^ m Marcus Dods The Presently Controverted Opinions of Professor Marcus Dods BS480 .D437 field Library .T^y THE PRESENTLY CONTROVERTED Professor MARCUS DODS, d.d., Zbe 3nspiration of 1bol? Scripture, REFUTED / THE REV. MA'RCUS DODS, Belford, Northumberland, "•Remarfts on tbe Bible" (PUBLISHED 1828). THIRD THOUSAN D EDINBURGH: JAMES GEMMELL, 19 GEORGE IV. BRIDGE. GLASGOW: AIRD & COGHILL, .263 ARGYLE STREET. 1890. PRICE SIXPENCE, :&S48o Warfield Library THE PRESENTLY CONTROVERTED OPINIONS OF Professor MARCUS DODS, d.d., ON £be Jnspiration of 1bol\> Scripture, REFUTED ( THE REV. MARCUS DODS, Belford, Northumberland, "•Remarks on tbe Bible" (PUBLISHED iSzfl). THIRD THOUSAND EDINBURGH: JAMES GEMMELL, 19 GEORGE IV. BRIDGE. GLASGOW: AIRD & COT. HILL, 263 ARGYLE STREET. 1890. {Extract from " Art and Literature" for May, i8go.\ "Dr. Dods was born in 1834, at Belford, Northumberland, where his father was minister of the Presbyterian Church. The epitaph upon his father's tombstone, hidden away among Northumbrian hills, is still pointed to as ' one of the noblest in the English tongue,' and it is curious to notice that, in many points, Dr. Dods, with the instinct of heredity, seems to have lived again the life of his father. Professor Henry Drummond has drawn attention to this, and has remarked as also interesting, and still more prophetically significant, how this best of ministers (Dr. Dods's father) also lived 'To Advance and Defend.'" PREFATORY NOTE. The "Remarks on the Bible, in a Letter to the Corresponding Board, Edinburgh," by the Rev. Marcus Dods, were written at the time of the Controversy in Scotland and England in regard to a proposal, by certain members of the British and Foreign Bible Society, to publish the books called the Apocrypha, along with those of the Sacred Scriptures. Mr. Dods, in common with the Rev. Dr. Andrew Thomson, Edinburgh, and almost all the Ministers of Scotland, deprecated the circulation of Writings, held to be Uncanonical, in combination with those maintained to be Canonical. The ground of opposition to the proposal was that the latter were written by Inspiration of God, but the former were not. The '•'Remarks" by Mr. Dods were published in vindication of the Inspiration, Infallible Truth, and Divine Authority of the Sacred Scriptures ; and against the opinion that the Apocryphal Writings should be issued in connection with the Sacred Scriptures. Such portions of the " Remarks," as refer directly to the Doctrine of Inspiration are here republished, in the conviction that they are a full answer to, and refutation of the opinions set forth by Professor Dods, presently controverted, on the subject of Inspiration. G. G. T. " Welchen Leser ich wiinsche? Den Unbefangensten, der mich, Sich und die Welt vergisst, und in dem Buche nur lebt." — Goethe. EXTRACTS FROM " REMARKS ON THE BIBLE " (PUBLISHED 1828). "A Canon is just another word for a Rule, and a Canonical Book is a book that contains an authoritative ride, by which we are bound to regulate our principles, dispositions and conduct. A Canonical Book is a book to the dictates of which the most implicit deference is due, and from which we are on no account and at no time permitted to deviate. It is a book which every one of us is bound to read, — and to read, not for the purpose of sitting in judgment upon its contents, — of determining whether its precepts be right or wrong, whether its commands be reasonable or unreasonable, but for the simple purpose of ascertaining what these commands and precepts are, that we may regulate our conduct accordingly." " However opposite to all our views, therefore, any doctrine may be, yet if it be plainly stated in a Canonical Book, we are bound not only to admit it, but to cherish it as a sacred truth. However hateful to our habits and feelings any precept may appear ; yet, if it be written there, we must adopt it as our rule, even though compliance should be painful as the pulling out of a right eye, or the cutting off of a right arm, and persevere till compliance become natural and easy. ... If a Canonical Book were the work of man, it must be fallible, and therefore might lead us astray. The book therefore upon which we rely as an infallible rule, must have an infallible author, — that is God. And on the other hand, every inspired book, — every book of which God is the author, must be Canonical, that is, must contain an authoritative rule, to which we are bound to conform ourselves. For surely it must be obvious to every Extracts from one, that what the Creator speaks must be binding upon — must be a rule to the creature." " A Canonical Book is, therefore, a book the purity of which ought to be guarded with the most jealous scrupulosity. For if a book that professes to be Canonical, either omits what it ought to contain, or contains anything that is improper, it loses the character of a full and sufficient rule ; and may lead those who rely upon it into the most fatal errors. Of this we have pregnant examples, both in ancient and modern times. The Sadducees adopted a defective Canon of Scripture, admitting only the Books of Moses, and thus they dismissed from their Creed some of the fundamental articles of religion, denying the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of angels and spirits. The Pharisees adopted a redundant Canon, adding to the Scriptures the traditions of the Elders, and thus buried religion under a load of super- stition, under which it lies oppressed among them to this day, ' making the commandment of God of none effect by their traditions.' " " In our own times Socinians adopt a defective Canon, excluding from it the passages which record the miraculous conception of our Saviour, and thus deny the Divinity of Christ and the doctrine of Atonement." " Is it then a matter of great difficulty to determine what books are Canonical ? One would naturally think that it cannot. For, we might as well not have a rule at all, as not know what that rule is. In fact, wc cannot pretend that we have a revelation from God, if we are unable to distinguish the books which contain that revelation from others, and are left in such a state of uncertainty that we may be easily led to adopt as the Word of God, that which in reality is only the word of man, or to reject as human, that which in reality is Divine." " But can we suppose that our Heavenly Father has left us in such a state of uncertainty with regard to a question of such momentous and vital importance ? — that He has mocked our hopes by professing to give to us ' glad tidings of great joy,' while He has left us ignorant where these tidings " Remarks on the Bible? may be learned ? No. ' He has provided for us all things pertaining both to life and to godliness,' and cannot, without impiety, be charged with having left us unprovided upon a question of such unspeakable moment as this, — What is the Word of God ? And in point of fact, it is a question upon which men have probably never entertained a doubt, till they have adopted opinions which render an alteration of the Canon expedient. The Church of Rome, for example, does not teach the efficacy of prayers for the dead, because she found it taught in a Canonical Book ; but having first adopted the practice, she then Canonized the Book that teaches it. The Socinian does not deny the miraculous conception of our Lord, because he does not find it in the Canon ; but having first rejected that doctrine, he then tries to prove that the portions of Scripture which teach it are not Canonical." " What Books then are Canonical ? " Holding, as I do, that a Canonical Book and an Inspired Book are one and the same, I have no occasion to enter either deeply or minutely into this question. The Apocrypha controversy has not yet brought any of the books of the New Testament into question, though how soon the principles openly avowed may extend their baneful influence to that portion of the Divine Word also, it is impossible to say. The defenders of the London Committee have, as yet, attacked only the Old Testament. In this I cannot but recognise the hand of a gracious Providence ; for to establish the Canonical authority of the books of the New Testament, requires a much more complicated mode of reasoning than is at all necessary, with regard to those of the Old Testament. There is at present no dispute with regard to the New Testament." " Now, if it be admitted, as it is, that all the books of the New Testament are really the Word of God, then we are furnished with two arguments in support of the Canonical authority, and the Divine Inspiration of all the books of the Old Testament, so direct, so simple, and so resistless, that any attempt to convince a man who remains unconvinced by them, must be considered entirely hopeless." 8 Extracts from " The first is, that our Saviour and His apostles habitually quote the Old Testament Scriptures, and appeal to them as to D) vine Authority. When they could support their doctrines by a reference to the Old Testament, they felt that they had placed them on an immoveable foundation. These are the Scriptures of which our Lord declares that they ' Cannot be broken,' and for erring through ignorance of which the Saddu- cees were reproved. It is of these Scriptures that the Apostle Paul speaks when he saith ' Whatsoever things were written ' aforetime, were written for our learning, that we, through ' patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope.' And it is of the same Scriptures that he affirmeth that they are ' All given by inspiration of God, and are profitable ' for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in ' righteousness.' " " If then we admit the Divine authority of our Saviour and His Apostles, that is, in other words, if we be Christians, we must admit also the Divine authority of the Jewish Scriptures, because their discourses abound with appeals to, and quotations from these Scriptures. And these Scriptures consisted then of exactly the same books which now constitute our Old Testa- ment. That they had one book more, or one less, is not even pretended." " The next argument is drawn from the testimony of the Jewish Church, a testimony which is quite decisive, as they are God's witnesses, selected by Himself for this very purpose. The great end for which they were chosen, was, that they might be made keepers and depositaries of the various revelations of God to man. The many promises and pro- phecies relating to the Messiah were not made at once, but at distant intervals, through a long series of ages. How soon and how completely would they all have been lost, had there been none whose duty it was to collect and to preserve them ! It was for this purpose that the Jews were chosen. This the Apostle Paul states to have been their chief distinction, that ' Unto them were committed the Oracles of God.' To an office of more awful responsibility men were never appointed. Were they then faithful to the trust reposed in them ? Or did they " Remarks on the Bible!' suffer some of these Oracles to perish, or did they adulterate them by mingling them with the devices of men ? Their fidelity has never been disputed. They have often been ridiculed for the superstitious scrupulosity with which they preserved the Holy Oracles, for so far were they from admitting spurious books into their Canon, that they numbered even the words and letters of each book. For this trifling they have been laughed at ; but it sprung from a scrupulosity of fidelity to their trust, to which we are most deeply indebted, and for which we can never be too grateful. In many things that hapless people grievously erred, but the grand purpose for which God chose them, was fully accomplished. As witnesses for God, — as keepers of His Oracles, their fidelity is beyond all suspicion." " Would that Christians could be brought to imitate them in this respect ! But unhappily a very different spirit prevails in the Christian world. There seems to be a dread lest the Scriptures should be treated with too much reverence ; and to prevent this, we are sedulously reminded that the Canon is merely a question of erudition, that it is no article of faith, no doctrine of revelation, no precept of Christ, but comes within the range of human opinion. In order to abate the too high veneration, which it seems Christians are apt to feel for the Word of God, these sentiments are inculcated, not by infidels, but by Christian Ministers, — have been published in London, Edin- burgh, and other places, and by men who take a lead in the religious world — have been circulated throughout the length and breadth of the land." " Now these cautionary remarks are intended to apply to the Old Testament, and are made by men who fully admit the New Testament. But if the New Testament be the Word of God, then these remarks cannot apply to the Jewish Scriptures. For we have in the former the most ample testimonies to the Divine authority of the latter. Let us admit that there may possibly be books in the Old Testament of which God is not the Author, and we must at the same time renounce the authority of the New. The io Extracts from question of the Canon, it is said, is a matter of human opinion. So is the existence of God, or the Divine