true scope of the passages, and in harmony with 
 the view of inspiration held by those to whom they were writing. 
 They were not bound to the ipsissuna vcrha." Why should 
 they be bound to the ipsissima verba, or who affirms that 
 they were ? " Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 
 He is surely as free as any merely human author to 
 convey, through inspired writers, the same truth, in a slightly 
 altered form of expression, better adapted to another context. 
 Dr. Blaikie says that " this recognized a certain Hexibility in the 
 original words not consistent with the rigid doctrine of inspira- 
 tion." If affirming, as we do, that " all statements of the original 
 Scriptures are true in the sense divinely intended," " is the rigid 
 doctrine of inspiration " here referred to, I fail to see how the 
 modification in the New Testament of the phraseology of any 
 passage quoted from the Old is inconsistent therewith. I may 
 cite any passage, even from another writer, so as to convey 
 accurately his meaning, although I do not give the ipsissima verba, 
 and much more can I do so when quoting from my own writings. 
 I am simply amazed that Dr. Blaikie should regard the manner 
 in which " quotations " are made from the Old Testament in the 
 New, as any proof whatever, that there were " errors " in the 
 Scriptures as originally given. 
 
 In point of fact, instead of b3ing proof of "error," these 
 
deviations from the ipsissima verba of the original, in the case 
 of quotations from the Old Testament made in the New, are 
 seen, when rightly understood, to afford the strongest possible 
 proof that the Old and New Testaments alike had, in all their 
 parts, one Divine Author, whatever the variety of their human 
 authorship. When I quote from the writings of another 
 author, I generally require to give his ipsissima verba, lest by 
 using another form of words I should, to any extent, misrepre- 
 sent his meaning, But when I quote from my own writings 
 I may freely give expression to my meaning in a different form 
 of ivords. 
 
 Even so, the ijmssima verba of the Old Testament are not 
 always used in New Testament quotations, just because this is 
 a case in which the Divine Author is anew giving expression 
 to the same truth in different words. 
 
 And this argument, in favour of the one Divine authorship 
 of the Bible, becomes specially strong, when we take into 
 account the almost superstitious veneration of the Jews for 
 the letter of the Old Testament. No Jew would have ventured 
 to quote in the New Testament, in a form different from the 
 original, any passage of the Old Testament, unless in so doing 
 he was acting under that Divine infallible guidance which is 
 the essential element in inspiration. 
 
 Quotations are doubtless often made from the Septuagint on 
 very purpose to show that the Bible, even in a translated form 
 (so far as the true sense is given in the translation), is as much 
 the Word of God as the original Scriptures. There are also 
 variations in form of expression to show that while the letter 
 of Scripture is of great importance, and arguments may be 
 based on the use of single words, it is still more important that 
 we perceive " the sense divinely intended." 
 
 The third and only other argument used by Dr. Blaikie in 
 favour of the view that there were " errors " in the Scriptures, 
 as originally given, is based on so-called " discrepancies " of 
 which three specimens are cited. It so happens that in the 
 letters to myself three specimens were also given. Two of these 
 were the same as those adduced in the Letter to Dr. Bonar, viz., 
 the two versions of the Decalogue, and Stephen's so-called " dis- 
 crepancy" about the sepulchre. In the letter to me, instead of 
 
the inscription on the Cross, the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah 
 of those who returned from Babylon, were cited. 
 
 It is really amusing to see within what small compass 
 the so-called "discrepancies" or "errors" are compressed, when 
 we ask for instances. After the merriment created throughout 
 the country by the specimen given by Dr. Dods of " the Cen- 
 turion " (even as, forty years ago, it had been given by M. 
 Sherer), and after the conclusive and crushing reply in regard to 
 it of Count Gasparin of Geneva, we shall surely have no 
 further reference made to that specimen. 
 
 As my two appended letters fully discuss the alleged 
 "discrepancies" in the two versions of the Decalogue and 
 the speech of Stephen, I care' not to repeat myself Dr. 
 Fairbairn, referring to the former case, says — ■" There has been 
 given to the Decalogue a double record, first in Exodus xx. 
 2-17, again in Deuteronomy v. 6-21; and there are certain dif- 
 ferences between the two forms, which have been taken advan- 
 tage of by rationalistic interpreters, sometimes for the purpose 
 of disparaging the historical correctness of either form, and 
 sometimes as a conclusive argument against the doctrine of 
 plenary inspiration." I wonder what Dr. Eairbairn would have 
 said if he had found " interpreters " such as he refers to occupy- 
 ing Free Church Theological Chairs. 
 
 After specifying the diftereuces between the two versions of 
 the Decalogue, Dr. Fairbairn goes on to say — " It is obvious 
 that these differences leave the main body or substance of the 
 Decalogue, as a revelation of law, entirely untouched ; not one of 
 them affects the import and bearing of a single precept ; nor, if 
 viewed in their historical relation, can they be regarded as in- 
 volving in any doubt or uncertainty the verbal accuracy of the 
 form presented in Exodus. We have no reason to doubt that the 
 words there recorded are precisely those which were uttered from 
 Sinai, and written upon the table of stone. In Deuteronomy 
 Moses gives a revised account of the transactions, using through- 
 out certain freedoms, as speaking in a hortative manner, and 
 from a more distant point of view; and, while he repeats the com- 
 mandments as those which the Lord had spoken from the midst 
 of the fire and written on tables of stone, Deut, v. 22, he yet shows, 
 in his very mode of doing it, that he did not aim at an exact 
 
24 
 
 reproduction of the past, but wished to preserve to some extent 
 the form of a free rehearsal. This especially appears in the 
 addition to the fifth commandment, ' as the Lord thy God com- 
 manded thee,' which distinctly pointed back to a prior original, 
 and even recognized that as the permanently existing form. 
 The introducing also of so many of the later commands with 
 the copulative and, tends to the same result ; as it is precisely 
 what would be natural in a rehearsal, though not in the 
 original announcements, and came from combining with the 
 legislative something of the narrative style. Such being 
 plainly the character of this later edition, its other and more 
 noticeable deviations — the occasional amplifications admitted 
 into it, the substitution of desire for covet, with respect to a 
 neighbour's wife, in the tenth command ; and of the 
 deliverance of Israel from Egypt, for the divine order of pro- 
 cedure at the creation, in the fourth — fall to be regarded as 
 slightly varied and explanatory statements, which it was per- 
 fectly competent for the authorized mediator of the covenant 
 to introduce, and which, in nature and design, do not materially 
 differ from the alterations sometimes made by inspired writers 
 of the New Testament on the passages they quote from the 
 Old. They are not without use in an exegetical respect ; and 
 in the present case have also a distinct historical value, from 
 the important evidence they yield in favour of the Mosaic 
 authorship of Deuteronomy ; since it is inconceivable that any 
 later author, fictitiously personating Moses, would have ven- 
 tured on making such alterations on what had been so expressly 
 ascribed by Moses to God Himself, and which seemed to bear 
 on it such peculiar marks of sacredness and inviolability." 
 {Bible Dictionary, pp. 423-4.) 
 
 If, as Dr. Fairbairn argues, it was competent for Moses to 
 make the variations in a hortative discourse, delivered many 
 years after the events at Sinai, on the plains of Moab, surely we 
 have in the faithful record of the variations thus introduced by 
 Moses, one of the strongest possible proofs of the inspiration of 
 the author of Deuteronomy. An uninspired writer, knowing 
 as he must have done the version of the Decalogue in the 
 earlier record of Exodus, would have been under strong tempta- 
 tion to give precisely tlie very same words, and attribute them 
 
to Moses. That would specially have been the case, if, as the 
 higher critics would have us believe, Deuteronomy was written 
 not by Moses, but by some author personating Moses centuries 
 afterwards. 
 
 Thus, the author of Deuteronomy, whoever he was, and what- 
 ever the date of the book, gives the most incontrovertible proof 
 of the truthfulness of his report of the speech of Moses on the 
 plains of Moab. Although he knew of the earlier form of 
 the Decalogue, he faithfully records the variations made by 
 Moses in his speech, notwithstanding that he must have 
 been conscious that they might become, in subsequent ages, 
 a stumbling block to " rationalistic interpreters." So far, 
 therefore, from this being a case of proved " error " in the 
 original Scriptures, the function of inspiration in securing 
 truthfulness, in the case of reported speeches, is by it most 
 strikingly verified. 
 
 And the same thing is true in the case of the speech of 
 Stephen. "Ludovicus" (referred to p. 48), says in his letter 
 to the Glasgow Herald : — " The passage (Acts vii. 16) may be 
 paraphrase!! as follows : — ' Jacob died, he and our fathers, and 
 they (our fathers) were carried over to Sychem and buried, he 
 (Jacob) in the sepulchre which Abraham bought for a sum of 
 money ; and they (the other patriarchs) in that of the sons of 
 Emmor, the father of Sychem.' That rendering removes the 
 difficulty, or we can say with the great Bochart that some 
 unskilful grammarian, thinking that a nominative case was 
 wanting before the verb covijo-aTo, was hovght, wrote in the 
 margin the word Abraham, which others inserted into the text, 
 without which the passage would run thus, and that with 
 exact truth, ' So Jacob went down into Egypt and died ' 
 (there) ' he and our fathers ; and they,' (our fathers) ' were carried 
 over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that was bought 
 for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of 
 Shechem.' " If that single word Abraham had been interpolated 
 in the way indicated, every one of the four so-called "discrepan- 
 cies " found by Dr. Blaikie in this single passage, as compared 
 with the account in Genesis, would forthwith disappear. It is 
 true that neither that explanation, nor the other suggested by 
 "Ludovicus," would dispose of the difficulty raised by Dr. 
 
26 
 
 Blaikie (when referring to the view of Turretine), viz., that no> 
 mention is made in the Old Testament of the patriarchs being 
 buried at Shechem. That difticulty, however, is easily disposed 
 of, if we only remember that, as Dr. Blaikie contends, " ' pre- 
 sumption ' is not a trustworthy support." It is a case of mere 
 "presumption" when Dr. Blaikie argues that, " had the bones of 
 his brothers been taken too, mention would surely have been 
 made of it," because "it is said that Joseph's bones were 
 carried up." 
 
 But while either of the explanations given by " Ludovicus " 
 may meet the difticulty, I repeat what I said in my letter to 
 Dr. Blaikie, viz., that my view, as to the function of in- 
 spiration, in the case of reported speeches, is verified, if we 
 have in Acts a truthful account of what was actually said by 
 Stephen. The testimony to the absolute truthfulness of the re- 
 port in Acts is only the more striking even if Stephen actually 
 made a mistake in his speech. Instead of correcting it as an 
 uninspired reporter would probably have done, Luke, guided by 
 the Spirit, faithfully records the words of Stephen as actually 
 spoken. Will Dr. Blaikie affirm that Luke did not give a 
 truthfiil report of the speech as delivered ? 
 
 The only remaining case of so-called " discrepancy," viz., 
 that of the fourfold account of the inscription upon the Cross, 
 is the favourite specimen adduced by the advocates of the view 
 that there were errors in the Scriptures as originally given. 
 This alleged " discrepancy " is easily explained, if it is only 
 remembered that what we claim for the original Scriptures is 
 that all their statements were " true in the sense divinely 
 intended " ; that " inspiration does not guarantee verbatim 
 reporting any more than any other kind of reporting;" that 
 we may have a truthful summary as well as a truthful ver- 
 batim report ; that in the case of each Gospel, the inscrip- 
 tion is referred to in a different manner ; that it was written, 
 as we are expressly told, in three different languages, and 
 may have been somewhat differently given in each language ;. 
 that each of the inspired Evangelists was guided so to give 
 his account as to bring out the greatest variety of detail, and 
 thus to make it abundantly manifest that there was no collusion 
 among the witnesses. Dr. Blaikie says that " the precise words- 
 
27 
 
 of the inscription must have been present to the Holy Ghost," 
 and asks, " If the words of Scripture are as much the words of 
 God as the words of man, why were they not then, in all the four 
 cases, accurately reproduced ? " Here is an illustration of that 
 strange confusion of thought on the part of Dr. Blaikie to which 
 I have already referred. The words upon the Cross were not 
 " the ivords of God," but the words of Pilate. Further, the 
 inscription was written in letters of Latin, and of Hebrew, as well 
 as of Greek, and so, if by accurate reproduction is meant reproduc- 
 tion of the ipsissima verba, these three languages must have 
 been reproduced in each Gospel in their distinctive charac- 
 ters. As the object of the inscription was to make known the 
 crime charged against the Crucified One, it is noteworthy that 
 in each account we find the words, " The King of the Jews." 
 But while this essential element was found in Greek, and 
 Latin, and Hebrew, so as to be understood by the different 
 nationalities who spoke these languages, is there, in view of all 
 the circumstances, anything improbable in the supposition made 
 by Dr. Geikie, that what was added to these words varied in 
 each language, and that the full inscription as it appeared to 
 the beholders may have taken such a triple form as the follow- 
 ing : — 
 
 Ovt6s iffTiv 'Iriaovs 6 ^aacXei/s rQv 'lovdaiQv, 
 Bex JudoKorum. 
 
 Supposing that the inscription assumed such varied forms in 
 the three languages, what becomes of Dr. Blaikie's charge of 
 inaccuracy against three of the evangelists (for if valid, it must 
 be made against three at least out of the four). But apart 
 from all this, there is the further fact that no two of the 
 evangelists profess to quote exactly the same thing in the 
 Greek (in which the Gospels were written), into which 
 the Hebrew and Latin forms of the inscription had to be 
 translated. Matthew professes to give — ttjv aiTlav aurov ; 
 Mark — eTriypacbrj Trjs airla? avrov ; Luke — eiriypadyrj ; John — 
 t'ltKov. (See Appendix III.) Each account is " true in the 
 sense divinely intended." Each gives either a different part or 
 a different version of the inscription. Each account supple- 
 ments the others. And in all this we see one of the most 
 
28 
 
 striking proofs of an infallible Divine guidance ; for every one 
 must feel that, for the grand purpose of assuring us of historic 
 credibility and truthfulness, it was better that we have four inde- 
 pendent accounts, each supplementing the other, than that we 
 have the same verbatim account by each evangelist — involving, as 
 it would, writing down the letters of three different languages — 
 if we were to get the whole of the ipsissima verba used by 
 Pilate. 
 
 I have now disposed of all the arguments cited by Dr. 
 Blaikie, in support of his view that there were errors in 
 the Scriptures as originally given, and have shown that, 
 instead of there being "error," each case, when properly 
 understood, supplies new evidence that all the statements 
 of the original Scriptures are " true in the sense divinely 
 intended : that sense being also consistent with a fair use of 
 words, within the range of legitimate human speech." I am 
 amazed that one with the pronounced evangelical views of Dr. 
 Blaikie should seek, on the basis of such " phenomena," to set 
 aside the many statements of Scripture writers regarding their 
 own writings, and to contradict the testimony of our Lord 
 and His Apostles as to " the infallible truth and Divine 
 authority " of Holy Scripture in all its statements — its state- 
 ments of fact as well as of doctrine and duty. 
 
 Dr. Blaikie is ever reiterating the assertion that, as opposed to 
 tlie deductive method, he inducts his view of inspiration from the 
 statements and facts of Scripture. He charges us, moreover, 
 with doing something else — with proceeding upon "'presump- 
 tion,' which is not a trustworthy support." As I have already 
 told him, he is utterly mistaken on this point. We do not, as he 
 still insinuates, argue from any such " presumption " as he cites 
 from Dr. Cunningham. We have no " a j^riori theory " on the 
 subject of inspiration. We hold that it is " presumption " on 
 his part to quote the words of Dr. Cunningham and to assume, 
 without any proof, that we endorse them. We go to the state- 
 ments and facts of Scripture, as Dr. Blaikie professes to do, 
 but fails to do, and from these we induct our doctrine of 
 inspiration. We agree with him that: — "By Protestants the true 
 doctrine of inspiration must be inducted from the Word of 
 God, and from that alone. It must be derived from a fair, 
 
29 
 
 cfindid, comprehensive view both of the statements of Scripture 
 and of the phenomena of Scripture." 
 
