BX 9084 .H62 1878 ] 
 
 Howie, Robert. ' 
 
 The state of the question ii 
 
 the case of Rev. Dr. Marcus 
 
WaffidJ LSn 
 
 iHe %nn op the Sub 
 
 '1? % V 
 
 IN THE CASE OF 
 
 Rev. Dr. MARCUS DODS. 
 
 BEING A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE 
 
 ixu iljnxd) igMir 0f |fa.^pfe mxh Igr, 
 
 Rev. ROBERT HOWIE, M,A. 
 
 (Corrected and' Revised.) With APPEjYDLY. 
 
 GLASGOW : 
 
 :HARLES glass & Co., Publishers, 85 Maxwell Street. 
 
m 
 
BNN5"5"4(^ 
 
 M %un ep THE SuemeN 
 
 <& 
 
 IN THK CASE OF 
 
 Rev. Dr. MARCUS DODS, 
 
 BEING A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE 
 
 Ito iihntb mwoh of ih^ok mxh Igr, 
 
 Rev. ROBERT HOWIE, M.A. 
 
 (Corrected and Revised.) With APPEJ^DIX, 
 
 GLASGOW : 
 
 CHARLES GLASS & Co., Publishers, 85 Maxwell Street. 
 
 Price Sixpence. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The accompanying Speech, delivered at the Free Synod of Glasgow 
 and Ayr, has been published, at the urgent request of many who 
 consider that it may be of use in fixing the attention of the Church 
 on the real question that comes up for decision at the ensuing 
 Meeting of the General Assembly. I have yielded the more readily 
 to the pressure thus put on me, because a very meagre report of the 
 discussion appeared in the newspapers, and because that section 
 of the complainants against the judgment of the Presbytery, who 
 have acquiesced in the judgment of the Synod, have now no further 
 opportunity of stating their views at the bar of the General Assembly. 
 Had the decision of the Synod been accepted as final by all parties, 
 I would have considered it unbecoming and ungenerous, thus to 
 revive the discussioii of the issues involved in this case. Inasmuch, 
 however, as the appeal taken to the Assembly brings the decision of 
 the Synod under review, I feel it to be right to do what I can to 
 secure that, if there be any alteration of that decision, it shall be only 
 in the way oi formally reversing the judgment of the Presbytery, as has 
 already been done substantially 3 and in making it still more manifest 
 that the views contained in the Sermon and Preface are condemned 
 as inconsistent with the Standards of the Church, and that no 
 further action has been taken, simply because the Sermon and 
 Preface, as thus condemned, are held to be withdrawn. For the 
 reasons stated in the Appendix, I have, along with others of those 
 who formerly complained against the judgment of the Presbytery, 
 now acquiesced in the decision of the Synod. I confess, however, 
 that, if the representation given by the Presbytery of that decision 
 could be at all entertained, it would be necessary that a still more 
 emphatic, definite, and unmistakable decision should be given by 
 the General Assembly. 
 
 ROBERT HOWIE. 
 
 3 Brtjce Road, 
 
 POLLOKSHIELDS, May, 1878. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 I REGRET exceedingly that the duty has been assigned me 
 by my brethren, of making.the opening statement for the 
 complainants in this case. Up till lately, I had expected 
 that my old college friend, Mr, NicoU, now at my side at 
 the bar, who is far better qualified to deal effectively with 
 the momentous issues involved, would have occupied this 
 most responsible position. He has however been prevented, 
 by reasons to which I need not advert, from to-day giving 
 the case the benefit of his powerful advocacy. For myself, 
 I can honestly say that, after all the pain I have already 
 endured in connection with this case, and the heart-burnings 
 and alienations to which it has given rise, I would not have 
 agreed to occupy this prominent position, were it not that my 
 declinature to do so, might be regarded as implying that, 
 after the lapse of four months, I now regret the step I took in 
 proposing in the Presbytery, the motion which was defeated by 
 the bare majority of three, and that I now take a less serious 
 view of the dangerous consequences of the motion that 
 was then passed, and against which we now complain. I 
 trust that in now seeking to do my duty, I may so speak as 
 not to add to the personal feeling already awakened, but that 
 I may make the brethren from whom I differ perceive, that 
 it is only a regard for what I conceive to be most vital truth, 
 that places me in opposition to them on this question. 
 Nay more, I fondly hope and pray that before these discus- 
 sions are over, we may yet see eye to eye, and may have such 
 explanations from our brother Dr. Dods, as will convince us 
 all that, notwithstanding what he has written, he is still pre- 
 pared to reconsider the views he has advocated, and to take 
 up a position in full accordance with the doctrine and Stan- 
 dards of our Church, as to the inspiration, infallible truth, and 
 divine authority of Holy Scripture in all its parts. Though 
 not formally stated in our reasons of dissent, I regard it as 
 a valid reason for complaint against the decision of the 
 Presbytery, that it precludes us from asking from Dr. Dods 
 such explanations as even the defective report submitted to 
 and approved of by the Presbyteiy, had clearly shown to be 
 necessary, both for his own sake, and for the sake of the 
 Church of which he is so distinguished a minister. 
 _ The Report goes so far in the way of indicating what is objec- Strictures 
 tionable in the Sermon and Preface that no impartial reader "^ ^^^ ^^' 
 can fail to be impressed with the impotence of its conclusion. ^'°^'' 
 