origin of Christianity. But to a man who receives the New Testament as the Word of God, the question of the Canon, as that question applies to the Old Testament, is no longer a matter of opinion ; for there is no doctrine more clearly taught in the former, than that the latter is the Word of God. In fine, we cannot doubt the Divine authority of any one book in the Old Testament, cannot suppose that it is either redundant or defective, without denying the authority of Christ and His apostles, and rejecting the evidence of those witnesses whom God Himself chose as the keepers of His Oracles, and on whose fidelity suspicion was never breathed." " Upon whose testimony, then, are we to rely in this momen- tous matter? Upon that of the Jewish Church, sanctioned and confirmed by our Saviour and His Apostles ? Or upon that of men who, though they are not only Christians, but some of them ministers, — men, an important part of whose duty it is to expound the Bible, — yet tell us that they have not yet determined the preliminary question, What is the Bible? And who have abundantly proved, that if it be a question of erudition, it is a question which will never be determined by them ? There is no room for hesitation here. The inspiration of the New Testament is not disputed — and that being admitted, all the erudition necessary to settle the Canon of the Old, is just to receive in its plain and obvious meaning, what Christ and his apostles say upon the subject." " The conclusion then to which we come upon this subject is — That all the books of the Old and New Testaments are Canonical, and that no other books possess that character. Upon what grounds does the Canonical character of the Apocrypha rest ? Not on the testimony of the Jewish Church. The Jews never admitted these books into their Canon. This they would have held to be sacrilegious profanity, and justly so. Not on the authority of our Lord and His Apostles, who never appeal to them, and never quote them. Not on the practice of the early Christians, who carefully separated what was human from what was Divine. On none " Remarks on the Bible? i i of these, but upon the authority of the Council of Trent, where, out of three propositions concerning the Apocryphal books, advanced in an assembly of forty Roman Catholic prelates, that which declared them Canonical had the greatest number of supporters, and was consequently adopted. This is the ground upon which the claim of the Apocrypha to be con- sidered Canonical rests, and in instantly and unhesitatingly rejecting that claim, we are not only guilty of no error, but are performing a most sacred and important duty." " I have said that every Canonical Book is also an inspired book. This I now proceed to prove, and without attempting to bring forward all the arguments which have been success- fully employed on this subject, I hope to state enough to enable any plain Christian to assign a satisfactory reason for believing the Bible to be indeed the ' Word of God,' and an infallible guide." " A revelation from God is essentially necessary to lead men to a knowledge of the truths that are connected with our salvation. The necessity of this is proved by the history of all ages. No nation, and no individual, can be named, who, without the aid of revelation, ever discovered the fundamental articles of religion, the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul. 'The world by wisdom knew not God.' Far less could men have ever discovered by their own unaided exertions the doctrines connected with the work of our redemption. Revelation then is necessary. But if revelation be necessary, then inspiration is also necessary, because an uninspired revelation is very nearly a contradiction in terms. As the sun can be seen only by his own light, so God can be known only from His own manifestation of Himself. If the Bible reveals the will of God, then it must also be inspired by God, since they who wrote it could learn His will from no other source than from His inspiration." " The Bible contains many predictions of events which, to those who predicted them, were involved in all the darkness of a remote futurity. Many of these predictions have been fulfilled, and are fulfilling now. But the men who wrote these predictions could not by their own sagacity discover 12 Extracts from what was to happen many ages after their death. God alone knoweth the end from the beginning. When, therefore, we find that events which are taking place in the world noiv, were foretold by him who lived many ages ago, we are compelled to admit that these men were inspired by God." " The Bible records many miracles. The men who wrought these miracles could derive their power of working them from God only. But the doctrines taught by a man to whom God gives the power of working miracles, must be true, for this plain reason, that we cannot for a moment suppose that God would stamp an imposture with the seal of His authority, or invest a man with the power of working miracles for the purpose of giving currency to doctrines that are either untrue, or of doubtful and partial accuracy. If a man work a miracle, we must listen to him as to God Himself, since it is plain that God has sent him, and speaks by him." " The Bible contains the character of our Lord Jesus Christ, not professedly or graphically drawn, but exhibited in the simple narrative of a few of the leading events of His life. That character so exhibited stands alone. No being of a similar nature ever existed. That any individual writer, however unbounded his powers, even though possessed of that excursive imagination which ' first exhausted worlds and then ' imagined new,' should, from the stores of his own fancy, have drawn the idea of such a character, is hard to be believed, because no such creative power, nor anything forming even a near approach to it, has been exhibited by any writer, either ancient or modern. But that a number of independent writers, living in distant ages, — for the prophets may fairly be considered as Christ's biographers, — whose minds had never been polished by the discipline of science, and who were deeply prepossessed by Jewish prejudices, should all have combined to give the same view of the same extraordinary character, may be safely pronounced an impossibility upon any other supposition than that they were all inspired by the same spirit." " That the apostles were inspired, is proved by the promises made to them by Christ. When He forewarned them that " Remarks on the Bible" i 3 they would be brought before Magistrates on account of their doctrines, He at the same time desired