 But we object to " the view both of the statements of Scrip- 
 ture and of the phenomena of Scripture " given by Dr. Blaikie, 
 because it is neither "fair," nor "candid," nor "comprehensive." 
 
 How does the case stand as regards the statements of 
 Scripture? Dr. Blaikie is constrained to make the follow- 
 ing admissions on that point : — "There can be no manner 
 of doubt that again and again the Scriptures claim to be 
 the Word of God ; they assert that in time past God spake to 
 the fathers by the prophets ; they affirm that the Holy Ghost 
 spake by David and other writers of Scripture ; that all 
 Scripture is given by inspiration of God ; and in reference 
 to the New Testament, the Apostle Paul claims that he taught 
 not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the 
 Holy Ghost teacheth." He might have greatly added to the 
 list of such testimonies, as, for instance, when Peter says 
 that " holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost," and classed the writings of Paul with " the other 
 Scriptures." But there is one testimony which Dr. Blaikie 
 entirely overlooks, in the body of his letter to Dr. Bouar. I 
 refer to the testimony of our Lord — to the manner in which 
 He ever appeals to all parts of the Old Testament Scriptures 
 as avithoritative and true. And He thus refers to all classes of 
 facts as infallibly true — not only to doctrinal facts, and to great 
 historical facts, but also to incidental circumstances and facts 
 of apparently minor importance, and even to incidents that 
 have formed the chief stumbling-blocks to infidels, as when He 
 endorses the fact that Jonah was three days in the whale's 
 belly. Nor is this all. While He thus endorses as infallibly 
 true numerous details of the Old Testament, He uses the all- 
 comprehensive expression : — " And the Scripture cannot be 
 broken " — a statement all the more emphatic, because intro- 
 duced in support of an argument based on a single word in one 
 of the Psalms. 
 
 To His testimony, so conclusive as to the infallibility of 
 Scripture, in its statements of fact as well as of doctrine and 
 duty, there is ample reference under the fourth head of our 
 " Statement " on the case of Dr. Dods. And yet Dr. Blaikie 
 
30 
 
 does not make a single reference to what is there said. His 
 only reference to the testimony of our Lord is in Appendix I., 
 where he says : " I do not forget here how our Lord and His 
 Apostles, in quoting from the Old Testament, sometimes made 
 their argument turn on particular words or forms of words. 
 This, I think, is the strongest point in your position. It un- 
 doubtedly ought to have most earnest attention in any compre- 
 hensive endeavour to induct a doctrine of inspiration. But in 
 all fairness it ought to be considered alongside the other practice 
 of which I have been speaking. Our business must be to 
 harmonize the two practices. We should seek for some common 
 ground on which to justify both. Perhaps there may be some- 
 thing peculiar to the passages which were used as verbal 
 arguments. This is one of the difticulties of the subject, 
 regarding which brethren on both sides should be more ready 
 to help each other than to run their opponents up into a 
 corner and prove them heretics." These are striking admissions. 
 Evidently Dr. Blaikie feels " that he is run up into a corner," 
 when the direct affirmations of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the 
 contrary, are cited against his own unproved inference as to 
 there being " errors " in the Scriptures as originally given. A 
 little more regard for His authority. His infallibility — for if 
 Divine He must be infallible — might surely have led Dr. 
 Blaikie to consider prayerfully whether there might not be 
 some explanation of the use of " Pre-existing Documents " ; of 
 " Quotations " ; and of the three cases of so-called " discrepancy " 
 cited, which would have obviated the necessity for his 
 directly contradicting the testimony of our Lord. As will be 
 seen from my letters, I have already done my best to help him 
 on this point, but, instead of being publicly thanked for 
 my pains, he accuses me of being " combative " when I might 
 be " conciliatury " ; of running him " up into a corner " ; and 
 of seeking to prove him a heretic ! 
 
 It was wont to be regarded as the duty of our Theological 
 Professors to seek, in the use of a little sanctified common 
 sense and under the teaching of the Divine Spirit, to clear up 
 any difficulties that might present themselves in the interpre- 
 tation of the Sacred Scriptures, on the understanding that 
 iill statements of the original Scripture were " true in 
 
31 
 
 the sense divinely intended." But it seems that nowadays 
 our Professors have come to the conclusion that they best 
 discharge their duty to the Church and to her future ministers, 
 and that they best fulfil their ordination vows, by seeking to 
 demonstrate that there were " errors " in the Scriptures as 
 originally given, and by holding up to ridicule as " like the 
 maunderings of an imbecile," any attempted explanation of 
 difficulties. From the manner in which Dr. Blaikie refers to 
 the matter one would conclude that no explanations have been 
 suggested except such as involve " torturing Scripture," and are 
 " worthy neither of consideration nor respect." 
 
 1 wonder that Dr. Blaikie, even if he thought it fair to sup- 
 press all other explanations, was not ashamed to use such 
 " intemperate " language regarding the only one to which he 
 refers (Turretine's), suggested, as it was, by a man probably as 
 learned as himself. He might have remembered that whether 
 that explanation was satisfactory or not, it was at least offered by 
 one who was impressed, on the one hand, by the fact that. 
 Scripture writers claim infallibility for their own writings, and 
 that Christ endorsed that claim; on the other, by the fact that 
 (to use the words of Farrar, who cannot be accused of holding 
 a "rigid view of inspiration,") neither "the widest learning" 
 nor " the acutest ingenuity of scepticism " has " ever pointed 
 to one complete and demonstrable error of fact or doctrine in 
 the Old or New Testament." Dr. Blaikie, merely because he 
 has not yet come across any explanation of these three cases, 
 which he regards as satisfactory, is " irreverent " enough to treat 
 them all as cases of proved " discrepancy " or " error " in the 
 Scriptures as originally given — notwithstanding the claims to 
 infallibility for these Scriptures made by Biblical writers, and 
 the endorsation of these claims by Christ Himself. When he 
 thinks that he is at liberty, notwithstanding his ordination vows, 
 thus to contradict the plain statements of Scripture and of the 
 Confession of Faith, as also the testimony of our Lord, I am 
 surprised that he ventures to speculate as to the possible com- 
 ments of Pascal on the conduct of his opponents on this 
 question (Appendix IV.). And my surprise is increased, 
 when I find that Dr. Blaikie supposes that in a Book con- 
 structed as the Bible is, with its doctrines and duties resting 
 
32 
 
 on a groundwork of history — a Book which is one homogeneous 
 whole — it is possible, somehow or other, to dissociate the 
 doctrines and duties from the facts, and to hold that the 
 former may be infallibly true and of Divine authority, while 
 the latter may be erroneous to a greater or less extent. He 
 tries to quiet our fears as to the baneful effects of the views 
 for which he contends by saying that : — " The toleration asked 
 is practically limited to matters that are subordinate and 
 incidental ; it does not extend to the great verities of revela- 
 tion. It is connected with the structure rather than the sub- 
 stance of the Scripture. It in no degree invalidates the truth 
 and preciousness of the grand testimony : — ' This is the record, 
 that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His 
 Son.'" I am at a loss to know how Dr. Blaikie could have 
 penned such words, and attempted thus to draw a distinction 
 between " structure " and " substance," between what is " sub- 
 ordinate and incidental," and " the great verities of revelation." 
 No such distinction is recognized in the Confession of i'aith. 
 More important still, no such distinction is recognized in 
 Scripture itself, or in the testimony of our Lord and His 
 Apostles regarding Scripture. In the lexicon now lying on my 
 table "verity" is explained as meaning "truth, consonance of a 
 statement, proposition, or other thing to fact ; a true assertion." 
 In these senses, all the statements of Scripture are declared to be 
 " verities " in the Confession of Faith, in the Scriptures, and by 
 our Lord and His Apostles. If Scripture is not to be believed, 
 when it refers to so-called " incidental and subordinate " 
 matters, we instinctively feel that its testimony regarding 
 " the great verities of revelation " is forthwith shaken. In 
 that case, "the grand testimony: — 'This is the record, that God 
 hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son,' " is 
 assuredly invalidated, whatever Dr. Blaikie asserts to the con- 
 trary. 
 
 If I discover that in earthly things — the things which I can 
 verify — inspired writers do not speak the truth, how can 
 I trust them, when they speak to me of heavenly things ? Is 
 it not precisely, in this very way, that, in courts of law, 
 the testimony of important witnesses is invalidated on cross- 
 examination by skilled advocates ? If it can be proved that 
 
33 
 
 the witness has not spoken the truth in regard to minor matters, 
 the advocate is not slow to impress that fact upon the 
 jury, with the view of invalidating his evidence in chief. Ani. 
 so it is in regard to Holy Scripture. These so-called 
 " incidental and subordinate " matters, instead of being, as 
 Drs. Dods and Blaikie try to persuade themselves, of " no 
 real importance," are often of the greatest possible importance, 
 as a means of confirming our faith in the " grand testimony " 
 of the Bible regarding the "great verities of revelation," To quote 
 once more the language of Dr.Fairbairn, "They connect the writer 
 with the times and circumstances in which he lived. They were 
 so many points of contact between himself and the living world 
 around him; and points that often form a kind of bridge 
 between the sacred and the profane territory ; in the first 
 instance, giving an air of naturalness and verisimilitude to the 
 revelation, and afterwards supplying data for the verification of 
 its contents. How much should the Bible have wanted ia 
 general interest and appearance of truthfulness, if it were 
 stripped of the minor details which are found in it ? And how 
 many incidental confirmations of its genuineness and authen- 
 ticity should have been lost, which, mainly in connection 
 with these notices of common affairs, have been furnished 
 by later research? It is to them, in great measure we owe the 
 possibility of such works as Paley's Horoi Paulince, Smith's 
 Narrative of Paul's Shvpwtrck, and many similar works, which 
 have rendered the most essential service to the defence of the 
 Bible. The genealogies themselves have their value ; for they 
 are, in a manner, the skeletons of history, on whose naked ribs, 
 or projecting outlines, we can often grope our way to interest- 
 ing or important movements in the past. And, besides the 
 more special lessons which it will always be found on 
 careful reflection can be derived from the mention of things 
 comparatively little and common, there is this instructive 
 lesson — that the Book, which is emphatically the revelation of 
 God's mind to men, does not disdain to touch on even the 
 smaller matters that concern them, and while it seeks to 
 lift them above earthly and sensuous things, still willingly 
 accords to these the place that properly belongs to them," A? 
 even Dr. Blaikie is constrained to admit that " in whatever 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 manner the historical records of the Old Testament may have 
 been compiled, they are marvels of accuracy " ; and that " all 
 the information recently gathered from the cuneiform inscrip- 
 tions and other monuments of antiquity attests this fact," he 
 ought not to make reckless cliarges against the Bible, which, 
 to his confusion, may be promptly disproved by further dis- 
 coveries of " cuneiform inscriptions and other monuments of 
 antiquity." 
 
 In the " Statement " on which Dr. Blaikie animadverts, 
 we ask for information as to "how and where the dividing 
 line is to be drawn between the true and the erroneous," if there 
 were errors in the original Scriptures. But he gives no reply 
 to such an inquiry. He cannot controvert the affirmation 
 we make, that we "should require a new revelation to enable us 
 to draw such a distinction," and that " without such a new 
 revelation there would, according to this theory, be no clear, 
 fixed, objective standard of doctrine and duty." He cannot deny 
 that, if his view were correct, " the critic would be largely 
 dependent upon his own spiritual consciousness, his own whims 
 and caprices, for a knowledge of what is of infallible truth 
 and divine authority in the Scriptures"; and that "for the 
 same knowledge the great mass of the people would be as 
 dependent upon the critics as they are upon priests under the 
 regime of the Church of Eome." 
 
 He does not attempt to answer the question we put: — "What 
 guarantee could any one have that the critics, especially when 
 they differ so much among themselves as to what are to 
 be regarded as errors, could be implicitly trusted, when thus 
 sitting in judgment upon the original document — each one, 
 according to his own theological standpoint, drawing for himself 
 the dividing line between the true and the false in the Bible 
 — getting rid by this theory not only of such facts as he does 
 not care to believe, but also of such doctrines as do not 
 commend themselves to his acceptance ? " Instead of doing 
 this, it is noteworthy that even when Dr. Blaikie speaks of 
 matters that are " subordinate and incidental," all the length 
 he goes is to say that the toleration asked is " pradiccdly limiUd " 
 to these. Even if he or any one else had been able strictly to 
 define what is meant by matters that are " subordinate and 
 
35 
 
 incidental," it turns out that the toleration asked for is not to 
 be limited exclusively to these, as the Eeport of the College 
 Sub-Committee led us to believe, but only "practically." In other 
 words, each member of the "forward movement" party is to be 
 left free to determine for himself how much of the Bible 
 he will set aside as erroneous, and where there is no principle 
 to guide, it is certain that the practice would be very 
 divergent. Dr. Blaikie tells us about his own practice. He 
 says, " I have never seen cause to apply that hypothesis " 
 (the hypothesis, viz., about pre-existing documents — uninspired 
 and erroneous, yet endorsed by inspired writers,) " to the Book 
 of Genesis, for example, to the extent to which it has been 
 proposed to carry it." While we ought to be thankful 
 that Dr. Blaikie has not yet seen cause to go as far 
 as some others, will he kindly explain how, after he has 
 defended his theory, and voted for unlimited license in 
 its practical application, he can prevent those who adopt 
 it — his own students for instance — from carrying it much 
 further than he himself does, and from speaking, as some of the 
 party are already doing, of the earlier chapters of the Book of 
 Genesis, as a piece of " Babylonian mythology with a smack 
 of Judaism " ? Will he explain how, on his theory, he can 
 resist the surrender of any portion whatever of the Old 
 Testament or of the New ? On the same principle, on which 
 he regards himself as entitled to reject part of the Bible as 
 fallible — to reject its testimony on matters that are " subordinate 
 and incidental " — he may reject the whole. As Heber well puts 
 it:— "It is the misfortune of this Scythian mode of warfare, that 
 it is only suited to a territory which, like Scythia, is little worth 
 preserving; and that the practice once begun of abandoning 
 to the pursuer whatever parts of Scripture it does not exactly 
 suit us to defend, no means of defence will at length remain for 
 those tenets themselves which we now regard as of vital im- 
 portance." 
 
 Dr. Dods and others flatter themselves that by such 
 concessions they will conciliate infidels. The rejoinder of 
 Huxley to the authors of Liw. Mundi, shows how vain and 
 illusory is such a hope. I challenge Dr. Blaikie, or any one 
 else, to meet the argument of the Father of Dr. Dods on this 
 
36 
 
 point. Preferring to the advantage supposed to be gained in 
 dealing with the infidel, by adopting a theory in substance the 
 same as that now advocated by Dr. Blaikie, he, 60 years ago, 
 wrote as follows : — " Let us see then what advantage this gives 
 us in dealing with the infidel. He lays his hand on a certain 
 verse and says, Surely this cannot be inspired. I escape by 
 saying, True, but then you see it is not of a religious or moral 
 nature. His next question is. What are the parts of the Bible 
 which are inspired ? and how do you distinguish them from 
 those parts which, not being religious, are not inspired ? To 
 answer this, I call in the aid of the learned, the wise, and the 
 good, who have maintained this view. I seek in them for some 
 general rule, some fixed and well established principle, by 
 which I may separate what is human from what is Divine in 
 the Bible. But my search is vain. I find no such rule or 
 principle. On the contrary, it is obvious that no two men will 
 answer it precisely in the same way. The only advantage 
 then that I derive from this low view, is to enable the in- 
 fidel to wedge me into a difficulty from which there is no 
 possibility of escape. 
 
 " But even supposing this unanswerable question to be 
 answered, I can derive no advantage from it. For the infidel 
 lays his hand upon a verse which I acknowledge to be of a 
 religious nature, and says. This is very oddly expressed. I 
 must not say with the apostle, 'We speak not the words which 
 man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,' 
 nor observe that it is nothing wonderful, if the wisdom of God 
 should sometimes appear foolishness to man; but I must say, 
 The expression may be awkward; I defend not the expression, 
 but the sentiment. But should he reply. If the expression be 
 a human and an awkward expression, how can you convince 
 me that the sentiment is not the same ? I confess I know not 
 what I should say. And should he go on to observe, that as 
 the sacred writers often assert their own inspiration — the in- 
 spiration of ALL Scripture, if we admit that in not a few in- 
 stances they really were not inspired, we must of necessity con- 
 clude, that in point of fact they were never inspired, I know not 
 how I could resist the conclusion. 
 