In the body of the Report, the Committee declare that Dr. 
 Dods "does use language which, however unintentionally, yet 
 really, seems to cast doubt on the necessity and the impor- 
 tance of divine inspiration ; " that he " has indulged in specu- 
 lation, to an unwarrantable and perilous extent, regarding the 
 nature and mode of inspiration;" that he "has instituted 
 comparisons and made representations which have a tendency 
 to limit the sphere and lower the idea of inspiration ; " that 
 he " has given rise to much anxiety regarding his views, by 
 not connecting his vindication of the part which the sacred 
 writers had in the production of Scripture with sufficiently 
 explicit and prominent balancing statements as to the divine 
 authorship, which underlies and shines through all the human 
 authorship of the Bible;" that he "holds a theory of inspira- 
 tion which consists with the existence of certain inaccuracies 
 or errors in sacred Scripture ;" that the " whole mode of repre- 
 sentation adopted on this part of the subject is seriously ob- 
 jectionable;" that he "gives an unhappy prominence to these 
 alleged inaccuracies ; " that he " dwells on them in a way 
 which, while far from intended, is fitted to grate on the feel- 
 ings of those who tremble at the Divine Word ; " and that 
 " the Sermon is open to grave objections in the respects and 
 on the grounds already specified, and they do not wonder at 
 the anxiety which it has awakened." 
 Conclusion After such a series of very grave charges made in the 
 of the Re- Report itself, one would surely have expected that a Committee 
 P°'"^- appointed, " to consider deliberately whether the Presby- 
 
 tery is called to take any action with regard to said views, 
 and if so, of what nature, and to report to a subsequent 
 meeting of Presbytery," would have recommended some 
 formal disapproval by the Presbytery of the Sermon and 
 Preface. But no. The practical conclusion of the Report 
 stands as follows : " In consideration of all this, and very 
 specially of the serious doubts and misapprehensions as to his 
 real meaning to which the Sermon has given rise, he (Dr. 
 Dods) would probably do well not to carry the publication 
 any farther, at least in its present form. But it is a relief to 
 them, while saying all this, to be able to add, that in their 
 judgment the Presbytery is not called to institute any pro- 
 cess, or to take any further action in the matter ; and they 
 now beg to report accordingly." In other words, while they 
 hint to Dr. Dods that he would " probably do well not to 
 carry the publication of the Sermon any farther, at least in 
 its present form," they recommend the Presbytery to ia/ce no 
 action luhatrver, not even to confer with Dr. Dods with the 
 view of dispelling " the serious doubts and misapprehensions 
 as to his real meaning to which," as they affirm, "the Sermon 
 has given rise." I question if, in the whole course of our 
 ecclesiastical procedure, it is possible to find a more striking 
 illustration of the adage : '■'■ Monies parturiunt; nascctur ridicu- 
 lus nius,'' and the Synod will not be surprised that so large a 
 proportion of the members of Committee dissented from a 
 
conclusion so "lame and impotent," and so incon- 
 sistent even with the strictures contained in the Report 
 itself. 
 
 If these strictures were well founded, then, I contend that Conclusion 
 the Committee were bound, in faithfulness to all the important ^^^^"^^^ 
 interests involved, to have recommended formal disapproval suktures 
 of the Sermon and Preface by the Presbytery ; and, instead of the Re- 
 of giving advice to Dr. Dods as to what it would " probably port, 
 be well" for him to do, they should have advised the Presby- 
 tery to e;(/oi/i him not to carry the publication any farther. 
 That practical conclusion would have been the logical 
 outcome even of the strictures contained in the Report, 
 notwithstanding of its other blemishes and defects. 
 