them to give them- selves no anxiety about the matter, nor study what they should say. ' For it shall be given you in that same hour 1 what ye shall speak, for it is riot ye that speak, but the Spirit ' of your Father that speaketh in you' (Matt. x. 19). Or, as the same promise is expressed in Mark, 'For it is not ye that speak, 'but the Holy Ghost' (chap. xii. 11). Now that this promise was fulfilled there can be no question. If any proof were necessary, we would find it in Paul's speeches, recorded in the Acts, especially in that before Felix, which made his judge to tremble at the thought of his own guilt ; and in that before Agrippa, who was by him 'almost persuaded to be a Christian.' But if inspiration was granted to them, when defending themselves before Magistrates, that inspiration surely would not be withheld when it was much more necessary, when they were preparing those writings which were to be the rule and the guide of the Church, and of all believers in all ages. The promise was distinctly made to them in this case also. ' But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the 1 Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, ' and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have 1 said unto you ' (John xiv. 26). And again, ' When He, the ' Spirit of truth, is come, He zvill guide you into all truth : for ' He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear * that shall He speak, a?id He zvill show you things to come ' (John xvi. 13). Here the promise of inspiration is distinctly made to the apostles. We are assured that this promise was fulfilled to the utmost extent. In all their writings the apostles speak of their own writings as the Word of God, and possessed of an authority, the rejection of which involved rebellion against Heaven. This they were not only authorised, but required to do, by our Lord's own declaration on different occasions ; ' He that receiveth you receiveth Me ; 1 and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me ' (Matt. x. 40). And again, ' He that heareth you heareth Me ; 'and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that ' despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me' (Luke x. 16). 14 Extracts from Now, when such were to be the effect of receiving or rejecting the message of the apostles, — when, whatsoever they taught on earth was to be ratified in heaven — what they bound or loosed On earth was to be bound or loosed in heaven, — when to some they were to be a ' savour of death unto death, and ' to others a savour of life unto life ; ' they would have been unfaithful to their trust, had they not openly declared that their doctrines were not their own, — had they not most distinctly taught that the doctrines which were to produce such momentous results were not their doctrines, and most scrupulously avoided the guilt of mingling any devices of their own with what they had received from heaven." " This guilt they did most scrupulously avoid, — this declara- tion that their doctrines were not their own, they did most sedulously make. Thus Paul saith, ' But I certify you, ' brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not ' after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I ' taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ ' (Gal. i. n). It is of the Gospel thus received that he saith, ' Though we, 'or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel to you ' than that which we have preached unto you, let him be ' accursed ' (Gal. i. 8). Would the apostle have dared thus to speak of the Gospel, had he taught only his own doctrines ? Would that zealous, but at the same time, humble apostle, who described himself as ' less than the least of all saints,' nay, as the chief of sinners, have ventured t6 pronounce even an angel accursed, who should introduce any alteration into that Gospel which he preached, had he not at the same time been impressed with a deep and solemn conviction that every sentence of that Gospel was not his but God's ? For if but one sentence of it was his own, that sentence might surely be altered, without subjecting the man, and much less the angel, who altered it, to so fearful a penalty. This argument seems quite decisive of the question. Our Lord promised inspiration to His apostles, when they were called upon to defend them- selves before magistrates, — promised that the very words should be put into their mouths. Can we suppose it possible that they should be thus inspired when their own personal " Remarks on the Bible? i 5 safety was concerned, and yet not inspired at all, or inspired in a lower degree, in a case where the spiritual safety of believers in all ages is involved ? No. In this case also inspiration was promised, and they assure us in every varied form of expression that the promise was fulfilled, — that they spoke by inspiration. There is therefore no medium. We must admit that they were inspired, or that they were impostors." " But then it will be asked, What is inspiration ? What authority does it confer upon the writers who professed it ? Upon this subject opinions have long prevailed, and are now propagated with unwearied zeal, which appear to me to render inspiration a mere name, and to make it a matter of very little consequence whether a book be inspired or not." " The common notion is, that the inspired writers were so superintended by the Spirit of God, as to prevent them from falling into any material error, and that in some instances they had things revealed to them which they could not have known except by revelation from God, but that in most instances they were left to collect their knowledge from the ordinary sources of information, to select and arrange their materials, to digest their arguments, to gather their illustra- tions from the resources of their own minds, and to clothe the whole in language of their own choosing. It is said that when they speak of things of a moral and religious nature, they were so superintended as to be secured from error, but that when they mention things of a civil or domestic nature, there is no occasion to inquire whether they were inspired or not, — that in this case, in fact, it would be hazardous to maintain that they were. In order to save us from this hazard, the country is at present deluged with writings, the design of which is just to show us that inspiration is not so very sacred a thing as we have been accustomed to think it, and the effect of which is just to reduce the Holy Scriptures to the level of other pious writings." " That this view of inspiration reduces by far the greater portion