 " Such are the advantages to be derived from seeking to 
 
f 37 
 
 conciliate the infidel by concession — a princif)le which I regret 
 to see creeping into some of our best Theological Treatises 
 of late. If the Scriptures are spurned by the infidel, when 
 they are presented to him as wholly the Word of God, it is 
 preposterous to suppose that they will command his reverence 
 when presented to him as partly the Word of God and partly 
 that of man, — as ' a motley collection, composed partly under 
 the inspiration of sugrjcstion, partly under the inspiration of 
 elevation, partly under the inspiration of siij^crintende^icc, and 
 partly under no inspiration at all ! ' Give tlie infidel one book 
 or one verse, and upon the same principle he has a right to 
 demand the surrender of the whole Bible." 
 
 Thus far I have dealt only with the question of " errors '"' in 
 the original Scriptures. But there remains the further question 
 about the term " immoralities," applied by Dr. Dods to what 
 is "commended, or even commanded" in the Old Testament. 
 On this point Dr. Blaikie said nothing in his letters to myself, 
 and therefore I am the more startled when, from his Letter to 
 Dr. Bonar, I find that here also, he has become an eager 
 apologist for the view of Dr. Dods. The use of the term " im- 
 moralities," as applicable to what is "commended, or even com- 
 manded " in the Old Testament has been so universally con- 
 demned even by the supporters of Dr. Dods, that the compilers 
 of the " Statement " did not think it necessary to amplify on 
 that point. In our simplicity, we supposed that it had been 
 left to tiie school of Voltaire, Paine, and Ingersoll, to denounce 
 the morality of the Old Testament. 
 
 Indeed, I fully expected that, when Dr. Blaikie (with the 
 views he personally holds about " errors " in the original Scrip- 
 tures) sought to justify his action in voting for a motion which 
 declares that the Church "views the use of the term 'mistakes 
 and immoralities ' to describe recognized difficulties in the 
 Scriptures as utterly unwarranted, and fitted to give grave 
 offence," he would have called attention to the fact that the 
 deliverance does not use the phrase "mistahcs or immoralities" but 
 "mistakes and immoralities," and that he would have said that 
 he voted for it, because, while he believed that there were "mis- 
 takes " in the original Scriptures, he did not believe that there 
 were "immoralities." But in this, it seems I was mistaken. Jt 
 
38 
 
 turns out that Dr. Blaikie defends the use by Dr. Dods of each 
 term separately and singly. He not only apologizes for the use 
 of this most offensive term, " immoralities," but even like Dr. 
 Dods uses "intemperate" language, with the view of pourfng 
 contempt on those who do not agree with him. He speaks of 
 a "tendency" to "go into hysterics" over this matter " even in 
 the deliverance of the Assembly." 
 
 After this, one scarcely knows what to expect from the 
 
 present generation of theological Professors in the Free Church. 
 
 In my student days I was taught by Dr. Fairbairn to regard 
 
 the morality of the Bible, of the Old and New Testaments 
 
 alike, as one of the most conclusive proofs of its inspiration. 
 
 For what he had to say on that point, and for evidence of the 
 manner in which he dealt with the objection raised by infidels 
 against the morality of the Old Testament, I must refer to his 
 article in Bible Dictionary, ^^p. 216-18. Eeferring to the objec- 
 tion taken by " adversaries " to the morality of the Bible, he 
 says, " This can only be affirmed with the slightest degree of 
 plausibility, when certain portions are isolated, and considered 
 out'of their proper bearing and connection, or when the statements 
 it contains are represented in a false and distorted light." Dr. 
 Blaikie affirms that there are "very strange points in the 
 morality of the Old Testament," and that "it is a delicate task 
 to reconcile Old Testament morality in some points with the 
 inspiration of Scripture." "When this is the kind of teaching 
 about Scripture given to our future ministers, and when Dr. 
 Dods speaks of "immoralities" as "commended, or even com- 
 manded" in the Old Testament, we have "need to fall on our 
 knees," in shame and confusion of face, before the Holy One 
 whose character is being thus aspersed. 
 
 On the supposition that the Old Testament is the Word of 
 God, or even on the supposition that it contains a truthful 
 historical record of Divine commands, the words used by Dr. 
 Dods are a charge made, not against the Bible, but against God. 
 On that supposition, the charge of immorality is made, not 
 against the Book which records the command, but against 
 Him who issued the command. The blasphemy, involved in 
 such a charge against Him, is simply revolting. If any 
 thinif " commanded " in the Old Testament was immoral, Dr. 
 
39 
 
 Dods can only escape from bringinLi; a charge of immorality 
 against the Holy God — the Fount and Source of all Morality — 
 by denying that the commands of the Old Testament came from 
 Him, in other words, by denying the historical trust-worthiness, 
 not to speak of the inspiration of the Old Testament. I am 
 anxious to know on which horn of the dilemma Dr. Dods and 
 his defender Dr. Blaikie choose to sit. 
 
 Dr. Blaikie says in his Letter to Dr. Bonar — " Perhaps you 
 accept the view of a progressive revelation of morality." He 
 may strike out the "perhaps" from the sentence. We do most 
 cordially "accept the view of a progressive revelation of morality." 
 I know of no one who does not accept it. That view was one 
 of the commonplaces in my theological training. But I fail 
 to see how, in accepting that view, I go "a great way," or 
 even a single step, "to meet Dr. Dods." A "progressive revelation 
 of morality"; a revelation such as the people were able to bear; 
 a use of methods of moral instruction suited to a darker 
 economy ; these are very different things from the God of Holi- 
 ness commanding " immoralities," just as a progressive revelation 
 of truth, in which I also believe, is a very different thing 
 from the God, " who is truth itself," revealing " error." As Dr. 
 Fairbairn well puts it, " the fallacy of the objection," based 
 upon the morality of the Old Testament as contrasted with 
 that of the New, " lies in this, that it supposes what is fit 
 and proper for the more advanced state must have equally been 
 so for the immature ; it would insist upon the child being put 
 upon precisely the same regimen as the full-grown man. In 
 no age of the Church can God sanction or countenance sin : 
 but He may be more or less severe, also more or less outward, 
 in the methods He authorizes or adopts for checking and 
 chastising sin, according to the state of privilege enjoyed by 
 His people, and the circumstances in which the world is placed. 
 This consideration, fairly apprehended and applied, will be 
 found quite adequate to account for the differences which, in a 
 moral respect, exist between the earlier and the later portions 
 of Scripture." {Bible Dictionary, p. 796.) 
 
 If " the view of a progressive revelation of morality," so well 
 stated by Dr. Fairbairu, is all that is contended for by Drs. Dods 
 and Blaikie, they have both been singularly unfortunate as 
 
40 
 
 legards the manner, in which they have expressed themselves. 
 When even Ingersoll is content to speak of the " imperfect 
 morality " of the Old Testament, it does seem passing strange 
 that Dr. Dods should speak of "immoralities," and that Dr. 
 Blaikie sliould seek to justify him in using such language. In 
 a conversation I had, at the time of the Assembly, with one 
 of our ecclesiastical leaders, I asked him to tell me, in view 
 ©f the decision just then given on the case of Dr. Dods, how 
 far a Minister or Professor of the Church may now go, in the 
 way of publicly affirming that there were " errors " or " im- 
 moralities " in the original Scriptures, before he would be taken 
 imder discipline ? " That would depend upon circumstances," 
 was the reply. Thereafter, he volunteered the statement 
 tdiat he " had allowed Dr. Dods to get off this time, because 
 he found that he did not use words in the same sense as other 
 people." He had asked Dr. Dods what he meant by the 
 term " mistakes and immoralities " as applied to Scripture, 
 •and had received the reply that "the things referred to wei-e 
 such trities that he (Dr. Dods) was ashamed to mention them." 
 The leader in question further informed me that, on receiving 
 this answer, he had replied, " If they are such trifles, why do 
 you use such offensive words in connection with Holy Scrip- 
 ture ? " The question thus put to Dr. Dods was certainly a 
 pertinent one, and the answer given seems to have made 
 the leader believe that Dr. Dods is not so far apart from his 
 brethren as his " intemperate " language would seem to 
 imply. It would surely be a great deal more satisfactory if, in 
 view of all the anxieties Dr. Dods has awakened, he would take, 
 not merely the leaders, but the Church as a whole, into his con- 
 fidence, in making explanations. If he can conscientiously say 
 anything that would tend to restore confidence ; if he will 
 explain when he does " use words in the same sense as other 
 people ; " if, by the term " immoralities," as applied to the 
 Old Testament, he means simply that there was " a progres- 
 sive revelation of morality" in the Bible, in the sense explained 
 by Dr. Fairbairn, I, for one, would be glad to get even such an 
 explanation. But if he has any regard to his own reputation, as 
 <ine who can express his meaning clearly, he ought, in that case, 
 manfully to withdraw the offensive word " immoralities," and 
 
41 
 
 to express his regret for having used it, and so given it 
 currency among those who cavil at the Word of God, and 
 will certainly use it in a very different sense. Such action 
 on his part will be far more serviceable in removing misunder- 
 standings and in promoting the peace and prosperity of the 
 Church, than such an article as that written by him in the 
 British We.eldy of October 2, or such an ill-advised production 
 as that now issued by Dr. Blaikie. In that article Dr. Dods 
 not only, as already stated, holds up his brethren to scorn by 
 describing them as " uninstructed Evangelicals, wlio have been 
 combining with Secularists, Atheists, and anti-Christians in 
 general, to betray the Christian position," but in the most 
 unaccountable manner misrepresents their views in regard to the 
 self-evidencing power of Christ. He says that, " Incalculable 
 damage has been done, and is being done, by the modern evan- 
 gelical abandonment of the ground taken by the lieformers, 
 that Christ evidences Himself and the Scriptures also." I 
 know of no one who has abandoned that doctrine of the 
 Eeformers. On the contrary, that is the very citadel of the 
 impregnable fort we occupy, in defending the Word of God. 
 
 By the witnessing of the Spirit, in and with the Word, 
 we have got in our hearts and lives experimental proof 
 that Jesus Christ, of whom the Scriptures testify, is 
 Divine, and that what He says of the Scriptures is true. 
 Because we have such experimental evidence — evidence which 
 always carries a conviction of certainty — we refuse, at the bidding 
 of critics or Professors (who come to us with unproved asser- 
 tions) to believe that there were "errors" or "immoralities" in 
 the Scriptures as they came from Him, who is both True and 
 Holy. We believe that, as shown by Dr. Dale, " the man who 
 has evidence of Christ's power in his own heart and life is in- 
 vulnerable by criticism." 
 
 But from the experimental evidence thus obtained, w^e draw a 
 conclusion exactly the opposite of that drawn by Dr. Doils. 
 His argument, as I understand it, is, "Christ evidences Himself 
 and the Scripture also," therefore there were " errors " and 
 " immoralities " in the Scriptures, as originally given. Our 
 argument is, " Christ evidences Himself and the Scripture also," 
 therefore critics and Professors are assure. Uy in the wrong 
 
42 
 
 when they contradict His testimony by declaring that there 
 were " errors " in the Scriptures, as originally given by the 
 God, " who is Truth itself," and that " immoralities " were " com- 
 mended, or even commanded " in the Old Testament. 
 
 While I greatly admire the literary grace and charm of the 
 Letter of Dr. Blaikie to Dr. Bonar (quite in keeping with his 
 other productions, and showing that whatever his merits as a 
 theologian, he at least excels as a litterateur), I am painfully 
 impressed with the weakness and inconclusive character of his 
 argumentation. And in this, I do not stand alone. One minis- 
 terial friend described his production as " pitiably weak." 
 Another spoke of it to me as a " new specimen of the ' feeble 
 outpourings of Dr. Blaikie,' " using the language of the late Dr. 
 Begg. 
 
 In my judgment the weakness of the production is due not 
 to want of ability on the part of Dr. Blaikie. So far as that is 
 concerned, he is qualified enough to be a leader in that " new 
 forward movement " of which we hear so much nowadays. 
 Tbat is a movement led (so we are told) by men " skilled 
 in all the learning of the Egyptians." Its aim is to 
 emancipate the churches from that bondage to Scripture in 
 which they have been so long held ; to put an end to that 
 " Bibliolatry," which has so long prevailed, and to conduct 
 into a new " land of promise." Strange to say, the precise 
 situation of the goodly land has not yet been clearly indicated, 
 and many of us have looked in vain for any appearance of a 
 guiding pillar. The only thing certain is, that when the land 
 is reached there will be found inscribed, in large characters, 
 upon its portal, the words : — " ereoes " and " immoralities " 
 in the original scriptures — a somewhat strange device, one 
 would think, for a " land of promise." If any of the 
 " obscurantists " or " uninstructed Evangelicals " will dare to 
 oppose this " new forward movement " on the ground that, 
 before advancing, they wish to get some more precise informa- 
 tion as to its exact destination, and to get some assurance that 
 there is a Divine command to advance in that direction, they 
 are reminded of the fate that befell Pharaoh and his hosts in 
 the lied Sea, and warned that, in an ecclesiastical sense, a similar 
 fate will befall them. 
 
43 
 
 Such being the nature of the " new forward movement," I am 
 free to admit that Dr. Blaikie is quite qualified to take his 
 place alongside of Drs. Dods and Bruce as one of its leaders. 
 His Letter to Dr. Bonar shows that he can deftly handle his 
 pen, and skilfully marshall his arguments, such as they are. 
 Like a trained controversialist he can divert attention from 
 the real question at i«sue, by misrepresenting the views of his 
 opponents, and directing his artillery at men of straw. By 
 well-known devices, such as by employing orthodox words and 
 phrases {e.g. " Inspiration," " the Word of God," and even " an 
 infallible objective revelation of the will of God," etc.), while 
 he either limits their application, or evacuates them of their 
 recognized meaning, he can throw the unwary off their guard, 
 and make them believe that his deviations from the Standards 
 of the Church are very slight. Nay, more, he can so misrepre- 
 sent the past history of the Church, the past decisions of the 
 Assembly, and the statements of the Confession, as to make it 
 appear that the real innovators in this matter are those opposed 
 to his peculiar views. In view of all these clever devices for 
 concealing the flimsiness of the proof he adduces in support of 
 his own opinions, no one is entitled to say that the weakness 
 of his Letter to Dr. Bonar is due to want on his part of ability, 
 scholarship, or dialectic skill. 
 
 It must be due to the essential " weakness " of the cause he 
 seeks to defend. He has attempted the impossible, viz., to 
 harmonize the Divine authorship of Scripture — " the Divine 
 inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, of the whole of the 
 Scriptures," with the view that there w^ere " errors " and 
 " immoralities " in these Scriptures as originally given by their 
 Divine Author through inspired men. And in this he has 
 signally failed, even as all must fail who make the same 
 attempt. 
 
 He has tried to make it appear that the Bible is like 
 Nebucliadnezzar's image — part of fine gold, part of silver, part 
 of brass, part of iron, and part of clay. The only result has 
 been, that it has been made abundantly manifest that the 
 characteristics he applies to the Bible, belong not to it but to 
 his own production. The Word of God, thrown into the 
 crucible of his carping criticism, has come out, as it always 
 
44 
 
 will come out, when exposed to similar treatment, all fine gold, 
 seven times purified. 
 
 As will be seen from my first letter, Dr. Blaikie exhorted 
 me to keep to my proper sphere of work — a sphere for which 
 he was good enough to tell me my " gifts fitted " me " so well 
 and so exceptionally." 
 