 But, if so, how much more would it have been the logical Unsatis- 
 outcome had that Report been otherwise satisfactory, — had factory 
 it contained, as it ought to have done, " a full and faithful ^Jj^^^g^^^^ °t^ 
 representation of the unscriptural and dangerous character ^ ^^ 
 of the views set forth in the Sermon and Preface." Such a 
 representation, as our first reason for dissent and complaint 
 afiirms, the Report approved of by the Presbytery does not 
 contain. On the contrary, the Committee by whom that 
 Report was submitted, "apologise" for the views set forth 
 in the Sermon and Preface reported on, " and not only so, 
 but even vindicate the author in holding and publishing that 
 there were errors and inaccuracies in the Scriptures as 
 originally given, by declaring that the very same view has 
 been held and advocated by theologians of the highest 
 authority, and of world-wide reputation for orthodoxy, no 
 less than for ability and learning." Nor is that all. Such 
 condemnation of the Sermon and Preface as is found in the 
 Report, though apparently severe In language, has respect 
 not to, " the matter or doctrinal teaching contained in 
 them," but solely to "the manner or form in which that 
 teaching was expressed ;" so that when the Presbytery 
 " approve of the Report of the Committee now submitted. That un- 
 and, in accordance with the conclusions of it, find that the ^Qj-J^^gg^^j-g. 
 Sermon of Dr. Dods is open to grave objection in the respects, appears in 
 and on the grounds specified in the Report," there is simply decision of 
 a condemnation, as our second reason of dissent or complaint Presbytery 
 affirms, of "manner or form," but not "of matter or doctrinal 
 teaching." 
 
 I observe that the Presbyter)', in their answer to that Answers of 
 second reason, deny this allegation, and seek to make it Presbytery 
 appear that their condemnation is of a much more thorough 
 kind. They assert that it refers to "the teaching of the Sermon 
 itself, as marked either by dangerous tendencies of a positive 
 kind, or by serious defects, — and not merely to the form or 
 manner in which that teaching is expressed." Further, in 
 their answer to our first reason of dissent and complaint, 
 they assert that, " so far from vindicating the teaching of Dr. 
 Dods, on the subject of inaccuracies in the original Scriptures, 
 they expressed strong disapproval of the same." 
 
These Nothing has more surprised myself, and I may say many 
 
 answers others, in connection with this case, than this representation 
 
 ed^dther ' °^ ^^^ meaning of the Report, and of the deUverance of the 
 
 by Com- Presbytery founded thereon. I defy any member of Presby- 
 
 mittee's tery to produce, either from the Report, or from the deliver- 
 
 Report or ^^ce, a single statement that makes it plain that either the 
 
 ance^or^'^' Committee or the Presbytery have expressed " strong 
 
 Presbytery disapproval " of the teaching of Dr. Dods on the subject 
 
 of inaccuracies in the original Scriptures. A motion, 
 
 recommending the Presbytery to express *' disapproval," 
 
 without the qualifying " strong," was made by myself in the 
 
 committee, but was negatived by a majority. If that 
 
 motion had been carried, some of us at least, would not 
 
 have dissented from the conclusion of the Report. 
 
 These But that Avas not all. If anything was made more 
 
 answers manifest than another in the discussions in the inferior 
 
 ^H^h^^^^^' ^^^^'^J '^^ ^^^ ^'"''^^ ^'^^ motion proposed by Dr. Adam, and 
 
 speeches of ^^op'^^d by the Presbytery, does not condemn " the teaching 
 
 leading of the Sermon," but simply and solely " the form or manner" 
 
 supporters in which that teaching is expressed ; that, in particular, it 
 
 of the (Joes not express, " strong disapproval," of the teaching of Dr. 
 
 carried Dods on the subject of inaccuracies in the original Scriptures. 
 
 For proof of this, let me refer to the speeches of two of the 
 
 most prominent supporters of the motion made by Dr. 
 
 Adam. The seconder of that motion stated explicitly that 
 
 he supported the motion, because it did not condemn the 
 
 teaching of the Sermon as contrary to tlie Standards; and 
 
 then he went on to say, — " Of course there was the other 
 
 aspect of the case, viz., that though the teaching of Dr. Dods 
 
 was not contrary to the Standards of the Church, yet there 
 
 was something in the manner in which his views had been 
 
 propounded, which had been so very objectionable as to 
 
 call for the animadversion of the Courts of the Church." 
 