of the writings which we esteem to be divine, and call the ' Word of God,' to a level with compositions merely 1 6 Extracts from human, is perfectly plain. For surely I may, without in the remotest degree exposing myself to the charge of arrogance, claim, fpr the discourses which I am accustomed to address to my people, all that those writers claim for the Bible. In as far as these discourses are of a moral or religious nature, I certainly do hope, that in their composition I am so superin- tended by the Holy Spirit, and I would think it the highest arrogance to attempt their composition without imploring that superintendence, that they are free from any material error. And I may not only hope that they possibly may prove, but enjoy the happiness of knowing that in several instances they have proved efficacious, in the hand of a gracious God, in recalling the sinner from the error of his ways, and converting the soul to God. The same thing may be said of a thousand learned and holy books with which the world has been enriched. It may not only be said of them that they are free from material errors, but it may be added, that they contain the most luminous and forcible exposition of the truth. Are they then inspired ? Yes. According to the modern and prevailing notion of inspiration, they are just as much so as the Bible. But would their authors claim such a distinction for them ? They would shudder at the idea. Doddridge denied the plenary inspiration of Scripture. He held that low idea which his successors have so carefully propagated. Now, there are few men whose practical writings have been more eminently useful than his. Would he then have maintained that his own writings were inspired ? I believe not. Yet, had the question ever been forced upon his attention, I am totally unable to discover upon what principle he could have distinguished in this respect between his own writings and those on which he has commented with such ability. He would probably have recoiled when he found how exactly his notion of inspiration exemplified the adage that extremes meet — that in lowering the standard of inspira- tion, in order to evade the objections of infidelity, he was just plunging himself into the equally fatal error of Neology, which, in order to lower our reverence for the Scriptures, teaches that every book, by whomsoever written, is, as far] as " Remarks on the Bible? i 7 at contains eternal truths, inspired. For whether we maintain, with the infidel, that there is no inspiration, or with the Neologian, that all books are inspired as far as they are true, the practical effect is precisely the same. The sole difference is, that the former goes more directly, the latter more insidi- ously, to the extinction of all reverence for the Scriptures." " Again, if it be true that the inspiration of the Sacred writers extended only to matters of a moral and religious nature, it is obvious that there must be in their writings matters which are not of a moral or religious nature, that is, that while commissioned by the Holy Spirit to pen those divine truths which were to be the infallible guide of the Church in all generations, they were so little impressed with a sense of the awful responsibility of the office to which they were appointed, as to mingle these truths with matters of a personal, temporary, and trivial nature, with which we have nothing to do ; and then, without giving us the slightest taint (hint ?) of this interpolation of extraneous and irrelevant matter, they speak of that Gospel in terms as high as they could possibly use, had its every word and syllable been directly spoken by God Himself. It is of that Gospel of which the apostle thus speaks, — ' Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, * as we have received mercy, we faint not. But have renounced 4 the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor 4 handling the word of God deceitfully ; but by manifestation 4 of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience 4 in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to men 1 that are lost : In whom the God of this world hath blinded 4 the minds of them which believe not, that the light of the ' glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should 4 shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ * Jesus the Lord : and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. * For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, ' hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge ' of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have 1 this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the 'power may be of God, and not of us' (2 Cor. iv. 1-7). If this was spoken of the preached Gospel, surely it must Extracts from still more strongly apply to the written Gospel. But no.. Our modern apostles would have awakened the apostle from his enthusiastic dream, and would have told him. that no doubt he and his fellows, when confining themselves to ' matters of a religious and moral nature,' were divinely inspired ; and farther, that ' we may rest assured that one • property belongs to every inspired writing, namely, that it ' is free from error, that is, any material error ;' but he would at the same time have reminded him, that to many parts of the Scriptures, this lofty and awful language could not be, with any justice applied, and therefore that he ought either to moderate his style, or to limit its application. But as he has done neither the one nor the other, — as he had no- modern Theologist at his elbow to lop away every luxuriancy of expression, and bind him down to all the forms of logical accuracy — I, who have never met with a guide in whom I place greater confidence, must just believe that his language with regard to the Scriptures, in the above, and in many other similar passages, is both strictly correct, and universally applicable. ' Et si in hoc erro' — if in this I err, I will rather err with Paul, than be instructed by the whole host of modern Neologians, and their Calvinistic apologists." " If it be true that the Scriptures are inspired only when they treat on matters of religion and morality, then, in order to determine what parts of them we are to consider as inspired, we must first be perfectly instructed in religion and morals. Instead of applying to the Bible in order to learn* morality and religion, we are, according to this principle, tO' apply to them to determine what is the Bible. It then comes to be a question, by whose views of religion and morals are we to be guided, in separating what is Divine from what is- merely human in the Scriptures ? Every man will naturally take his own, and the consequence will be, that every man will have a Bible of his own, since that which appears rich in- religious instruction to one, appears perfectly barren tx> another. Thus one man would retain in his Bible Paul's; medical advice to Timothy, and his memorandum about the ' cloak and books,' and Luke's notice of the name of the " Remarks on the Bible." 