 To what I have already said in reply, on that point, I must 
 add a word in explanation of why I — an ordinary minister of 
 the Church — who have taken some considerable share in home 
 mission work, have been rash enough to cross swords with a 
 learned Professor, even though at the risk of being ecclesiasti- 
 cally immolated for my temerity, 
 
 I regard the questions raised in this controversy as of vital 
 imjyortance, as bearing not only on my personal hopes of 
 salvation, but also on the practical work of the Christian 
 ministry, and on mission work in particular. In the sug- 
 gestive life of Mackay, the hero of Uganda, the following 
 statement occurs (p. 1-45):- — "His bold and intelligent appeal 
 to the Scriptures seems to have deeply impressed Mtesa, and 
 this habit of referring all questions to the Word of God 
 became in the end the chief factor in the mental and spiritual 
 revolution which in the course of years passed over vast 
 numbers of the Baganda." 
 
 Every one engaged in home mission work has a similar ex- 
 perience as to the absolute necessity of making constant appeal 
 to the Word of God, if success is to be achieved. If I do not 
 go to the careless and Christless as an ambassador of the King, 
 clothed with His authority, and conveying His message — a 
 message of "infallible truth and divine authority," because 
 given by Him — they will despise my own words and opinions. 
 They will tell me, and be justified in telling me, that their 
 opinion is as good as mine. We who preach have a right 
 to ask our hearers to believe and obey, because we declare 
 unto them not the word of fallible men but the Word of God — 
 the God " who is Truth itself" 
 
 Let a preacher begin to insinuate doubt on this point ; 
 let him tell the people that some of the statements of the Bible 
 are, after all, not true ; let him begin to draw fine distinctions 
 between " structure " and " substance," between " matters that 
 
45 
 
 are subordinate and incidental " and " the great verities of 
 revelation " — distinctions which are recognized neither in 
 Scripture itself, nor in the testimony of Christ regarding 
 Scripture — the only practical result will be, that his hearers 
 will not only insist on excising from their Bibles the parts 
 declared to be erroneous, but will refuse to believe what the 
 preacher still professes, on the authority of the Bible, to regard 
 as true. (See Appendix V.) 
 
 Sitting, as they haughtily do, in their " seats of learning " ; 
 looking down disdainfully " on obscurantists " and " un- 
 instructed Evangelicals " ; never coming into contact with 
 the baneful effects among the common people of the reckless 
 theories about Scripture they propagate and defend, our 
 Professors may stigmatize as an "argument of unbelief" all 
 we say in regard to the logical and practical outcome of 
 their views, and may satisfy their own consciences by saying 
 that all this is only a new proof that "it is quite possible 
 that any concession on inspiration would be taken advantage 
 of by some for illegitimate purposes." But I humbly submit 
 that those who are conversant with the facts, and who bear 
 " the burden and heat of the day," in the ordinary work of the 
 ministry, and in home mission work, are as much entitled as 
 are our Professors to have something to say on this subject. 
 They have a right to insist that those who are regarded as 
 renresentative men in the Church, and who are responsible for 
 the training of her future ministers, shall not be at liberty, 
 while subscribing the Church's Standards and receiving Irom 
 her their support, to propagate views which tend to bi'ing about 
 such baneful results, or which at least are fitted to blunt the 
 edge of " the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." 
 
46 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 PoLLOKSHiELDS, 13th Juiie, 1S90. 
 Dear De. Blaikie, 
 
 I regret that yours of the 3rd inst. has been so long 
 unanswered. I am sorry that one for whom I have so high a 
 regard, and from whose published writings I have derived so much 
 profit, should take exception to my views on Inspiration, and should 
 come to the conclusion that I am leaving my proper sphere of work 
 when I intermeddle with such subjects. I am specially mortified to 
 find that after my former correspondence with you on this subject, 
 and after I sent you my recently published Strictures on the Pveport 
 of the College Committee, you do not seem even yet to understand 
 my views. I have been at special pains to make it plain that I hold 
 no theory as to the 77iode of inspiration, far less an " a priori theorj'," 
 and least of all, what has been described as the " mechanical theory," 
 or theory of " verbal dictation." Again and again I have stated that 
 I concern myself simply with the product of inspiration, as declared 
 in the Word of God and Confession of Faith, and as testified to by 
 Christ and His Apostles, viz., a Book of "infallible truth and 
 Divine authority." Notwithstanding all this, you still represent me 
 as formulating " a theory of inspiration a priori." 
 
 In my published Strictures on the Report of the College Committee 
 (p. 29), I make the following statement : — " The College Committee 
 says that it * includes men who abide deliberately and decidedly 
 by what may be called the older view. They do not hold it as 
 caricatured, whether by believing men like Alford, or by more 
 sceptical opponents, but they hold that they have reason to believe 
 all statements of the original Sc*-iptures to be true, in the sense 
 divinely intended : that sense being also consistent with a fair use of 
 Words within the range of legitimate human speech.' That I accept 
 as a fair statement of the views of those now opposed to Dr. Dods, 
 
47 
 
 but instead of speaking of Alforcl as the one wlio caricatures, I 
 would have substituted the names of certain ministers and professors 
 of our own Church." To these words I still adhere. I cordially 
 endorse the view as to the jyroduct of inspiration, thus described as 
 "the older view" — not caricatured — said to be held by some of the 
 members of the College Sub-committee. In the Assemblj'-, I ex- 
 pressed my surprise, and I now again express my surprise that there 
 should be a single member of that sub-Committee (and the words 
 imply that there are several if not a majority of the whole) who does 
 not see " reason to believe all statements of the original Scriptures 
 to be true, in the sense divinely intended ; that sense being also con- 
 sistent with a fair use of words within the range of legitimate human 
 speech." 
 
 Am I to understand that you are one of that number? Do you 
 refuse to endorse that statement of personal belief 1 You will 
 observe that it has nothing to do with any " a jjriori theory of 
 inspiration." It, however, has to do with the j^roduct of inspiration, 
 and defines the sense in which all statements of the original Scrip- 
 tures are believed to be true, viz., " the sense divinely intended : 
 that sense being also consistent with a fair use of words within the 
 range of legitimate human speech." Whatever be your own view, if 
 jou will only regard these words as giving a correct statement of the 
 view I hold as to the jn-oduct of inspiration, perhaps you will see that 
 after all I can have little difficulty in showing that my view consists 
 with the several cases of alleged "discrepancy" you cite. 
 
 The first case, that of the two versions of the Decalogue, is easily 
 explained. The words recorded in Exodus, I regard as precisely 
 those which were uttered from Sinai, and written upon the tables of 
 stone. Those recorded in Deuteronomy purport to be part of a 
 hortative speech delivered by Moses — a speech in which he uses 
 throughout certain freedoms and makes certain amplifications. 
 While he repeats the ten commandments as those which the Lord 
 had spoken from the midst of the fire, and written on tables of stone, 
 he shows plainly in his mode of doing so, that he did not aim at 
 exact reproduction of the past, but wished to preserve to some extent 
 the form of a free rehearsal. I refer you to what Dr. Fairbairn says 
 on this point in his article on the Decalogue (Bible Dictionary, 
 pp. 423-4). 
 
 If there is foundation for what Dr. Fairbairn says in that article, 
 then the only question bearing on inspiration that can arise in regard 
 
48 
 
 to the Deutei-onomic version of the Decalogue is : — Have we in 
 Deuteronomy a true report of what was said by Moses to the people 
 on the plains of Moab ? If we have, then my view as to the product 
 of inspiration is verified. Are you prepared to say that we have not 
 a true report? When inspired writers report the sayings or 
 doings of others, whether of good men or of bad men, or even of devils, 
 I never understood that they were guided by the inspiring Spirit to 
 correct the subject matter of what is reported. In all such cases I 
 understood that inspiration secured trullijul reporting — not neces- 
 sarily verbatim reporting, but truthful reporting — for there may be a 
 truthful summary, as well as a truthful verbatim report. 
 
 If in this case the words of Moses are trutlifuUy reported in 
 Deuteronomy, either in extenso, or in the form of a summary, in 
 either case the statement is " true in the sense divinely intended." 
 
 The same principle I apply to the case you cite about Stephen's 
 speech (zVcts vii. 16). In an able letter of date March 29, 1890, 
 signed " Ludovicus," which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, two 
 possible explanations are given with the view of showing that the 
 statement as originally made by Stephen was in harmony with the 
 facts as recorded in Genesis. But even if it were otherwise, if it 
 could be proved that Stephen in the course of his address had fallen 
 into a mistake on this point, that would not give me any trouble with 
 the view I take as to the province of inspiration in relation to reported 
 speeches. The sole question I feel called upon to look at in that con- 
 nection is : — Has the inspired historian Luke truthfully reported the 
 speech of Stephen 1 Did Stephen really utter the words attributed to 
 him in the original text of Acts % Are you prepared to say that he 
 did not do so 1 
 
 That chapter of Acts is intended to be — on its face it purports to 
 be — a report of the speech of Stephen (whether in extenso or in 
 abridged form is not stated), and if the report is " true in the sense 
 divinely intended," even a mistake on the part of Stephen about the 
 place of burial (a mistake, however, most unlikely in the circum- 
 stances) would give me no more trouble than do the mistaken views 
 of Divine providence on the part of the friends of Job — mistakes 
 corrected in the book in which they are recorded — or the lies of Satan 
 ■which are truthfully reported {e.g., temptation of our Lord), but are 
 corrected by counter statements of divine truth. 
 
 As to the ditlerent lists in Ezra and Nehemiah of those who re- 
 turned from Babylon, you have no right to assert that there is any 
 
49 
 
 "discrepancy" unless you are sure (1) that in each case the list was 
 complete ; (2) that each person had only one name ; (3) that the lists 
 were compiled at precisely the same time and referred to the same 
 classes ; and (4) that there was no corruption in either case of the 
 original text. 
 
 The variations in the quotations from the Old Testament as made 
 in the New have alwa3's seemed to me the most conclusive proof that 
 could be adduced of the Divine Authorship of the Bible as a whole. 
 If you, as a human author, may, in one part of a volume written by 
 yourself, introduce the same idea in somewhat varied forms of expres- 
 sion, I really cannot understand why God should be restricted to the 
 ipsissima verba of what has been formerly written under His own 
 guidance. Is He not entitled through inspired men to give in the 
 New Testament a somewhat different setting to any statement of the 
 Old Testament, and to bring out more fully its hidden meaning 1 
 
 I have looked into the passages of Calvin's Commentary to which 
 you refer, and as I agree with what Calvin there says I am at a loss 
 to know on what ground you represent me as casting " Calvin over- 
 board." 
 
 You take credit to yourself for inducting your theory of inspiration 
 from " the statements and the facts of Scripture," and your words 
 imply that I do something else. 
 
 I also induct my views as to the jyroduct of inspiration from " the 
 statements and /ac^s of Scripture." I take into account, however, and 
 attach chief importance to statements and facts, of which you seem 
 to make no account whatever, viz. : the statements of the writers of 
 Scripture regarding their own writings, and the writings of other 
 inspired men, and very specially the testimony of Christ and His 
 Apostles regarding Holy Scriptm-e. You seem to me to ignore these 
 most essential facts and you ask me to fix my attention exclusively on 
 what you describe as " discrepancies" in our present Scriptures. 
 
 You take no account moreover of the fact — proved by the various 
 readings — that there has been corruption to a gi-eater or less extent of 
 the original text, that mistakes of a trivial kind, none of them how- 
 ever affecting a single doctrine or duty revealed in the Bible, have Vjeen 
 introducod through transcription, mistakes which are being elimin- 
 ated as older MSS. are discovered. You insist that the discrepancies 
 you think you have discovered in our present Bible must have been 
 in the original document, although such an assertion cannot be proved. 
 
 Are you entitled in this way to use the facts of our present Bible ? 
 B 
 
DO 
 
 Apply the same principle of reasoning to the Parable of the Tares. 
 You go at the harvest time to the field in which the wheat and the 
 tares are growing together, and from the facts you induct the theory 
 that the owner of the field sowed tai-es as well as wheat. But you 
 know that in that case your induction would be wrong, for an enemy 
 sowed the tares and they were sown subsequently to the wheat. Or 
 to take another illustration. You look at the facts of human 
 nature as it now is. You hold God responsible for the wicked- 
 ness now found in man. You know that you cannot reason 
 thus, for in so doing you would contradict the statement of Scripture 
 that " God made man upright," and at the same time you would 
 deny the fact of the fall. I hold that you have as little warrant even 
 if you do find " errors " or " discrepancies " in the present Scriptures 
 for saying that they were in the Scriptures as originally given. 
 
 If, by a comparison of the best MSS. our higher critics can show 
 that any statement of our present Scriptures had no place in the 
 original text, I at once accept that result of their labours, and do not 
 claim infallibility for any such interpolation. In all such cases, 
 however, they must produce the objective authority of MSS., which 
 is a different thing from the inner consciousness accepting or 
 rejecting at pleasure what is found in the original text, on the 
 ground that it contains a mixture of truth and error. In the one 
 case there is a fixed objective standard, but in the other there is none. 
 The relation of the individual to the Bible is different in the two 
 cases. In the former case I accept the evidence of MSS. and bow before 
 the authority of the Word of God. In the latter case the Divine 
 communications ai'e all subject to me. I am their master ; I receive 
 them only in so far as they commend themselves to my spiritual 
 consciousness. Instead of bringing the facts of my spiritual experience 
 to the Bible as to a fixed standard outside of me, for determining 
 their quality, I bring the Bible to my spiritual experience, that I may 
 find out how much of it I shall accept, and how much of it I shall 
 reject. 
 
 You exhort me to keep to my j^roper sphere of work, and hint 
 that I have not gifts fitting me for dealing with these questions of 
 higher criticism, which our learned professors claim as specially 
 belonging to them. From the manner in which you address me on 
 this point, I suppose that you must, with Professor Drummond (see 
 British Weekly of this week) class me among the " obscurantists." 
 
 Well, if our professors will keep their speculations to themselves. 
 
51 
 
 I shall not presume to entei* into controversy with men so superior 
 in gifts and attainments. When, however, they insist on proclaiming 
 in season and out of season, that there are " mistakes," " inaccuracies," 
 "discrepancies,'' "errors," "immoralities," in the original Scriptures, 
 thus doing their best to neutralize my testimony, and to defeat all the 
 ends of the Christian ministry, I feel that I am not only entitled, but 
 bound to do my best in the use of the powers God has given 
 me, to vindicate the infallible truth and Divine authority of Scripture 
 as taught in the Word of God and in the Confession, and as attested 
 by Christ and His Apostles. Humble though my powers may be, I 
 cannot forget that the Bible lies at the foundation of all my preaching 
 and of all my personal hopes ; that it is a book, not merely for higher 
 critics, but for the common people, and that through the enlightening 
 S[)irit by whom it was inspired, things in it which are hid from "the 
 wise and prudent" may be " revealed unto babes." 
 
 From your many writings, I know that you sympathize with evan- 
 gelistic work in every form, and I cannot but believe that if you 
 only knew the baneful eflfects that have already resulted from the 
 utterances of Dr. Dods as to there being "errors" and "immoralities" 
 in the original Scrii)tures, you would hesitate before seeking to vindi- 
 cate him in making such statements. Your letter seems to imply 
 that you wish to identify yourself with him in making these offensive 
 statements. I hope that in this I misunderstand you, for in view of 
 your evangelical standpoint, and the wholesome wai'ning given in 
 your recent admirable article on "The Old Pulpit and the New," 
 I find it hard to persuade myself that this is your real position. 
 The less am I able to do so when I find from the Division List 
 that you supported the motion of Dr. Adam, which declared that the 
 Assembly " views the nse of the term ' mistakes and immoralities ' 
 to describe recognized difficulties in the Scriptures as utterly 
 unwarranted, and fitted to give grave ofience." 
 