 Such is the interpretation put upon the motion by the 
 
 seconder. Let me cite another prominent witness as to its 
 
 meaning. Referring to the motion of Dr. Adam, Dr. 
 
 Bruce said — " I am content with it for two reasons, ist, 
 
 Because it does not atfirm that Dr. Dods' Sermon contains 
 
 teaching contrary to the Standards ; and, 2nd, Because it 
 
 does not pronounce judicial condemnation on the opinion 
 
 of Dr. Dods regarding certain defects, but only animadverts 
 
 on the manner in which that opinion has been promulgated." 
 
 These are specimens of what seemed to be the prevailing 
 
 view of the supporters of the motion of Dr. Adam, as to its 
 
 Reversal of meaning. 
 
 judgment j^q^^ \\\q%q. brethren, after such explicit statements as to 
 tery a^bs(>' '^'^^ meaning of the motion, could agree to the answers to our 
 lutely reasons of dissent and complaint, now on the table of the 
 necessary Synod, they arc themselves probably tlic only competent 
 to remove parties to explain. But, certainly, the testimony they thus 
 of miction S^^^, at the time, is of the utmost consequence, as showing 
 carried. the absolute necessity for a reversal, by the Synod, of the 
 
judgment of the Presbytery. It now turns out that those 
 who constituted the bare majority, by which the motion of 
 Dr. Adam was carried, are themselves divided as to its 
 meaning, — one party holding that the Presbytery have con- 
 demned, or expressed "strong disapproval" of the ^'teaching" 
 of the Sermon, while the other hold that they have con- 
 demned simply and solely the " manner or form " in which 
 that teaching is expressed. Surely a motion so ambiguous, 
 to say the least, ought not to be allowed to stand on the 
 records of the Presbytery as the final deliverance, on a 
 question of such importance, as the inspiration, infallible 
 truth, and Divine authority of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Whatever be the final decision, it ought to be at least so 
 clear, definite, and unmistakable, that no one can mis- 
 understand the doctrine of the Church and of her Standards 
 on the subject. 
 
 One thing, at all events, I wish to say in this connection, 
 and in so doing I know that I speak for others, that if the 
 judgment of the Presbytery had contained a clear un- 
 mistakable " disapproval " of the teaching of the Sermon 
 and Preface, I would not have been to-day at your bar 
 as a complainant. I would have been satisfied with the 
 word "disapproval" found in the Presbytery's answers to 
 our reasons, even though the adjective "strong" there also 
 introduced, had been awanting. 
 
 For on what ground could the Presbytery, as such, have Disap- 
 thus expressed its "disapproval" of the teaching of the proval of 
 Sermon and Preface ? On that point I thoroughly endorse tf^^^^^i^g °^ 
 the statement made by Dr. Bruce and concurred in by onlv^com- 
 others. When criticising the motion proposed by Dr. petent on 
 Bonar, but afterwards withdrawn, he said, " We have the ground 
 no right judicially to condemn an opinion which is not ^^^^ 
 contrary to the Standards." To the same effect, Mr. ^^^"^^^'^s- 
 Isdale said, "We may as individuals disapprove of these 
 opinions, as in this case I do, but if they were not 
 condemned by the Standards of the Church, then Dr. Dods 
 was entitled to hold them and propound them, and they had 
 no right to take any ecclesiastical action so far as the 
 opinions themselves were concerned." Well, I agree with 
 these statements ; and hence my readiness to substitute the 
 motion which I proposed, for that which had been proposed Explana- 
 by Dr. Bonar, and in which I had concurred. Our friends tion of 
 have been very anxious to represent the conduct of some ^^°'^^°'^ 
 of us, in that matter, as very vacillating, — as if, during by^Dir 
 the discussion, we had taken up an entirely different position Bonar". 
 on this question. Any one, however, who looks at the two 
 motions in the light of what I have just said, will perceive 
 that, though differently expressed, they are identical in 
 meaning. The only difference between them is that the 
 one is more explicit than the other as to the ground of 
 disapproval. In the first motion, (Dr. Bonar's), that ground 
 was implied; as it was understood on all hands that there 
 