19 island on which he was shipwrecked, because he finds in all these important religious instruction ; while they who deny the plenary inspiration of Scripture would expunge them as things not of a religious nature. Every man would ju^c place the stigma of reprobation upon every passage that displeased him, and dismiss it as not being of a religious nature." " Nay, the same man would have a different Canon of Scripture at different times ; because since the question, — 4 What is Scripture?' is to be determined by our views of morality and religion, our Bibles must be modified to suit any change that may take place in these views. Of the rapidity with which men sink into the most fatal errors, when they once begin to tamper with the Bible, we have many woeful proofs. Let us once admit that there are some parts of the Bible not inspired, and we at once become doubtful and uncertain with regard to the whole. Our reverence for it as the Word of God, and our dependence upon it, as a sure and infallible guide, are gone. If, to avoid the objections of the infidel, we throw away one text, upon what ground can we defend the rest? If we take away one stone out of this temple, however unimportant or superfluous it may appear to be, where is the dilapidation to stop ? If one or two particular texts, such as those above referred to, were expunged from the Bible, perhaps we might not deeply feel the loss ; but if the principle be once admitted, I see no limit that can be assigned to it, till it has shaken our faith in inspiration altogether, and launched us again on the wide ocean of uncertainty and doubt, without a compass and without a helm. Let it once be admitted that the sacred writers were not always inspired, and we need a new revelation from Heaven to tell us what part of the Bible we are to regard as the Word of God, and to read with all the reverence due from the creature to the Creator, and what parts of it we may safely set aside as only the word of fallible man. And they who are foremost to defend this view of inspiration, and to maintain that the sacred writers did not always speak by inspiration, have not been backward to show the extent of the mischief which it is calculated to produce ; some of them 20 Extracts from rejecting not only verses and chapters, but whole books, as uninspired. And upon the very same principle, advocated as it is bv orthodox and evangelical men, the infidel is fairly entitled to reject every book in the Bible." " Let it not be supposed that I mean to attach blame to the men who first introduced into this country the low views of inspiration, which I am opposing, or to those who more recently defended them ; or to insinuate that they did not view the Holy Scriptures with the most profound reverence. They drew these views from a source from which they had long been accustomed to think that nothing but what was good and holy could come. The writings of the German Reformers were naturally read with great avidity in this country, when the Reformation took place here ; and the works of their successors, who had been bred in this school, continued to be received with the highest respect, after they had begun to decline considerably from the purity of better times. When these views were first broached, no bad consequences were apprehended from them. They were attended with one immediate and obvious advantage. They totally removed the ground of some of the objections of infidels, and were adopted as rendering the bulwarks of Christianity less liable to assault. The men who first adopted them had no design whatever to push them to any pernicious consequences, nor was it till very lately, that the fatal results to which they lead became manifest in this country. They embraced the present good, without having the slightest suspicion of the future mischief which might be fairly deduced from their principles." " But that apology which not only fairly may, but in justice ought to be made for those who first adopted these views, is altogether unavailable for those who are at present pushing them to consequences, of which their early defenders never dreamed, and from which they would have recoiled with horror. For it surely cannot now be doubted or denied, that if lowering the standard of inspiration renders the Gospel less liable to the assaults of infidelity, it is only by leaving nothing which infidelity can wish to assail." "Remarks av the Bible.'" 21 " The baneful consequences of entertaining low views of inspiration have been abundantly manifested on the Continent. The state of religion there, even according to the view of chose who are least inclined to exaggerate, and who are best qualified to judge, is deplorable. From those cities and universities, from which the light of the Reformation shone forth to other lands, true Christianity has almost entirely departed. Where the light of the Gospel shone with the brightest splendour, there darkness covereth the land, and gross darkness the people. Floods of infidelity and Neology corrupt and poison that field, that once was richly watered by the living streams of divine truth. A vain foolish phantom, miscalled by the venerable name of philosophy, has usurped the place of the Gospel, which is now not unfrequently designated, even by those who profess to be its ministers, as the ' old superstition.' " " Now, to what cause is this deplorable state of things to be attributed ? Doubtless more causes than one have been at work, but it will be with one voice confessed that the prin- cipal cause, that which has had more influence than all others put together, is ' breaking down the barriers of inspiration.' And if breaking down these barriers on the Continent has produced such disastrous effects, upon what ground are we entitled to suppose that the same cause will not produce the same effects at home? If we transplant the bitter root of German Neology into our own land, will it not here produce the same fruit that it has produced there ? And is this a result which any man can contemplate with unconcern ? Would any man wish to see England become what Germany is ? No. Every man will say that he would deprecate such a fatal consummation. But surely it