 It seems to me that you are fighting a man of straw known as the 
 " mechanical theory of inspiration," or the " theoiy of verbal dictation." 
 This is plain from the fact that in an article recently contributed by you 
 to an American newspaper, and reproduced in this country, you tried 
 to persuade the American churches that those opposed to Dr. Dods are 
 contending for " verbal dictation." After my previous correspondence 
 with you, is this fair] On 10th May, 1878, you sent me a letter in 
 which, after explaining, as you do now, that you follow the induction 
 method, you said : — " It leads me to question the doctrine of verbal 
 
inspiration, at least as a universal phenomenon." On 19tl) February, 
 1 880, you again wrote me to say that if you were writing over again 
 the letter from which that extract is taken you would " alter one ex- 
 ))ression," and you added — " I do believe in the doctrine of verbal 
 inspiration ; what I cannot receive is, the doctrine of verbal dictation^ 
 On the day following I wrote you, enclosing a second time a copy of 
 my Published Speech in the former case against Dr. Dods, and re- 
 ferred you to page 13 for proof that equally with yourself I repudiated 
 " verbal dictation," which I regard as another name for the " mechanical 
 theory of inspiration." After that correspondence, it seems to me un- 
 accountable that you should regard yourself as entitled to write your 
 recent article, misrepresenting so flagi-antly to the American churches 
 the real question at issue in this controversy. 
 
 I have always cherished the hope that, on getting into closer con- 
 ference with each other, we would discover that after all there is not 
 so great a divergence of view between the two parties in that contro- 
 versy as at present appears, and hence my proposal for the appoint- 
 ment of a committee in the case of Dr. Dods. That proposal was, 
 however, rejected, as was also a proposal I privately made to Dr. 
 Rainy that the opening statement in the motion of Dr. Adam 
 should be omitted. It seems to me to declare that the affirmations 
 that there were ''errors" in the original Scriptures, and that "im- 
 moralities " are " commended, or even commanded " in the Old 
 Testament, are not " at variance with the standards of the Church," 
 and consequently that no minister or professor can be cast out of the 
 Chui'ch whatever lengths he may go in making such oflensive state- 
 ments. It seems that nothing else would satisfy Dr. Dods and his 
 friends but to have in this manner a distinct reversal of the decision 
 of the Assembly of 1878, and a declaration that the Assembly of 1890 
 expressly sanctioned what the Assembly of 1878 expressly declined 
 to accept, viz., an understanding that these views of Dr. Dods, even in 
 their present more offensive form (through the addition of the term 
 "immoralities"), are henceforth "to be tolerated within the Church, 
 and are not condemned by the Confession." The decision makes that 
 "concession" to Dr. Dods, and to all of his way of thinking, which 
 was expressly denied to him by the Assembly of 1878, — "a conces- 
 sion" for which, in his letters to the College Sub-Committee, he 
 cannot sufficiently express his satisfaction, which he describes as 
 "wise and great," and which he interj^rets as meaning that "our 
 doctrine of Scripture may possibly need revisal." That is the " con- 
 
53 
 
 cession," forsooth, which is to mark a new era iii the progress and 
 prosperity of the Free Church. " Errors" in the original Scriptures, 
 " immoralities " " commended, or even commanded " in the Old 
 Testament, — these are to be the watchwords of the third Eeformation, 
 which our higher critics tell us is about to dawn on a country 
 benighted by its " Bibliolatry " ! ! ! 
 
 And our higher critics are infatuated enough to suppose that the 
 people of Scotland are prepared to respond to such watchwords, and 
 to rejoice in the prospect of thus getting rid, in this enlightened age, 
 of an infallible Book, even as before they got rid of an infallible 
 Pope ! ! ! They flatter themselves that by thus getting rid of the 
 infallible Book, they will better succeed in bringing men to the in- 
 fallible Christ, and Dr. Dods complains that many " sceptics have been 
 made by claiming for Scripture an adhesion and a faith which belong 
 to Christ alone." I know of no one who claims for Scripture such 
 an "adhesion" and such a "faith." At all events, one of my chief 
 aims in my ministry has been to warn men, that, like the Jews, they 
 may be great Bible readei's, and may have great regai'd for the letter 
 of Scripture, and yet never come for life to Him of whom the Scrip- 
 tures testify. But because men are saved by coming to Him and 
 believing on Him, are they at liberty after they have come to Him to 
 reject His testimony regarding that Book, through whose teaching 
 they found their way to Him ? Nay, verily. On the contrary, faith 
 in Him, which brings about oneness with Him, also makes more 
 precious than ever to the soul that Word of God, whose infallible 
 truth and Divine authority were so emphatically endorsed by Him, 
 and in which His voice continues to be heard. 
 
 This afternoon I stood by the bedside of a dying believer, and wit- 
 nessed her calm trust, her holy joy, her heavenly peace as she quoted 
 one text after another. Each text was to her as a light in the valley 
 — the sure word of promise of a present precious Saviour. What an 
 impertinence it would have been on my part if I had dared to offend 
 this " little one " of Christ, by insinuating doubt into her confiding 
 soul, by speaking of " mistakes," " inaccuracies," " discrepancies," 
 " errors," " immoralities." In our evangelistic efforts also, we have 
 surely difficulties enough without having them aggravated by currency 
 being given under quasi-ecclesiastical sanction to forms of expression, 
 which, as applied by the populace, will prove destructive of all faith 
 in the Bible, in Christianity, in Christ. 
 
 I write strongly because I feel strongl}-, and because T am afraid 
 
54 
 
 that those who seem bent on having at all hazards ecclesiastical 
 toleration for the view that there wei-e " errors" in the original Strip- 
 tures, and that "immoralities" are "commended, or even com- 
 manded" in the Old Testament— and that too without any detailed 
 specification of what is intended — have not yet realized the mis- 
 chievous effects that are being wrought among the people by the 
 down-grade movement now inaugurated. 
 
 I observe that though your letter refers to a public question, and to 
 my action in public, you bave marked it " private." I have no objec- 
 tion to our correspondence being made public, and as the College Sub- 
 Committee declare that " a case has arisen not for disciplinary mea- 
 sures, but for grave, respectful, and considerate discussion," while the 
 whole Church is interested in the question, I see no reason why, when 
 for the third time, you, of your own accord, have written to me in 
 regard to it, our friendly discussion should be " private." If your 
 views are right, and mine are wrong, you ought to have the courage 
 of your convictions, if now you have attained to settled convictions 
 on the subject. I will respect your wishes as to the non-publication 
 of your letter if you still so desire, but I hope that, in view of the 
 state of the question and the public interests involved, you will not 
 regard me as doing aught amiss if I treat this letter to you as open. 
 Although I am far from being persuaded with Dr. Dods, that 
 " nothing but good can result to our Church and to the Christian 
 people of this country " from " grave, respectful, and considerate dis- 
 cussion " — although great evils are, I fear, likely to follow from the 
 reiteration of words so offensive as " ei'rors " and "immoralities" in 
 connection with the Holy Scripture — I am prepared to face these risks, 
 in the hope that some of the misconceptions that have gathered 
 around the subject may be eventually removed, and that if we do not 
 in the end see eye to eye, we may at least come to a better under- 
 standing as to the real question at issue. Meanwhile with kind 
 regards, I am, yours very truly, 
 
 ROBERT HOWIE. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Blaikie. 
 
55 
 
 Prestwick, Jvly 3rd, 1S90. 
 
 Dear Dr. Blaikie, 
 
 I have been so busy that I have been under the 
 necessity of delaying my reply to yours of the 20th ultimo until I 
 came here for my holidays. 
 
 I am unwilling to misapprehend your views, but regret that, not- 
 withstanding the questions I put to you in my last on purpose to elicit 
 from you a clear statement of your views, you have not yet given me 
 any means of coming to a better understanding as to what they really 
 are. Certainly you have not shown me wherein 1 have either mis- 
 apprehended or mis-stated them when I last wrote you. On the 
 contrary, the statements you now make, taken in connection with 
 your previous utterances on the same subject only make plain that 
 you hold that there are " discrepancies," not apparent but real " dis- 
 crepancies," "inaccuracies," "errors" in the original Scriptures; that 
 you hold that inspiration did not guard against these. In other 
 words, I understand that your position is precisely the same as that of 
 Dr. Dods, so far as the affirmation that there are " inaccuracies " or 
 "errors" in the original Scriptures is concerned, although like him 
 you doubtless would restrict these " inaccuracies " or " errors " to 
 matters " unimportant or less important," and contend that they do 
 not affect the infallibility of the Bible as a E-ule of Faith and Life. 
 This is perfectly consistent with your affirmation that " the inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit was always such as to secure that the great 
 truths of Divine Revelation should be expressed in clear, suitable, 
 and sufficient language, but not such that the direct aitthority of the 
 Spirit should be claimed for every word employed." 
 
 Do you not see, that here you use a description of the effect of in- 
 spiration which might be applied to any sermon preached by a 
 minister of Christ in the nineteenth century 1 He may express "the 
 great truths of Divine Revelation" in " clear, suitable, and sufficient 
 language." 
 
 Your failure to use the expression truthful or accurate as applied to 
 the language of the Bible, and your repudiation of the direct authority 
 of God for every word employed, make it impossible for you to base 
 an argument even for a Biblical doctrine upon any word used in the 
 Bible, You virtually condemn Christ and His Apostles for basing 
 arguments upon words of Scriptiire (e.g. John x. 35, Heb. ii. 8, Gal. 
 iii. 16, and Heb. xii. 27). 
 
56 
 
 You say, '• What concerns me is this : At a time when the Church 
 seems to be slowly getting light as to God's method of giving forth and 
 recording His revelation, you and others seem bent on driving us to a 
 view (you don't like the word, theory) of inspiration which the Church 
 has not yet formulated and which may henceforth be found to be wrong," 
 
 My view as to the 2->roduct of inspiration (for as to its mode or 
 " method " I do not profess to have got the " light " of which you 
 speak) is, as I said in my last, that which is described by the 
 College Sub-Committee as the " older view " — not caricatured — viz. : 
 that "all the statements of the original Scriptures are true in the 
 sense Divinely intended : that sense being also consistent with a fair 
 use of words within the range of legitimate human si^eech." 
 
 I asked you whether you refused to endorse that as a statement of 
 your personal belief, and as you give no answer to my question I 
 presume you wish me to understand that you do not endorse it. 
 That is apparent from the fact that you describe it as " an extreme 
 view," to which " you desire not to be committed," and as one which 
 "may henceforth be found to be wrong." 
 
 When you thus write, and when you further declai-e that it is 
 a view " which the Church has not yet formulated," you surely have 
 foi'gotten the language of the Confession of Faith 1 If there is one 
 thing clearer than another in the Confession, it is that while the 
 Confession gives no theory, and makes no statement as to the viode or 
 method of inspiration, it makes statements as to the jJ'^oduct 
 of inspiration, which can have no other meaning, than that "all 
 the statements of the original Scriptures are true in the sense 
 Divinely intended : that sense being also consistent with a fair use of 
 words within the range of legitimate human sjjeech." What else can 
 be the meaning of the Confessional statement : — " God (who is Truth 
 itself), the Author thereof" — the Author, that is, of the whole Bible 
 (the books of which are specified), not merely of some parts of it 
 relating to things important, or to doctrine and duty 1 Manifestly 
 the parenthetical words " who is Truth itself" are introduced by the 
 authors of the Confession for the very purjiose of excluding error 
 from Iloly Scriptures as originally given by its Divine Author through 
 inspired men. Plainly, they would have regarded it as akin to blas- 
 phemy to atfirm that the God of Truth — the God " who is Truth 
 itself" — has been or can be the Author of "error." By culling its 
 Author "Truth itself" the Confession stamps with the seal of infalli- 
 bility whatever the Bible originally contained. 
 
57 
 
 The result of this Divine Authorship is indicated with equal clear- 
 ness by the assertion in the Confession of " the infallible truth and 
 Divine authority thereof." That is again of the whole Bible — for 
 there is no distinction drawn between some parts of the Bible to which 
 these words apply, and others to which they do not apply. How you 
 reconcile the affirmation that there was error in the original Scriptures 
 with these statements of the Confession, I am at a loss to under- 
 stand. In view of these statements of the Confession, I hold that I am 
 fairly entitled to say that you, and those of your way of thinking, are 
 the innovators in this matter, and that you " seem bent on driving us " 
 to a view of inspiration utterly inconsistent with that which the 
 Church has formulated in her Confession. Your conduct seems to 
 me the more inexplicable, inasmuch as, with myself, you have sub- 
 scribed the Confession. If you have discovered that the doctrine in 
 regard to Holy Scripture there formulated is wrong or " may hence- 
 forth be found to be wrong," or if, with Dr. Dods, you wish the 
 Church to " recognize that our doctrine of Scripture may possibly 
 need revisal," you ought courageously to raise the question of the 
 revision of the statements of the Confession on this point in the 
 Confession of Faith Committee. 
 
 That certainly seems to me a far more straightforward course than 
 to sign the Confession and yet to hold views which are inconsistent 
 with its statements — for, as I have already said, when it speaks of 
 Divine Authorship and of consequent "infallible truth and Divine 
 authority," it draws no distinction such as you wish to draw between 
 things important and things unimportant in the Bible, between some 
 parts of the Bible which refer to doctrine and duty, and other parts 
 which have not such an obvious reference. 
 
 You cannot deny that the interpretation I have given of the 
 meaning of the Confession is that which has prevailed within the 
 Church up till last Assembly. The Assembly of 1878, on the 
 question being raised in the former case against Dr. Dods, affirmed 
 that the doctrine of " the infallibility and Divine authority of Holy 
 Scripture" is "contained in the Standards," and emphatically con- 
 demned the view that there were " errors in the Scriptures as 
 originally given." Nay, more, in explicit terms it declared that it 
 did not accept the understanding embodied in the letter of Dr. Dods 
 to the Presbytery of Glasgow, viz., that the views exiwessed in his 
 sermon and preface, then withdrawn, " are to be tolerated within the 
 Church, and are not condemned by the Confession." 
 
58 
 
 As the Assembly of 1890 has given an interpretation of the 
 meaning of the Confession the very reverse of that given by the 
 Assembly of 1878, it seems to be now absolutely necessary that this 
 question be authoritatively decided, if the Chui-ch is henceforth to 
 give forth a certain sound in regard to an aiticle of faith so funda- 
 mental as the doctrine of Holy Scripture. If you and your friends 
 mean to insist on having toleration permanently given within the 
 Church to the view that there were " errors " in the Scriptures as 
 originally given (not to speak meanwhile of the no less offensive 
 term "immoralities"), I hope that you will not consider that we act 
 unreasonably when we ask that you produce a complete list of the 
 *' errors " which you think you have discovered, and that you give us 
 some more conclusive proof than has yet been offered that they were 
 in the Scriptures as originally given. This is the more necessary as I 
 find that scarcely any two persons are agreed as to what are the so- 
 called " errors," even in our present Scriptures, while I have never 
 yet found any one who has offered any proof of a convincing kind 
 that any error whatever was in the Scriptures as originally given. 
 Perhaps I should qualify this statement to the extent of saying that 
 from a pamphlet of Count Agenor de Gasparin I have ascertained 
 that M. Sherer, of Geneva, who, forty years ago, propagated the same 
 views as those now advocated by Dr. Dods, did in point of fact, when 
 challenged to give a specimen of an " error " in the original Scriptures^ 
 cite the case of the Centurion to which Dr. Dods has recently given so 
 much prominence. The result was that the Count devotes a whole 
 chapter of the aforesaid pamphlet in giving a reply so conclusive 
 and crushing, that in view of it I am surprised that Dr. Dods, if he 
 ever saw the pamphlet of Gasparin, has ventured to cite the same 
 incident as a case of " error." But while Dr. Dods and M, Sherer 
 are thus agreed in citing the same incident as a specimen of error in 
 the Gospel narratives, I have been not a little amused to find that 
 scarcely a single one of the most enthusiastic of the supporters of Dr. 
 Dods has ventured to regard it in the same light, while your cases of 
 so-called " discrepancy " have similarly provoked a smile even among 
 these supporters of Dr. Dods. 
 
 As these facts make it plain that different minds will come to- 
 different conclusions as to what are to be regarded as " errors " even 
 in our present Bible, we are surely entitled to have a list submitted 
 to us of the so-called errors, and to have some proof furnished that 
 they were all in the original Scriptures, so that we may know to what- 
 
59 
 
 extent the Bible requires to be expurgated. You surely do not mean 
 that every minister of the Church is to be at liberty to reject just as 
 much as he pleases of the Church's supreme Standard on the ground 
 that it is erroneous, and that, too, after he has solemnly declared 
 before ordination or induction that he believes " tbe Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testament to be " — not to contain, but to be — " the 
 Word of God." 
 