could be valid " disapproval " only on the ground of the 
 Standards; while in the second, (my own), that gi'ound was 
 expressly mentioned, so that there might be no possible 
 mistake as to our meaning. 
 Query as And now, seeing that we are told by the Presbytery in 
 *f f™""'^^„ their answers to our reasons, that they have expressed not 
 disapprov-^ only " disapproval " but " strong disapproval " of the 
 al" in teaching of Dr. Dods on the subject of inaccuracies in the 
 answers of original Scriptures, I want to know on what grounds they 
 Presbytery \■^■^^^Q_ done SO. Is it on the ground of the inconsistency of 
 that teaching with the Standards of our Church? If it is 
 not on that ground, then, with Dr. Bruce and Mr. Isdale, 
 I say that whatever might be your opinions, as individuals, 
 you had no right, as a Presbytery, to express "strong 
 disapproval" of the teaching of Dr. Dods. By so doing 
 you are guilty of what Dr. Bruce well described in the 
 Committee, as an act of " ecclesiastical tyranny." If, how- 
 ever, your " strong disapproval " of the teaching of Dr. 
 Dods is based on its inconsistency with the Standards, surely 
 it follows, according to the order of procedure, laid down by 
 Dr. Bruce, when criticising the motion of Dr. Bonar, that ''you 
 are bound to put that in your motion as the only adequate 
 ground of justification of condemnation." If this ambiguous 
 Decision decision of the Presbytery be reversed, and there be 
 which will substituted for it, by the Court of Review, on the only 
 satisfy _ ground on which it can be done, that expression of " strong 
 ^ntT^^^^'^" disapproval" of the teaching of the Sermon and Preface 
 which is found in the Presbytery's answers, but 7iot in 
 their motion, and the case be otherwise disposed of 
 according to the laws of the Church, I have no doubt 
 that it will take end, so far as our side of the bar is con- 
 cerned. 
 Bearing of But then we must consider what will be the bearing of 
 such a de- such a decision upon the so-called withdrawal of the Sermon 
 cision on ^y Y)x. Dods. The Presbytery, in their answer to our third 
 withdrawal ^eason of disscnt and complaint, take great credit for having 
 of Sermoii hit upon " the proper, and, as it has actually proved, the 
 by Dr. effectual way to secure the withdrawal of the Sermon." 
 Dods. g^j. J ^yant to know, first of all, whether, as things now stand, 
 the Sermon is withdrawn. Of course the mere fact of with- 
 drawal, even though it had been made in the most absolute 
 form, would have nothing whatever to do with the complaint 
 we have taken. It would not alter, in the least, the objec- 
 tionable nature of the deliverance of the Presbytery. If, 
 therefore, the complainants had so desired, they might have 
 refused to allow any reference whatever to be made to an 
 event which took place after that deliverance had been 
 passed, and when it was suspended by our dissent and 
 complaint. But, as that so-called withdrawal is evidently 
 considered by the Presbytery of so much importance, we 
 certainly have no desire to prevent the Court from looking 
 at it in all its bearings. If they do so, we are persuaded 
 
that it will form the strongest of all reasons for the reversal 
 of the judgment of the Presbytery. 
 
 For what is the understanding on which that so-called Under- 
 withdrawal proceeds ? Dr, Dods made that abundantly standingon 
 plain, not only in the letter read to the Presbytery on the Withdrawal 
 day when the motion of Dr. Adam was passed, but also, proceeded, 
 and specially, in the document read by him to the Presby- 
 tery at the next meeting, and, at his request, actually en- 
 grossed in our minutes, without any accompanying disclaimer 
 of the interpretation thus put by him upon the deliverance 
 of the Presbytery. That document is as follows : — " In Letter of 
 view of the decision to which the Presbytery came last ^^'- ^""^'^ 
 Thursday, and in pursuance of the statement that I then to^Piesby- 
 made, I beg now to express my willingness to withdraw my 
 Sermon in its present form, and I say that in view of the 
 Presbytery's decision — and on the grounds on which the 
 decision was based ; and I desire that it may be put upon 
 the record of the Presbytery, that I withdraw my Sermon on 
 the distinct understanding that a majority of the Presbytery 
 has found that the views expressed in my Sermon and 
 Preface are to be tolerated within the Church, and are not 
 condemned by the Confession. I am, myself, of opinion 
 that the views I have expressed are consistent with the 
 Confession, and I withdraw it only in deference to the 
 Presbytery's opinion, that the publication of these views 
 has been ill-advised in form and in time. I have my own 
 opinion on this decision. I do not think the Sermon, by 
 any means, so bad as it has been represented. I know it 
 has done good ; but perhaps it has now done all the good 
 it is likely to do, and I defer to the opinion of the Presby- 
 tery. My only difficulty is in connection with the appeal. 
 It may seem premature to withdraw the Sermon before it 
 has run the gauntlet of all our Courts, but if the Presbytery 
 is of opinion that this does not form an obstacle, I am 
 prepared to act upon the intimation I now give." 
 