cannot be denied that the low views of inspiration which have been imported from Germany, have long been producing Neology in this country, and are now producing it more rapidly than ever. The baneful consequences of these sentiments have made them- selves sufficiently apparent even at home to put us on our guard. It has been remarked that not a few of the pupils of Doddridge embraced Socinian views. The same views were 22 Extracts from said to have gained an alarming ascendancy a few years ago in a Theological Academy in the South, where the same theory of inspiration was taught. It cannot be forgotten, that the present Corypheus of Socinianism in England was formerly theological tutor in an academy, established for the purpose of instructing young men in views very remote from those of Socinus. Dr. Smith, the present theological tutor of Homer- ton, maintains in his ' Scripture Testimony to the Messiah/ that we have ' Scripture testimony for the inspiration of each 'and every of the books of the Old Testament.' But the same writer, when engaged in the defence of the London Committee, has discovered that his former opinion was altogether a mistake, and that there are several books of the Old Testament whose inspiration is capable of no satisfactory proof. And here the Doctor is unquestionably right. He, and the others to whom I have just referred, have done- nothing more than merely carry out their views of inspiration to their legitimate result ; for, as is justly remarked by Carson, in his able reply to Dr. Smith, to deny the inspiration, of Scripture altogether, would require the adoption of no new principle, but merely to follow up more fully the principle already adopted. Nothing indeed appears clearer than that if there be one book of the Old Testament uninspired, there is not an inspired book in the whole collection." " Nor are these the only monuments, portentous as they are, of the fatal consequences of the low views of inspiration' which I have noticed. We have unhappily an abundant addition to make to these instances. One most influential member of the London Committee considers the Apocryphal books as possessing a sort of half inspiration. Another, a very accomplished evangelical minister, and a very pretty writer of novels, has been accustomed to expound the Scrip- tures for many years, but is yet quite uncertain what Scripture is, and thinks that some of the Apocryphal books may be inspired, and some of the books of the Old Testament may not be inspired. Others, described as men whose eloquence and piety would give currency to whatever they were pleased to assert, have been heard to maintain the deplorable "Remarks on the Bible!' 25. nonsense, that ' though the doctrines of Scripture are revealed, 'the Canon of Scripture is not revealed.'" " Now, while every means is employed with the most unwearied assiduity to unsettle the minds of the people on this most important matter, and to lessen their reverence for Holy Scripture, I conceive that it is every man's duty to \i resist the unhallowed attempt, and to do what he can to prevent England becoming what Germany, by precisely the same process, has become. Had I never had occasion to study the question of inspiration before, it would have been to me a very sufficient reason for rejecting the present prevailing doctrine on the subject, that that doctrine uncan- onizes no inconsiderable portion of Scripture, and lays a broad and firm foundation for that Neology which subverts Christi- anity altogether. And if they be the wise, the learned, and the good, by whom that doctrine is maintained, this just gives it a more mischievous efficacy, and renders resistance to it the more necessary." " If the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures be, as a defender of the London Committee describes it, one of the wildest of all dogmas ; then I know of no effectual defence against that Neology which is at present propagated with such industry ; and of no remedy for that licentiousness of interpretation which is rapidly converting the Word of God from a plain path, and an infallible director, into an inextri- cable labyrinth, and an exhaustless mine of incurable doubts. The following considerations, however, induced me most cordially to adopt this ' wild dogma ' long before the Apocry- pha controversy existed, and that controversy assuredly has not lessened my estimate of its importance. By verbal inspiration I mean the suggestion not merely of ideas and sentiments, but of the words in which they are expressed. And that the sacred writers were so inspired, I believe for the following reasons : — ' "First. The usual way of conveying ideas to a man, is to convey to him the words which express these ideas. That no other method of conveying ideas is possible, I do not pretend to say. But while this is the usual and natural way 24 Extracts from of communicating ideas, it is surely unreasonable to fly away from this, in order to imagine some new and unheard of method, by which God might possibly convey ideas to the sacred writers, unless the objections against verbal inspiration be of the most invincible character. In whatever way God might convey ideas to the sacred writers, they could convey them to us only by means of words ; and if they were left to clothe these ideas in language of their own, then we have no security whatever that they have expressed themselves with unerring accuracy. For, ' How can a thought be known but ' by the words which express it ? And how can we know ' that the words express the thoughts of the author, if they * are not the words of the author ? Had the inspired writers ' been left to themselves as to the choice of words in any part 4 of their writings, they might have made a bad choice, and ' inadequately or erroneously represented the mind of the ' Spirit.' (Carson s Rcvieiv.) Dr. Smith, even while writing against the verbal inspiration, yet in reality admits it ; for he says — ' It is an unnecessary supposition. For the Divine ' influence on the mind of the inspired writer would as 4 certainly guide the rational faculty of expression to the ! 4 adoption of the best and most suitable terms and phrases, * as if the words were dictated to a mere amanuensis.' That \ is, I suppose, that it is unnecessary to suppose that the sacred writers were verbally inspired, just because they really were so ; for if guiding them to the adoption of the best and most suitable terms and phrases, be not just verbal inspiration, I suspect it will require a clearer head than either the Doctor or I possess, to show wherein they differ." " Secoidly. It is admitted that in some cases verbal inspira- tion was absolutely necessary. When the prophets, and they who spoke with tongues, uttered language which they them- selves did not understand, it is too obvious to be denied, that in that case the very words must have been inspired. Now, it is very properly remarked by Carson, that this just affords us a key to the nature of inspiration. We are assured that ' 1 all Scripture is inspired.' If we inquire into the nature of " Remarks on the Bible? 