 If that is not your meaning, will you kindly say where the line is 
 to be drawn 1 Will you explain how each minister and how each 
 reader of the Bible is to be able to distinguish between what is true 
 and what is erroneous in the Bible, between what is important and 
 what is unimportant. Besides, if the sacred writers erred on other 
 matters, what guarantee can I have that they did not also err in 
 respect to doctrine and duty 1 If there were in the Scriptures as 
 originally given any real errors, however trifling, then the men who 
 wrote the Bible were not infallibly guided by the Spirit of God, at 
 least, in some matters ; and if not in some, what pi'oof have I that 
 they were infallibly guided in any? On what principle can you 
 affirm that their infallibility extends to doctrine and duty if it does 
 not extend to other things 1 Don't you feel the force of the questions 
 ■which Dr. Adam is constrained to put when he admits that this view 
 for which you contend involves " tremendous risks " 1 " Here," said 
 he, " was a principle, and where were they to stop in its application ? 
 Here was a chink, would it not open, would it not widen until the 
 whole flood came rushing in 1 " 
 
 If you admit error in what you call unimportant matters, how can 
 you object to the criticism of Row, who holds your view as to inspira- 
 tion, when, in his Bampton Lectures, he treats as nontrustworthy the 
 Biblical account of the creation, the antiquity of man, and the deluge 1 
 Once admit this principle, and every man will, according to his own 
 theological standpoint, draw for himself the dividing line between the 
 true and the false in the Bible. He will be able by this principle not 
 only to get rid of such facts as he does not care to believe, but of 
 such doctrines and duties as do not commend themselves to his 
 acceptance. 
 
 To your credit, be it said, you have taken a greater interest than 
 any other minister of our Church in the churches of the Continent, 
 and I have no doubt that you are familiar with the outcome of the 
 views of M. Sherer in Geneva. Here is what Count Gasparin says 
 on that point : — " The head becomes giddy in following his career. 
 
60 
 
 The doctrinal assertions even of his letters were alarming; but what 
 progress has he made since ? From one article to another, from one 
 number to another of the Strashurg Revieio, the advance is frightful. 
 We have noted, day after day, these melancholy and inevitable steps ; 
 and yet when we found them traced over in a few eloquent pages 
 by M. Bonnet, we have been startled, as by a new and unexpected 
 discovery. An inexorable logic has unfolded in swift succession the 
 consequences of the principle laid down. Once delivered from the 
 external authority of the Scriptures, ^once sent back to the internal 
 authority of his own religious conscience, and to a historical knowledge 
 of the facts of Christianity, — M. Sherer has rejected both that which 
 offends him and that which he does not comprehend ! All this was 
 very natural. Once led to reject in this manner a part of the Scrip- 
 ture, he has been compelled to ask himself why Jesus Christ had 
 admitted it in its entireness. Thence followed the conclusion (which 
 we scarcely dare to express), that Jesus Christ had accommodated Him- 
 self to existing notions, or that Jesus Christ was mistaken ! — a 
 blasjjhemous conclusion, — an emphatic condemnation of the principle 
 from which it has been legitimately inferred." 
 
 I hope you will not deem it presumptuous in me to ask you to 
 ponder these words of Count Gasparin and the evidence they supply 
 as to the kind of developments we may expect in Scotland, if tliere is 
 to be unlimited permission to affirm that there were errors in the 
 original Scriptures. Surely the facts stated by the Count (and they 
 are confirmed by what has taken place in other continental countries) 
 m&Y well lead evangelical men, like yourself, to pause in your 
 attempt to commit the Free Church to this down-grade movement. 
 At all events they show conclusively how grossly you are deceiving 
 yourself when you claim that in adopting such views you are getting 
 " light as to God's method of giving forth and recording His reve- 
 lation." Although that is doubtless far from your intention, you are 
 simply taking the first step towards popularizing in Scotland, if that 
 be possible, the Rationalism of the continent, which is beginning 
 already to be discarded in the lands in which it had its origin. 
 
 When I made it plain in my last letter that I attach chief impor- 
 tance to the testimony of Scripture writers regarding their own writ- 
 ings, and to the testimony of Christ and His apostles in regard to 
 Holy Scripture, I am surprised that in your reply you take no notice 
 of what I say on these points. In the light of the conclusion 
 to which M. Sherer was logically led in regard to our Saviour, I will 
 
61 
 
 be glad to know how, in view of the manner in which He uniformly 
 deals with Scripture, you hope to be able, with the view you hold as 
 to there being errors in the original Scriptures, to avoid coming to 
 the same conclusion as M. Sherer in regard to Him. If you are 
 fairly to induct your view from "the statements and facts" of 
 Scripture, I humbly submit that you are not at liberty to leave out 
 of account the main facts. To use the words of Dr. Watts on this 
 subject, in an able article Avhich appears in the Belfast Witness of the 
 27th ultimo, and which I commend to you for perusal, your 
 "methodology is based upon one of the most palpable of all logical 
 fallacies — a narrow induction — a fallacy, which in this case, sets up a 
 human inference against a positive Divine affirmation." 
 
 After what I said in my last letter in expknation of the difficulties 
 you raised about the two versions of the Decalogue and the speech of 
 Stephen, I do not feel that I ought to return at length to these cases of 
 alleged "discrepancy, "notwithstandingthe prominence youagain give to 
 them. You ap])ear to me to stumble because you have no correct appre- 
 hension of the function of inspiration in connection with reported 
 speeches. On this point let me quote the words of Dr. Fairbairn : — 
 •' Written as it {e.g. the Bible) is with much variety of form, con- 
 taining a revelation from God made in diverse manners, as well as at 
 sundry times — and assuming often the form of narrative and dialogue 
 — it cannot intend, when asserting its immediate connection with the 
 Spii'it of God, that every portion, viewed singly and apart, is clothed 
 with Divine authoritj^, and expresses the mind of Heaven. For that, 
 it would require to have been cast throughout into the form of simple 
 enunciations or direct precepts ; and all conversational freedom of 
 discourse, and expressions of thought and feeling, adverse to the truth, 
 must have been withheld. In S])eaking, therefore, of the inspiration 
 of Scripture, respect must be had to the distinctive characteristics of 
 its several parts. And where the sentiment uttered, or the circum- 
 stances recorded, cannot, from its obvious connection or import, be 
 ascribed to God, the inspiration of the writer is to be viewed as ap- 
 pearing simply in the faithfulness of the record, or the adaptation of 
 the matter contained in it to its place in the sacred volume. Were 
 it but a human idea, or a thought even from the bottomless [)ib, yet 
 the right setting of the idea, or the just treatment of the thought, 
 may as truly require the guidance of the unerring Spirit, as a report 
 of a message from the upper Sanctuary." 
 
 In the light of what is thus said by Dr. Fairbairn I again ask. Are 
 
G2 
 
 jou prepared to affirm that we have not a truthful report in Deutero- 
 nomy of what was said by Moses on the plains of Moab, or in Acts of 
 what was said by Stephen 1 If we have a truthful report then my 
 view of the effect of inspiration in the case of reported speeches is 
 verified in both these cases. 
 
 You cite, as against my view, the words of Deut. v, 22, " These 
 words the Lord spake unto all your Assembly ... with a great voice, 
 and He added no more, and He wrote them on tw^o tables of stone 
 and delivered them unto me." Did it never occur to you, that in this 
 verse Moses evidently used the term " words " in the sense in which 
 it was often used as denoting the Ten Commandments delivered 
 from Sinai? While, as I said in my last, he quotes these Command- 
 ments freely in a hortative discourse (and for proof that he did so I 
 i-efer you again to Dr. Fairbairn's article on the Decalogue), he declares 
 that these ten great "Words" or Commandments were spoken unto all 
 the Asseaibly, written on two tables of stone, and delivered to himself, 
 and that there were no other "Words" or Commandments added to 
 them. Really before you try to convict Moses of error you must be 
 sure that you understand the sense intended by him, when he uses 
 the term " Words." But that apart, even if you could prove that 
 Moses blundered in his speech by professing to give a verbatim 
 account of what was on the two tables while he failed to do so, my 
 view of inspiration is verified if we have in Deuteronomy a truthful 
 account of what he actually did say on the plains of Moab. 
 
 And the same thing holds good in regard to the report of the speech 
 of Stephen. If it is truthful my view of inspiration is verified, even 
 although Stephen made a mistake about the sepulchre. 
 
 You seem to think that you can evade the force of what I said in 
 my last letter on this point by citing certain expressions used about 
 Stephen, as that he was "a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost," 
 also "a man full of faith and power," while reference is made to "the 
 wisdom and the spirit by which he spake." From these expressions 
 you seem to infer that he spake by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and 
 you argue that this is a case of an inspired man falling into " error." 
 Are you warranted in drawing tliis inference? Is not every Christian 
 commanded to be filled with the Spirit ? May he not be so tilled 1 
 May he not be "full of faith and power?" May we not refer to "the 
 wisdom and the spirit " by which he speaks, without implying that 
 his utterances are inspired in the sense in which the writings of the 
 Old and New Testaments are inspired ? 
 
03 
 
 But even, if, as you suppose, Stephen spake by inspiration in the 
 proper sense of the word, I hold that in view (1) of possible explana- 
 tions which have been given which reconcile the account of Genesis 
 and Acts, and (2) the fact attested by various readings that errors 
 have through transcription found their way into our present Bible, 
 yon are not entitled to affirm that this is a case of proved " error " in 
 the original Scriptures. 
 
 At best yours is a gratuitous assumption, which you cannot estab- 
 lish, for you cannot produce the original text to show that there was 
 '•error" there, even if you are pei-fectly sure that there is "error" in 
 the speech of Stephen as reported in our present Bible. You know 
 that sufficient time elapsed between the date of Stephen's speech and 
 that of the oldest extant MSS. for the corruption of the text at this 
 I^oint. 
 
 For aught you know an older MSS. may yet be discovei^ed, which 
 would cover with confusion those who so confidently assert that there 
 was "error" in the original text. Nay more, for aught you know, 
 such additional facts in the lives, or in connection with the burial of 
 the patriarchs may yet be brought to light, as may make it manifest 
 that after all there is no real discrepancy between the speech of 
 Stephen even as reported in our present Bible and its narrative in 
 Genesis. What if it should turn out that Abraham did in point of 
 fact buy a piece of ground near Shechem, although we have no 
 account in Genesis of such a transaction, and that the buying of it led 
 to a further purchase by Jacob 1 What if it should turn out that, as 
 suggested by some of the best expositors, the word Abraham is an 
 interpolation by a transcriber? What if the embalmed body of 
 Jacob, after being buried iu Machpelah as we read in Genesis, was 
 afterwards removed (as the bodies of some of the heroes of more 
 modern times have been removed from one place of sepulture to 
 another) to Shechem to be laid alongside of the bodies of his own 
 family — perhaps at that very spot, not far from Jacob's well, which 
 was pointed out to us as Joseph's tomb ? Other possible explanations I 
 might have given on the supposition that Stephen spoke by inspiration 
 in the strict sense of the word. T am not called upon to say what 
 may turn out to be the correct explanation. In all such cases of 
 acknowledged difficulty we need to know more about all the circum- 
 stances before we are in a position to determine which of several 
 suggested explanations is the correct one, or whether there may not 
 be some other possible explanation of a satisfactory kind in reserve. 
 
As Westcott says, "Even in these passages which present the greatest 
 difficulties, there are traces of unrecorded facts which, if known fully, 
 would probably explain the whole." The difficulties of Scripture are 
 vanishing quantities. Many of them that once appeared the most 
 formidable have not only been solved, but have supplied new proof 
 of the absolute truthfulness of Scripture in all its details. In pres- 
 ence of these facts, I think we may reasonably ask that you and 
 others will have a little more patience in the intei-pretation of Scrip- 
 ture before asking the Church to give permanent toleration to a view 
 of the Scriptures as originally given, which we conscientiously regard 
 as not only fraught with the most mischievous consequences, but as 
 directly contrary to the statements of Scripture writers regarding 
 their own writings, and as subversive of the testimony of Christ and 
 His Apostles regarding Scripture. 
 
 I shall be glad to have further explanation of yovtr views if you 
 still think that I have to any extent misapprehended them. I will 
 also be glad to have your permission to publish your letters to me, 
 reserving as I do my right to publish my lettei's to you. 
 
 With kindest regards and genuine respect, I am, youi's very truly, 
 
 EGBERT HOWIE. 
 
G5 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Why speak of " possible developments," involving a " denial of 
 the Sapernatm-al," as pertaining only to the future 1 Has not a 
 "Christian evolutionist" (just returned from a trip to foreign parts) 
 opened the Glasgow F.C. College by an address in which, from be- 
 ginning to end, he advocates, so I understand him, the most undis- 
 guised Naturalism, in its baldest possible form 1 In keeping with his 
 creed, he gives a striking illustration of the rapidity with which 
 " development " may take place in the beliefs even of men who have 
 signed the Confession of Faith, As he is one of the special 
 admirers of Dr. Dods, and is generally credited with having not a 
 little to do with moulding his views, this clear indication of the kind 
 of " development" of the " new critical views " to be expected is very 
 significant. 
 
 I wonder what the Convener of the Foreign Mission Committee, 
 who was present on the occasion, thought of the proposal to speak 
 of "the Christian evolution of the world, instead of, or as at least, a 
 change from, the evangelization of the world ; " to substitute the view 
 of the evolutionist, viz., that " the world was sunken and must be 
 raised," for the old fashioned Biblical view — that announced by Jesus 
 Christ as explaining His mission and atoning death, viz., that " the 
 world was lost and must be saved " ; to send out to the heathen, men 
 of " culture," of the " highest originality and power," who were in 
 doubt as to whether " the cut of their theology quite qualified them to 
 be successors of Carey and Williams," were " too honest to go, on what 
 might seem to them false pretences, to a work which, though they 
 were not specially enthusiastic for it, they were yet entirely willing to 
 face if duty called " — to face it, however, on the understanding, that 
 they go forth feeling it to be their " duty to find out what God had 
 sown there already," and " instead of uprooting their Maker's work, 
 and clearing the field of all the plants that found no place in their 
 
6G 
 
 'small European herbarium,' should rather water the growths already 
 there " (in other words, should water Hinduism, Mahomedanism, 
 Buddhism, etc.), "and continue the work where the Spirit of God was 
 already moving." 
 
 If I may judge from the sermon lately preached in my church, on 
 the occasion of the ordination of a foreign missionary, and especially 
 from the report made by him and Mr. Daly in regard to our Indian 
 missions. Dr. Lindsay cannot have much sympathy with the kind of 
 proposal made by his colleague. Evidently he thinks that in the Indian 
 field we have already quite enough of the " culture " element in our 
 Foreign Mission opei^ations, and that the " new departure " should be 
 rather in the way of giving greater prominence to that " popular 
 evangelism," which Professor Drummond regards as out of place, and 
 requiring to be superseded by Naturalism. I wonder whether Dr. 
 Adam (who, in his Assembly speech, said, " Here was a chink, 
 would it not open, would it not widen until the whole flood came 
 rushing in ? ") will now come to the conclusion that we have 
 already got enough of the " flood," that more vigorous action than 
 has yet been taken is needed to close up the "chink," especially 
 when, on the authority of Px-ofessor Drummond, we are assured that 
 our " halls were never richer" " than at this moment" in the kind of 
 men he describes. 
 
 Very likely that very fact may be urged by the leaders as a 
 reason why they should take no action whatever, even as Dr. 
 Blaikie pleads, that it would be "Quixotic" " to attempt discipline 
 against half the Church." If half the Church endorses the advanced 
 views just promulgated by Professor Drummond, or if the Church is 
 prepared to allow them to be taught to her future ministers, the fact 
 should be made apparent, so that some of us may seek (even 
 though our doing so may be the occasion of " noise, discontent, and 
 strife,") to ascertain what the people of the Free Church think of 
 the ecclesiastical toleration of such views. 
 