 That document makes it evident that Dr. Dods agreed Import of 
 with the interpretation put upon the motion by Mr. Isdale said letter. 
 and Dr. Bruce, and proposed to withdraw his Sermon 
 on an understanding of the meaning of that motion very 
 different from that now put on it by the Presbytery, in 
 their answers to our reasons of dissent and complaint. He 
 does so, he tells us, " on the distinct understanding that a 
 majority of the Presbytery has found that the views expressed 
 in the Sermon and Preface are to be tolerated within the 
 Church, and are not condemned by the Confession." He 
 interprets the motion further, as meaning simply that " the 
 publication of these views has been ill-advised in form and 
 in time." He proposes to withdraw his Sermon on this 
 understanding, — on the understanding, viz., that provided he 
 be only a little more careful as to " form and time," he may 
 not only hold, but also preach, and publish the same views 
 B 
 
The State 
 ofthe 
 question 
 ecclesiasti 
 cally con- 
 sidered. 
 
 as are promulgated in the Sermon and Preface. Nay more, 
 liis so-called withdrawal is a virtual republication of these 
 views, and that with the direct sanction of his Presbytery. 
 Without a word of disclaimer from the Presbytery, he gets 
 a statement engrossed in the minutes interpreting the judg- 
 ment of the Court in the way I have indicated. He gets his 
 Presbytery, — the largest Presbytery in the Church, — to admit, 
 and officially to declare, that any minister of this Church 
 may, without challenge, not only hold, but also preach and 
 publish such views. I am aware that it is being said that it 
 matters not what interpretation is put upon that motion by 
 Dr. Dods and others, and that the Presbytery's decision 
 is sufficiently clear and unambiguous. But I call atten- 
 tion to the fact that the Presbytery, in their answer to 
 our third reason of dissent and complaint, allege that the 
 Sermon is^vithdrawn. If that is so, it is Avithdrawn only on 
 the understanding which, at the request of Dr. Dods, has 
 been engrossed in the minutes of the Presbytery, viz. : 
 " That a majority of the Presbytery has found that the views 
 expressed in the Sermon and Preface are to be tolerated 
 within the Church, and are not condemned by the 
 Confession." 
 
 But that is not all. The Presbytery, in their answer to our 
 fourth reason of dissent and complaint, admit that this is 
 the effect of their decision. They say that it " goes the 
 utmost length in guarding against the holding and teaching 
 of the views contained in the Sermon and Preface, which it 
 is believed the Standards of the Church and the circum- 
 stances of the case warrant." In other words, the Presbytery 
 admit that we have accurately put ikiQ State of the question, 
 ecclesiastically considered, when, in our fourth, and most 
 fatal reason of dissent and complaint, we affirm that ''the 
 decision of the Presbytery will, if unreversed, declare 
 that any minister of this Church may, without challenge, not 
 only hold, but preach and publish such views as are promul- 
 gated in this Sermon." After this admission, and the 
 recording on the minutes without a disclaimer, the statement 
 of Dr. Dods, it is the greatest farce possible for the Presby- 
 tery to speak of their deliverance as expressing " strong 
 disapproval" of the views of Dr. Dods. If the case had never 
 been raised at all, or if there had been an unqualified with- 
 drawal of the Sermon, before the judgment of the Presby- 
 tery had been declared, the matter would have been on 
 an entirely different footing. But as things now stand, (and in 
 making this statement, I betray no confidence when I say 
 that this is the view as to the effect of the Presbytery's 
 action in engrossing the statement of Dr. Dods on the 
 minutes, entertained by one of the wisest and most authori- 
 tative minds in the Free Church), unless the decision of the 
 Presbytery be reversed, and the document handed in by Dr. 
 Dods be removed from the records of the Presbytery, — not 
 only will the Presbytery of Glasgow, but the whole church, 
 
li 
 
 will be committed to the formal official sanction thus given 
 to these views. The question as to whether these views may 
 be held, preached, and published, by our ministers and 
 professors, will be no longer open but closed, — so closed 
 that it will no longer be possible to raise it in connection 
 with any similar case. Such is the State of the question 
 ecclesiastically considered. 
 