25 inspiration, we are assured that in many instances at least it was verbal. And as the Sacred writers give us no hint of different kinds of inspiration in those books, all of which they declare to be inspired, we must of necessity conclude either that all these books possess the same, that is, verbal inspiration, or that their writers have purposely misled us upon this subject." " Thirdly. In proof of verbal inspiration, I may refer to the fact that an argument is sometimes founded on a single word. This argument is set in a very clear light by Mr. Haldane, in the Pamphlet already referred to. I quote his language, — 'The uniform language of Jesus Christ and His ' Apostles, respecting the whole of the Old Testament Scrip- ' tures, proves that, without exception, they are the Word of ' God. On what principle but that of the verbal inspiration of ' Scripture can we explain our Lord's Words, (Johnx.35) — "The 1 " Scripture cannot be broken !" Here the argument is founded ' upon one word " God," which, without verbal inspiration, might ' not have been used, and if used improperly, might have led to ' idolatry. The reply to the argument was obvious. The ' Psalmist uses the word in a sense that is not proper. But ' Jesus precluded this observation by affirming that " the Scrip- ' ture cannot be broken ;" that is, not a word of it can be altered. 1 Could this be said if the choice of words had been left to the ' writer ? Here then we find our Lord laying down a principle 1 which for ever sets the question at rest. The Apostles, in 1 like manner, reason from the use of a particular word. Of 1 this we have a example in Heb. ii. 8, where the interpretation ' of the passage referred to depends on the use of the word '"all." Again, in Gal. iii. 16, a most important conclusion is 'drawn from the use of the word "seed," in the singular, and ' not in the plural number. A similar instance occurs in Heb. ' xii. 27, in the expression "once more," quoted from the ' prophet Haggai.'" "This argument, even though there were not another to support it, I hold to be perfectly decisive. Yet even this has not escaped without an objection. It has been replied, that perhaps the Sacred writers did not use the very words 26 Extracts from suggested to them, but other words having the same signifi- cation, and this would afford the same ground for the argument which is founded on a word, — that if the Psalmist had used, instead of the word ' God,' in the passage above! quoted, another word having the same meaning, our Saviour's argument founded upon it would have been precisely the same. But on this I would observe, that it is a mere gratuitous assumption, without any foundation in Scripture, or any semblance of probability. It is not an idea that would naturally suggest itself to anyone, but is just one of those subtilties in which a pertinacious arguer will take refuge when he is determined not to yield his point." . . . " Either the tvords were suggested to the sacred writers, or they were not. If they were not, — if only the ideas were communicated in some way unconnected with the words which express them, and the writers were left to choose their own language, then how are we sure that the ideas have been correctly expressed ? For, to repeat Carson's remark, how are we sure that the words express the ideas of the author, if they be not the words of the author ? On the other hand, if the words were suggested, then the writers were verbally inspired, and it is impossible to conceive any motive why they should wish, or any principle upon which they would dare, to exchange the words of God for others of their own selecting. If they knew the words which God required them to use, unquestionably they would use them. If they knew not these words then we know not that the words which they have used were equivalent to them. Besides, the notion of the sacred writers using not divine words, but words synony- mous to them, directly contradicts the Apostle Paul, who says, ' Which things we speak, not' in the words which l| 4 man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ' (i Cor. ii. 13). He does not say in words equivalent to those which the Holy Ghost teacheth, but in the words themselves which He teacheth." "Fourthly. The verbal inspiration of the sacred writers ) may be proved by this simpla«*rgument. Either they were absolutely secured from any error in point of expression, or "Remarks on the Bible!' 27 •they were not. If they were not so secured, then they must to a certainty have often erred, and their writings no longer can be considered as the infallible standard of divine 1 truth, — a conclusion which some seem not unwilling to admit. If we reject this conclusion, as I think every Christian will, then we must maintain that they were secured against any error of expression, that is, in other words, that they were verbally inspired." " Fifth. We may refer to the 'gift of tongues,' as a proof of verbal inspiration. This was promised by our Saviour as one of the signs which should accompany the preaching of the under a deep consciousness of manifold guilt, enabled me to look forward in the momentary expectation of finally passing that line, calm and tranquil as I am now? Gentlemen, it was just that Bible of whose Divine inspiration I once as foolishly maintained the low view that prevails, as I thank God I have now long and cordially renounced it. I consider the opportunity afforded me, of bringing it to so severe a test, as one of the richest blessings of my life. And recalled as I have been to longer days, I wish to consider every day lost, which does not add to my knowledge of its contents, or deepen my experience of its value. I am well aware that the trying hour will return ; and when it does, one of my most anxious wishes will be satisfied, if the prolongation of my life be made a means, however humble, of extending I the knowledge of the Bible, — of maintaining its integrity, and preserving its purity." — (Pp. 8 to 103 ) »IRO & COGHILL, GLASGOW. ^se - iAMPHtETBIMOa - ^^ Syracuse, N. Y. ^Z Stockton, Calif. DATE DUE W"*"* »1i ■ ■»», ' CAYLORD rilNTCDINU 1 ».