67 
 
 APPENDIX Til. 
 
 As the Inscription upon the Cross is the favourite specimen of so- 
 called " errors " given by those who defend the views of Dr. Dods ; 
 and as currency has been given to it in Alford's Commentary, 
 I append a reply made to his remarks on this subject in the " Journal 
 of Sacred Literature." 
 
 "THE INSCRIPTION UPON THE CROSS." 
 «'One word more as regards this inscription ! Much has been written 
 and spoken upon it, and one of the great critical scholars of the day 
 (the Dean of Canterbury) makes the following observations, in his 
 note on Matt, xxvii. 37 : — 
 
 ' On the difference in the four Gospels, as to the words of the 
 inscription itself, it is hardly worth while to comment, except to 
 remark, that the advocates for the verbal and literal exactness of 
 each Gospel may here find an undoubted example of the absurdity of 
 their view, which may serve to guide them in less plain and obvious 
 cases. A title was written, containing certain words ; not four titles, 
 all different, but one; differing probably from all these four, but 
 certainly from three of them.' 
 
 May I venture to express an opinion, that these observations are 
 somewhat unadvised, contemptuous, and contradictory. 
 
 1. Unadvised, inasmuch as Dean Alford seems to dismiss the 
 subject at once with a remark which implies that there are differ- 
 ences in the manner of giving the inscription which are irreconcilable. 
 Is this so ? Are there differences which are irreconcilable ! 
 
 2. Somewhat contemptuous, inasmuch as he evidently views all 
 who hold the doctrine of verbal inspiration (if he means this, by 
 ^verbal and literal exactness') as guilty of consummate weakness and 
 folly; whilst we who hold that doctrine feel that we are able to defend 
 and support it by solid argument. 
 
 3. A little contradictory, inasmuch as he first of all states, 'a 
 title was written,' ' not four titles, but one ; ' and then adds, ' differ- 
 ing probably from all these four.' But 'one title', and yet, after 
 all ' FOUR ' titles 1 
 
GS 
 
 In noticing this little contradiction in his mode of expressing 
 himself, I do not wish to be thouglit captious, but as the satisfactory 
 proof of there being no irreconcilable difference between the four 
 Evangelists as regards the insci-iption upon the Cross turns upon this 
 point, viz., that there really was but one title, I am tempted just to 
 notice it. That the Evangelists all differ, the one from the other, in 
 their mode of giving the inscription upon the cross, is quite clear. 
 Are then their differences reconcilable ? Most assuredly they are. 
 
 I. John gives Pilate's 'title,' "Ey/aaj/'e Se koL t'ltXov o IltAaTos. 
 Two other of the Evangelists give ' the accusation ' against Jesus. 
 Matthevj, — '^TredrjKav eTrdvu) Trjs Ke(f)aXrj's avTov ttjv air lav avrov ye- 
 ypaiJi[Mevi]V. Hark, — -^Hv y) eTriypaffirj rrj? air las avrov i-cyeypamxeinp 
 Lnke simply gives the word iir ty pa<j)7]. 
 
 But what was the iTriypacfjrj ? It is most reasonable to answer 
 Tvjs air las f Surely it is allowable to supply the ellipsis from Mark, 
 whose words have been quoted. 
 
 II. What then was the title 1 — 'Irjcrovs o 'Sa^apalos 6 (Saa-iXevs 
 rwv 'lovSatojv. What was the accusation 1 — ^'O /iao-tAevs twv 'lovSatiof. 
 See Luke xxiii. 2; Mark xv. 18; John xviii. 33, 37; xix. 12, 14, 15. 
 Thus Matthew, — ovros lo-riv 'Iv^croiis o /SacnXevs rwv 'lovSalcov. Mark, 
 — 6 ISamXevs rtov 'louSatwv. Lake, — oiTos kdriv u fSacnXevs twv 
 'lovSatwv. 
 
 There is no inconsistency, no want of agreement, no irreconcilable 
 difference here. Each evangelist does what he professes to do. John 
 jirofesses to give the ' title,' and he gives it ! Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke do not profess to give Pilate's title, but the 'accusation' 
 against Jesus, and they each of them give it. If Matthew, Mark, 
 and Luke, or either of them, had used the word ' title ' (in other 
 words, had professed to give Pilate's title) there would have been a 
 discrepancy between all, or either of them, and St. John, which it 
 would perhaps have been difficult if not impossible to have har- 
 monized. But each pi'ofesses to give the ^accusation,' and the 
 ' accusation ' only ; and as long as they each give the ' accusation,' 
 (it matters not, whether it be simply given, as by St. Mark, o 
 fSacriXevs ri7)v 'lovSaim', or with an additional remark, as by St. 
 Matthew, ' ovros ecrriv 'Irjcrovs,' etc., etc., etc.; and by St. Luke, 
 'oiTo's eVriv,' etc., etc., etc.,) they each do what they profess to do; 
 there is perfect consistency in their statements, and no semblance of 
 irreconcilable differences between them. W. R. C R. 
 
 Dowdeswell Rectory, Gloucestershire, April 23, 1SG4." 
 
69 
 
 APPENDIX lY. 
 
 Dr. Blaikie, referring to the explanation of Turretine, says that "If 
 Pascal in liis ' Provincial Letters ' had come across it, lie would have 
 had something racy to say of it ! " If Pascal had dealt with this 
 question, his " racy " things would not have been said in condemnation 
 of the conduct of those wiio, in accordance with their professed creed, 
 and their solemn ordination vows, do their best to repel the charges 
 made against the Bible by " rationalistic interpreters " ; to vindicate 
 the infallibility of Scripture in all its statements; and to uphold 
 the testimony of Him who said, " And the Scripture cannot be 
 broken." 
 
 His scorn, his ridicule, his invective would rather have been 
 reserved for the conduct of one who, before ordination and induction, 
 publicly declaied that he believed "the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testament to be the Word of God," and publicly subscribed 
 the Confession of Faith ; who, so recently as May last, threw " a sop 
 that missed Cerberus" (see British Weekly oi Jmie 6, 1890) by voting 
 for a motion, which declares that the Church " views the use of 
 the term ' mistakes and immoralities ' to describe recognized diffi- 
 culties in the Scriptures as utterly unwarranted, and fitted to give 
 grave offence " ; btit who, for years, personally held and jyrivatel// 
 advocated the very views in the apparent condemnation of which 
 he thus publicly joined (and that, too, although they were emphati- 
 cally condemned by the Assembly of 1878), and only ventured to 
 avow them puhlicly after he believed that he might do so with 
 ecclesiastical impunity. 
 
 Of all the statements made by Dr. Blaikie, not the least astounding 
 are those in which he seeks, on the one hand, to make it appear 
 that the Assembly of 1878 "decided no principle," and on the other, 
 to "deprive of all validity the argument fotmded on the article on 
 Holy Scripture in the Confession of Faith." The opening part of 
 the deliverance of 1878 was as follows: — "The General Assembly, 
 
70 
 
 considering that they are not in circumstances to enter with advantage 
 on a discussion of the topics which this case appears to involve, and 
 that no substantial interest appears to be imperilled by accepting the 
 decision of the Synod, dismiss the protest and appeal, and declare the 
 sentence of the Synod to be final." If words have any meaning, 
 these imply that in declaring the decision of the Synod to be " final " 
 the Assembly regarded itself as " accepting " that decision. And 
 what was the decision of the Synod ? It was as follows : — 
 
 " The Synod sustain the Complaint in so far as it takes exception 
 to the Report approved of by the Presbytery as not being a full 
 repi-esentation of the dangerous character of the views set forth in 
 the Sermon and Preface i-eported on, especially in not with sufficient 
 emphasis condemning the view that thei-e are errors in the Scriptures 
 as originally given ; and the Synod, moreovei', take this opportunity 
 of affirming the doctrine which was endangered by said Sermon, and 
 which is contained in tlie Standards of the Church, namely, the 
 infallibility and divine authority of Holy Scripture; and, further, 
 having learned from the bar, that the Sermon is now withdrawn, the 
 Synod are of opinion that the case should here take end." 
 
 Not only did the Assembly declare that decision to be "final." It 
 went further. After discussion, Dr. Rainy, who proposed the motion, 
 which became the finding of the As.sembly, was compelled to add to his 
 original proposal the words: — "The Assembly do not accept the under- 
 standing expressed in Dr. Dods' statement engrossed in the Minute 
 of Presbytery of Glasgow of 5th December, 1 877." The " under- 
 standing" referred to was that the views embodied in the Sermon and 
 Preface then withdrawn "are to be tolerated within the Church, and 
 are not condemned by the Confession." The Assembly thus declared 
 both what it did accept, and what it did not accept. It accepted 
 the decision of the Synod and declared it to be "final." It did not 
 accept the " understanding " of Dr. Dods. And yet in face of all 
 this. Dr. Blaikie contends that the Assembly " decided no ))rinciple," 
 and that the doctrinal views of the Synod are not " moi'ally binding 
 on the Church." His contention is based mainly on the fact that 
 neither the Presbytery of Glasgow nor Dr. Dods appeared at the bar 
 as appealing against the decision of the Synod. If that view is to pre- 
 vail, parties interested in any case can henceforth, by fidling from 
 their appeals, prevent any finding of the Assembly from becoming 
 "morally binding." A more complete travesty of botli the law and 
 the practice in civil and ecclesiastical courts it is scarcely possible to 
 conceive. 
 
71 
 
 There is a recognized order in Presbyterian Church courts for 
 preventing any decisiun of an inferior court from becoming " morally 
 binding " on an individual, viz., by the prosecution of an appeal to 
 a final issue. If the appeal is dismissed, he who thus prosecutes 
 it has at least freed himself of personal responsibility for the finding 
 of the Supreme Court. He is substantially in the same position 
 as those members of the Supreme Court who may dissent fLoni 
 its finding. Referring, in last Assembly, to the decision of the 
 Assembly of 1878, Dr. Adam said that it " was not entitled to a 
 great deal of respect," and that "if that Assembly had adopted the 
 decision of the Glasgow Presbytery, and not the decision of the 
 Glasgow Synod, he thought they would have been on safer ground." 
 In these words Dr. Adam admitted that the Assembly did "adopt" 
 the decision of the Glasgow Synod, and if he believed that they ought 
 to have adopted the decision of the Glasgow Presbytery, it was his 
 duty to have advised the Pi-esbytery, after they had appealed, to 
 appear at the bar of the Assembly in support of their appeal. But 
 the Presbytery, on his motion, fell from their appeal. In these cir- 
 cumstances, it is somewhat strange that Dr. Adam should 
 speak of that decision as "not entitled to a great deal of res- 
 pect." It is no less strange that he should be supported in that 
 contention even by Dr. Rainy, who moved the finding of the 
 Assembly. When our leaders thus treat decisions, which they have 
 themselves moved, or in which they have acquiesced, they can have 
 no well founded ground of complaint against our present action. 
 Many of us formally dissented against the finding of last Assemuiy. 
 Others were, by the forms of the House, prevented from dissenting 
 against a finding of which they personally disapproved, on the 
 ground that they had previously voted for it (although it was 
 notorious that ihey had done so, simply because in the final division 
 they had no alternative, but either to do so, or to allow a still worse 
 motion to become the finding of the Assembly). A still larger 
 number were not members of the Assembly. In view of the practical 
 reversal by last Assembly of the finding of the Assembly of 1878, 
 and that, too, on the motion of those who acquiesced therein, we 
 are surely justified in seeking to obtain an "equally authoritative 
 declaration " from a future Assembly, such as will rectify the wrong 
 done by last Assembly. 
 
 Referring to the Confession of Faith, Dr. Blaikie quotes a state- 
 ment made by Mr. Ross Taylor, on the authority of Dr. Mitchell, 
 
) 72 
 
 viz., that " the Westminster divines were at special pains to leave 
 open all reasonable questions as to the mode and degree of inspiration 
 which could be consistently lefc open by those who accepted the 
 Scripture as the infallible rule of truth and duty." Thereafter Dr. 
 Blaikie says : — " This, T think, goes a long way to deprive of all 
 validity the argument founded on the article on Holy Scripture 
 in the Confession of Faith." 
 
 Whether Mr. Taylor correctly represents Dr. Mitchell, and whether 
 Dr. Mitchell correctly represents the Westminster divines, I am not 
 in a position to say, until 1 have time to consult the "original 
 sources." But even on the supposition that what Mr. Taylor says 
 on the authority of Dr. Mitchell, is true, I fail to see how it 
 "deprives of all validity" the argument of our "Statement" in 
 regard to the Confession. We did not need Mr. Taylor to tell us 
 that the Confession lays down no theory as to " the mode and degree 
 of inspiration." That is what I have again and again affirmed. 
 
 But while the Confession gives no theory as to the inode of in- 
 spiration, its statements as to the x>roduct of inspiration are quite de- 
 finite. As we declare in the " Statement," the Confession identifies 
 the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (the Books of which are 
 specified in detail), with the "Word of God written." "It makes no 
 distinction between parts of the Bible relating to doctrine and duty, 
 and other parts not so related." It speaks of "God, (who is Truth 
 itself) the Author thereof," and of "the infallible truth and Divine 
 authority thereof," i.e., in each case of the whole Bible. Dr. Blaikie 
 says, " that the phrases do not occur in it which the ' Statement ' 
 uses to denote its position, and that it is only by putting an 
 interpretation which is not conceded by others on the phrase, 
 ' God, the Author of the Scriptures,' that any claim to confessional 
 authority can be advanced for the view of the 'Statement.'" I 
 challenge Dr. Blaikie to cite a single phrase which the " Statement " 
 represents to be in the Confession which cannot be found there. It 
 is very amusing that in the very act of bringing such a charge 
 of misquotation against us. Dr. Blaikie attaches marks of quotation 
 to the phrase, " God, the Author of the Scriptures," although such 
 a phrase is not found either in the Confession or in our " Statement." 
 The words of the Confession which correspond to it are found iu 
 the fourth section of Chap. I., which the Assembly deliverance 
 ignores, but which we correctly quote as follows : " The authority of 
 the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, 
 
dependeth 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." 
 
 We say that this is " the part of the Confession which bears most 
 directly on the question at issue. It was evidently introduced by 
 the compilers of the Confession to assert the claim of Scripture to 
 be I'eceived as objective truth. Manifestly the parenthetical words 
 'who is truth itself were introduced for the purpose of emphasizing 
 the fact of the absolute truth of the whole Bible. By calling the 
 Author ' truth itself,' the Confession stamps with the seal of in- 
 fallibility whatever the Bible originally contained." If these words 
 of the Confession, and the words " the infallible truth and Divine 
 authority thereof" which are found in the fifth section, do not 
 exclude the view advocated by Drs. Dods and Blaikie, viz., that 
 there were " errors " in the Scriptures as originally given, it will, 
 I venture to say, be difficult to find words that will accomplish that 
 object. 
 
74 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 IMPROVING THE BIBLE ! 
 
 A PARABLE FOR TO-DAY. 
 
 A SOMEWHAT humorous, tliougli not unieal, representation of the 
 effect likely to be produced by the wild assertions so frequent from 
 the lips of the newest school of Biblical critics appears in the 
 columns of the Boston Watchman. A worthy deacon, accustomed 
 from his youth to rely implicitly on the absolute trustworthiness of 
 every verse within the boards of the Bible, heard with astonishment 
 the new pastor declare that the opening chapters of Genesis were 
 mythical, not literal ; and were only intended to express with 
 emphasis the unity of God, so as to counteract the polytheism both 
 current and common at the time when they were written. 
 
 On his return from church he asked his wife to bring him the 
 scissors. 
 
 "What do you intend to do with them ?" she answered. 
 
 " Did you not hear our new pastor tell us these earlier chapters of 
 Genesis are myths? and, as I don't want any myths in my Bible, I 
 am going to cut them out." 
 
 She pleaded with him not to spoil the old Bible they had so often 
 read together and had learned to love so well ; but he was deaf to 
 all her expostulations, stoutly maintaining that, instead of spoiling 
 he would improve it by removing what was untrue ; and the offend- 
 ing chapters were accordingly excised. 
 