 But now what is the State of the question theologically con- The State 
 sidered? What are the views which are thus sanctioned? of the 
 What is the doctrinal question involved ? I reply that it is fFestion 
 one of the most important and fundamental that could be caUy c?n- 
 raised in our church. It is a question affecting her Supreme sideied. 
 Standard, — the Word of God. In few words, it is this. Were 
 the human authors of the Bible so infallibly guided in 
 their official work by the inspiring Spirit of God, that the 
 sacred Books, as written by them, were throughout the very 
 Word of God, absolutely free from error in all their parts and 
 particulars — free from error as much in their statements 
 of fact, as in their statements of doctrine and duty? Or, to 
 put it in the words of the late Principal Candlish, it is this, 
 Have we only the Word of God in the Bible, or is the Bible 
 itself " in the strictest and fullest sense, in every particular 
 of its contents and in every expression which it uses, the 
 infallible "\\'ord of the one only living and true God ? "* 
 
 The question is, the Synod will observe, not of an a prion Not a 
 kind, as to ^possible Bible, but as to the one actually given question as 
 by inspiration of God. In the Court below Ave were treated ^?.']- P?.^' 
 to a great number of suppositions as to what God might do, ^^i°^*^- 
 in the wa}- of communicating to men the knowledge of the 
 revelations He has made of Himself. We were told that 
 He might have done so through an uninspired and fallible 
 record, or through one only partially inspired, and so only 
 partially infallible. I admit all that ; but then the question 
 here is not about what God might have done, but about what 
 He has actually done. It relates to the existing Scriptures. 
 
 And it relates to these Scriptures, as originally given. Not a 
 It is not a question as to whether some trivial errors may question as 
 not, in the course of ages, have found their way into our *° °"-|!f'^^^' 
 present MSS., or translations. We all admit, to use the or"tmnsla- 
 Avords of Principal Candlish, " that the original text of the lations. ' 
 Sacred Books has suffered from successive copyings, that it 
 must be adjusted by a comparison of manuscripts, and that 
 the best adjustment can furnish only an approximation to 
 absolute accuracy. 2nd, That all translations, ancient and • 
 modern, are imperfect."! But whatever the amount of trivial 
 error introduced into our present Bibles, through transcrip- 
 tion or translation, the point I wish to make clear is this, 
 that the question now raised does not relate to our present 
 Bibles, but to the Scriptures as originally given. I am the 
 more anxious to make this point clear, because I have been 
 amazed to find, among intelligent laymen, and even among 
 * Reason and Revelation, Preface, p. 21. t Reason and Revelation, p. 42, 
 
the ministers of our Church, an idea that the question raised 
 by Dr. Dods is as to whether there are not some trifling 
 errors — errors of " no real importance " in our present Bibles. 
 Language Let me say then, emphatically, that the question is not of 
 ofDr.Dods ^^^^ nature. That is abundantly evident from the language 
 only to "^^<^ "^ the Sermon and Preface. The idea of Dr. Dods, 
 Scriptures as there elaborated, is, that the errors he has in view, were 
 as origi- introduced, in the very process by which the Bible was pro- 
 nally given ^^ced. Now, every one must see that the question thus raised 
 about the Scriptures as originally given, is of a far more 
 fundamental kind, and the answer to be given to it is far more 
 important than any question that can be raised about our 
 present Scriptures. There seems, on this point, to be the 
 strangest perversion of mind among many of the supporters 
 of Dr. Dods. They tell us that if we admit any error, however 
 trifling, in our present Scriptures, we give up the whole 
 question, and that Dr. Dods has just as good a right to say 
 that there were errors in the original document, as we 
 have to say that they were introduced in the process of 
 transcription ; and that for all practical purposes, the Bible 
 will be of the same authority in either case. 
 Radical Now, all this I most emphatically deny. Dr. Dods has 
 
 difference not as good a right to say that there were errors in the Scrip- 
 between tures as originally given, as I have to say that errors have 
 DnDods been introduced in the process of transcription. For, ist, 
 and any He cannot prove his allegation while I can prove mine. In 
 admission the various readings found in different MSS., I have clear 
 of tnvial evidence that copyists were not miraculously preserved 
 tiirough ^"^ovlX error in transcribing, but he cannot produce the 
 transcrip- original document, so as to prove to me that there was error 
 tion. there. At best, his is a gratuitous assertion which he 
 