 Not many Sabbaths had passed when the deacon again called for 
 the scissors. On this occasion the whole Pentateuch was doomed to 
 disappeai'. In answer to the remonstrances of his wife, he said 
 quietly, yet firmly, 
 
 " Our pastor, who is a learned man himself, declares that ' the 
 best scholarship ' is thoroughly convinced that Moses did not write 
 tliese books ; that they are merely a collection of pamphlets from 
 
various sources, some Assyrian, some Egyptian ; and, moreover, their 
 contents prove that, in part at least, they were written centuries 
 after the death of Moses." 
 
 So the whole Mosaic literature was ruthlessly cut out. 
 Not long after the scissors were again in requisition. This time 
 tliey were employed in removing the latter half of Isaiah, who was 
 thus literally "sawn asunder" for the first, if not the second, time, 
 the reason given being these words of the pastor : " While he would 
 not say tliat he fully believed they were not written by Isaiah, the 
 son of Amoz, yet the higher criticism of the schools had declared that 
 some unknown author, or some unknown Isaiah, had added the lasc 
 twenty-five or thirty chapters." 
 
 In due time, an exposition of "scholarly doubts" concerning the 
 genuineness of the Fourth Gospel succeeded in securing its severance 
 from the sacred volume. With little difliculty the deacon was per- 
 suaded to part with the Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the 
 Song of Solomon ; while the story of Jonah was so shattered with 
 shafts of ridicule that it was sj^eedily cut out with a sigh of po.sitive 
 relief. 
 
 Sunday after Sunday the scholarly pastor pointed out an inter- 
 polation here and an interpolation there, all of which were forthwith 
 extinguished, as the deacon " didn't want any interlopers in his 
 Bible." 
 
 For two whole years these amendments continued, and then the 
 deacon asked his wife to accompany him on a visit to his s])iritual 
 teacher. Being asked if he intended taking his Bible with him, he 
 answered gravely, " Certainly I do, for I am anxious he should see 
 how the ' higher criticism ' and the ' best scholarship ' have improved 
 it." 
 
 When they called and were seated, the peculiar looking book the 
 deacon had brought with him arrested the pastor's attention. 
 "What have you there, deacon," he asked. 
 " My Bible," was the reply. 
 
 " It is a queer-looking Bible ; what have you been doing to it 1 " 
 " Well, now, pastor, I'll tell you. Every time you doubted any 
 passage of Scripture, or said it was an interpolation, I have cut it 
 out. All the books of doubtful authenticity are gone. The stories 
 borrowed from the heathen nations, the myths, everything that you 
 implied was questionable, I have removed according to your teaching. 
 But thank God, my dear pastor, the covers of the good old Book are 
 
76 
 
 still left. All the rest is about gone, and I want to thank you so 
 much for leaving me the covers." 
 
 The grim humour of this parable, freely translated from the 
 American original, lies on the surface. Beneath, it is neither 
 lacking in point nor in purpose. With a rare recklessness, and 
 under pretence of superfine scholarship, certain pulpits are labouring 
 week after week to rob the people of their Bible. If many men 
 were smart enough to follow the example of the deacon in the story, 
 some preachers would learn to think twice before insinuating doubts 
 and gendering unbelief so freely as they now do. For it is precisely 
 by these wanton attacks on Holy Scripture, made by the men who 
 have sworn to defend it, the uncertainty as to the veracity of the 
 Bible, so prevalent to-day, has been produced, and is still steadily 
 maintained. — Word and Work. 
 
 POSTSCPJPT TO SECOND EDITION. 
 
 I. Since the First Edition was issued, I have looked into the Theological 
 Lectures of Dr. Cunningham for confirmation of the allegation made by Dr. 
 Blaikie that he starts with a "presumption" in favour of "plenary verbal 
 inspiration," &c. I find that although Dr. Cunningham states one considera- 
 tion which "aSords, at least, as strong a presumption in favour of the doctrine 
 of verbal inspiration as its alleged non-necessity does against it" — (in other 
 words, repels one "presumption" by another "at least as strong") — he is so 
 far from basing any argument on "presumption" that, in the very passage from 
 which the quotation cited by Dr. Blailiie (p. 5) is taken, he says : — "We are 
 not entitled to pronounce dogmatically beforehand either that it [verbal in- 
 spiration] was or was not necessary for effecting the ends which the Bible was 
 intended to serve." Nor is that all. On the following page, which surely 
 cannot have escaped the eye of Dr. Blaikie, Dr. Cunningham says: — "But, 
 after all, the question under consideration is one of fact, and must be decided 
 by the appropriate evidence applicable to it as such ; and the only sources 
 from which we can get any authentic information upon the point are either the 
 statements of Scripture, if there are such, bearing directly upon the topic, or 
 the Scripture viewed as a whole, and by its general character and complexion as 
 well as by its specific features, indicating something concerning its origin and 
 composition. Tlie first of these sources is mucli the most satisfactory aiul 
 authoritative, because as the divine commission of the autiiors of the books of 
 Scripture, and even the truth and accuracy of all its statements, are admitted 
 
77 
 
 by those with whom we are at present arguing, its authority must be conclu- 
 sive upon the question, if it has indeed afforded any materials for deciding 
 it ; while mere inferences from the general characteristics of Scripture must 
 be liable to great uncertainty " (p. 349). 
 
 In view of the position now taken up by our opponents (viz., that there 
 were "errors" in the Scriptures as originally given), it is noteworthy and sug- 
 gestive that Dr. Cunningham thus affirms that, by those with whom he was 
 arguing, "the divine commission of the authors of the books of Scripture, and 
 even the truth and accuracy of all its statements " were admitted. 
 
 Dr. Cunningham's views ought not to be matter of dispute. Here are his 
 own words: — "Contradictions and inconsistencies have indeed been alleged 
 to exist in the Sacred Scriptures, and these have been often adduced and 
 urged, not only by infidels, but even by men who, while professing to believe 
 in the truth of the Christian revelation, have refused to admit the divine 
 origin and authority of the books which compose the Bible " (p. 287). 
 
 II. I have received from Professor Drummond a letter (marked "private") 
 of date November 28, in which, referring to Appendix II., he says : — "I re- 
 pudiate it utterly as representing anything I said or could say. From begin- 
 ning to end it is a travesty. You have put words into my mouth which I 
 never spoke, and left impressions which T abhor as much as you do." At the 
 same time he complains that I had made an attack " upon a brother presbyter 
 without first communicating with him," and adds: "I must trust to your 
 sense of honour to make the amends that are necessary, both in the next 
 edition of your pamphlet and in the newspapers." As he thus condemns my 
 public action, and calls upon me to take further public action, why does he 
 trammel me by marking his letters " private " ? The reason he assigns is that 
 thus he "will least expose" me "to shame." Having done nothing of wliich 
 I feel ashamed, I for my part am quite willing that our correspondence should 
 be published. 
 
 While expressing my satisfaction with the above emphatic repudiation, in 
 my reply I called the attention of Professor Drummond to the fact that 
 every statement I attributed to him was quoted from the report of his 
 inaugural address, as given in the Glasgov: Herald of November 5. 
 
 His utterances were public. The report of the Herald was very widely 
 circulated, and has in many quarters produced a most unfavourable impres- 
 sion ; and it appears to me that if that impression is false, either because of 
 something being attributed to the speaker which he did not say, or because of 
 the incomplete nature of the report, it is clearly his duty, not mine, to correct 
 it. In view, both of the particular statements quoted and the whole trend 
 and tenor of the address as given in the Herald, I do not feel called upon to 
 modify the comments contained iu Appendix II. (excepting alwaj-s the refer- 
 ence to the late Dr. Adam), comments founded on the report in question. 
 Were Professor Drummond to publish his address, adding, if necessarj', such 
 notes or comments as will make it impossible for his meaning to be misunder- 
 stood, the whole matter would be set right. As to the Professor's complaint, 
 surely a distinction must be drawn between beliefs privately held and quasi- 
 
78 
 
 privately promulgated, and an Address delivered at the opening of a College 
 Session — an Address, the Herald report of which was widely circulated, for 
 good or evil, before being noticed by me, and which has not yet been publicly 
 corrected by the speaker. It is high time that this whimpering .on the 
 part of certain Professors about private dealing before attention is publicly 
 called to their published utterances should come to an end. 
 
 III. — I have just seen Dr. Blaikie's " Second Edition with Postscript." 
 
 The Postscript is most valuable. I did not begin the controversy with him. 
 As already shown, he had privately made known to me that he held the very 
 ^news expressed in his published Letter, but he objected to my bringing them 
 before the public. He cannot but have known that I was a party to the 
 *' Statement " on which he publicly animadverts, and which he describes as 
 "a most uncharitable document." He may find fault with the manner in 
 which I have met his animadversions, but it must not be forgotten that I was 
 either defending a position which Dr. Blaikie assailed, or else, under a mis- 
 apprehension as to his real views, I must have been fighting a man of straw. 
 In other words, the position taken up in the " Statement " and in my " Eeply " 
 must be accepted or rejected by Dr. Blaikie. In view of the complaint he 
 makes in his Postscript about misrepresentation of his "object" and of his 
 "theological position," I am still at a loss to know exactly where he wishes to 
 stand. The question at issue is simply this : — "Are all statements of the orig- 
 inal Scriptures true in the sense divinely intended: that sense being also con- 
 sistent with a fair use of words within the range of legitimate human speech ? " 
 On that question I argue for the affirmative, and (as I understood) Dr. Blaikie 
 for the negative. But it now turns out, notwithstanding all he has written 
 about discrepancies and errors, he complains that I affirm that his ' ' object is 
 to show that there are ' errors in the Bible.' " If I have been mistaken on this 
 point, I shall only be too glad to find myself in the wrong, and to have him 
 henceforth standing by my side in contending that there were no errors in 
 the original Scriptures. 
 
 It is unnecessary to follow Dr. Blaikie into the details of his Postscript. . I 
 leave the i-eaders of his "Letter " and of my " Peply " to judge whether there 
 was not good ground for all my allegations. 
 
 The " Statement " he criticized was the result of much thought and of much 
 prayer. It appealed to the ministers and office-bearers of the Church on 
 questions of vital importance. Dr. Blaikie's Letter was obviously intended 
 either to discredit that document or to minimize its importance. 
 
 My Reply was not " official," as he insinuates. But after his previous cor- 
 respondence with myself, I could npt sit silent and allow to pass unnoticed 
 the strictures contained in a " Letter " written by one deservedly held in high 
 esteem by the whole Church, and one whose orthodoxy has been unquestioned. 
 An attack made by him on the " Statement " could not fail to be regarded as 
 of more importance than if made by one with a doubtful reputation. While 
 I express myself strongly on some points, I have been anxious not to misrepre- 
 sent Dr. Blaikie on any particular. I have not classed him with " Rationalists." 
 The single expression he cites (from page 9) is found in a quotation from 
 
Krummacher, and refers to the Germany of his day. While quoting Krum 
 Tiiacher's words as evidence of the logical and practical outcome of the viewa 
 •defended, as I understood, by Dr. Blaikie, I am so far from classing him with 
 Rationalists that (p. 51) I speak of his " evangelical standpoint," while (pages 
 11 and 12) I quote with approbation from his excellent article on "The 
 Old Pulpit and the New." If anywhere I may seem to have classed him with 
 a school, it was only because of his advocacy of the views of that school — an 
 advocacy all the more effective, because of his pronounced Evangelicalism. 
 
 It is with no little satisfaction that I learn from the Postscript that instead 
 of vindicating Dr. Dods, Dr. Blaikie has adopted an opposite course. Preferring 
 to the expression I used (viz., "eagerness to vindicate Dr. Dods to the 
 utmost "), he says : " No one knows better than Dr. Dods how ridiculously 
 incorrect that statement is." I further observe, that in the New Edition 
 Dr. Blaikie has omitted Appendix IV. of his First Edition, at the close of 
 which the following words occur: — "Having recently had occasion to read 
 with care some of Dr. Dods's more extensive expository writings I bear my 
 ■cordial testimony to the great good I have got from them and their quicken- 
 ing and elevating tendency." What does this omission mean ? Does it imply 
 that the more recent utterances of Dr. Dods, and especially his lectuie on 
 "The Seat of Authority in Religion" (reported in the Christian World of Nov. 
 20) have so startled Dr. Blaikie, that he now thinks it prudent to withdraw 
 the certificate just cited ? 
 
 Having affirmed (at p. 19) that "to sift Scripture, and accept or reject 
 statements because we like or dislike them, is contrary to the first principles 
 of Protestantism," Dr. Blaikie can scarcely fail to be staggered by that latest 
 utterance of Dr. Dods, in which, as I understand him, the individual conscience 
 is declared to be the supreme arbiter as to what parts of the Bible are to be 
 accepted or rejected — the doctrine taught in his Sermon and Preface pub- 
 lished in 1877 but subsequently withdrawn. 
 
 The omitted Appendix has also an important bearing on the question of Dr. 
 Blaikie's " inconsistency " in publicly joining in the apparent condemnation of 
 views which he privately advocated, and which, as he now tells us, he has 
 " openly avowed " to his students " for a dozen or fifteen years." That Ap- 
 pendix admitted that the votes Dr. Blaikie had " given in the Dods' case " le- 
 quired " some explanation," especially when be there frankly declai'ed : — 
 "allowing for exaggeration, I am not far off from Dr. Dods's view." The 
 omission of that Appendix, taken in connection with the complaint he makes 
 against me in the third paragraph of his Postscript, is surely significant. 
 
 The words on which he remarks in paragraph four of his Postscript were 
 quotations, and it is hard that after I had done my best to show that the 
 "weakness " of his production was "due, not to want of ability " on his part, 
 but to "the essential weakness of the cause he seeks to defend," he should 
 "reward" me by describing my endeavours as "skits and flings." Dr. 
 Blaikie gives new proof of his skill as a controversialist in that, while he makes 
 so much of these " minor " matters in my " Reply," he does not once attempt 
 ■to grapple with its arguments. 
 
 After my criticism of them, the omission from the New Edition of the fol- 
 
80 
 
 lowing words (page 9 of the First Edition) is verj' noteworthy : — " Don't let us 
 go into hysterics over this. There is some tendency of this kind even in the 
 deliverance of the Assembly. " No less noticeable are the words now added 
 (page 11) in the New Edition, viz., " 1 grant, too, that some of your oppo- 
 nents have been fearfully indiscreet." I hail both the omission and the addi- 
 tion as evidence that it is beginning to dawn on Dr. Blaikie that the compilers 
 of the " Statement " are not so far wrong after all. Before attacliing too much 
 importance, however, to the added words, we would need to know precisely 
 what Dr. Blaikie means when he says, "fearfully indiscreet." Does he mean 
 that by his blunt "forms of expression " and his "intemperate" utterances, 
 in season and out of season. Dr. Dods has needlessly awakened anxiety and 
 called attention to the dangerous character of his views, and that he would 
 have acted more discreetly in following his own example ? If that is his mean- 
 ing, I have no hesitation in saying that, much as I differ from Dr. Dods and 
 deprecate many of his public utterances, I have far more respect for his con- 
 duct when, having the courage of his convictions, he manfully tells his Church 
 what he holds and means to teach to her students (braving all the consquences 
 of such an avowal), than for the conduct of one who is " not very far off from 
 Dr. Dods's view " ; who, as Professor, has for twelve or fifteen years taught 
 his views to the future ministers of the Church, though the views of Dr. Dods 
 were condemned by the Assembly of 1878 ; who while doing so not only failed to 
 tell the Church that he was thus engaged, but even as late as May last joined 
 in the apparent condemnation of the views of Dr. Dods ; and who only openly 
 avowed his own views before the Church at large after he had apparently 
 persuaded himself that because of the decision of last Assembly he might 
 do so " with ecclesiastical impunity ! " 
 
 PRINTED BV ROBKRT MACLKHOSE, 153 WEST NILE STREET, GLA! 
 
BW5546 .D6H85 1890 
 Reply to letter of Professor 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary- 
 
 
 -Speer Library <^^^^:r''''*'^-^v;.-;'^4i!u^^;^- 'y-.^r^ 
 
 m 
 
 s