 cannot establish, while in respect to any trifling error that 
 may be found in the oldest MSS., I am entitled to say, suffi- 
 This view cient time has elapsed since the Scriptures were originally 
 ofDr.Dods given, for the introduction of that error. Dr. Dods' position 
 unscientific Jg thus, first of all, a most unscientijic one. But 2nd, it is a 
 This view most unscriptural one. It directly contradicts the testimony 
 ofDr.Dods of Scripture regarding it self, — the testimony of all the sacred 
 unscrip- ^yriters ; and is altogether inconsistent with the use made of 
 Scripture by Christ and His apostles. Plainly the case is 
 different with our present Scriptures, for there is no 
 assertion made by the Scripture writers, or by Christ or His 
 apostles, implying that copyists would be miraculously 
 preserved from error. Nor is that all. For 3rd, the admiss- 
 ion that there were errors of a trifling kind introduced through 
 transcription, has a practical bearing very different from the 
 assertion of error in the Scriptures as originally given. If 
 Practical there was error in the original Scriptures, then, as the late 
 bearing of Dj-. Fairbairn well put it, " no power of man can bring 
 this view, ^i^gj^^ yp jQ |.|^g mark, or even tell precisely wherein they 
 come short. There is no sure criterion to fall back upon, 
 no higher counsel to call in for the rectification of that wherein 
 
they might be erring or defective. But, in respect to versions, 
 we have an ultimate standard in the original Scriptures, so 
 far as the true text is capable of being ascertained ; and, 
 again, for the ascertainment of this, we have unnumerable 
 resources of a learned kind, which, as is well known to 
 every person of moderate theological attainments, have left 
 very little room for doubt as to the correct reading of all 
 but a mere fragment of Scripture. The passages are 
 scarcely worth naming, in regard to which there is now any 
 material difference of opinion among those who are com- 
 petent to judge in such matters."-'' Not a single doctrine 
 or duty set forth in our present Scriptures is put in 
 doubt by all the various readings; whereas, if there was 
 error in the original document, every doctrine and every 
 duty would be put in doubt. In the former case, you can 
 gauge and measure both the quantity and the quality of 
 alleged error, but in the latter you cannot. If the error 
 was in the Scriptures, as originally given, they have no 
 recuperative power to throw off this error; but if the error was 
 introduced by transcription they have such power. 
 
 Again, this is not a question as to the mode of inspiration. Not a 
 The complainants do not profess to be able to explain the question as 
 mode of inspiration, nor do they caie what theory a man '° ^ ^ 
 adopts on that subject, provided he holds that all \\Titten inspiration 
 under inspiration is the Word of God, of infallible truth, 
 and Divine authority. I am the more anxious to call atten- 
 tion to this point, because a persistent attempt has been 
 made by some of the supporters of Dr. Dods, to represent 
 us as holding and advocating what has been called the 
 "mechanical theory" of inspiration, according to which the 
 human writers of the Bible were mere " machines " in 
 the hands of the inspiring Spirit; or, as Emerson puts it, 
 " more or less refined blow-pipes through which mechanical 
 effects were produced." 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 the 
 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 idiosyncracies. f Instead 
 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 \\\t product of inspiration, viz., a Book of infallible truth 
 and Divine authority. We object to Dr. Dods' theory 
 of inspiration, because it denies infallible truth and 
 Divine authority to what is inspired. I appeal, therefore, 
 to the honour and honesty of those who differ from us in 
 this case, and ask them to cease from misrepresenting us 
 
 * Bible Dictionary, p. 793. 
 
 t On this part of the subject see Fairbairn's Bible Dictionary, pp. 
 790, 791. 
 
u 
 
 oh this aspect of the question, and from industriously placing 
 a false issue before the Church, by saying that we are 
 contending for a certain theory of inspiration. 
 Not a Again. This is not a question as to the literary charac- 
 
 question as feristics of the Bible, — as to whether there are diversities of 
 axv charac- Style, idiom, grammar, corresponding to the mental idio- 
 teristics of syncracies and literary training of the different human authors, 
 the Bible. We all admit these diversities; and if a man of pedantic turn, 
 who has got some ideal of his own as to what constitutes 
 perfect style and perfect grammar, shall affirm that there are 
 occasionally in the Bible, faults in style, or errors in 
 grammar, we do not suppose that a question need be 
 raised as to his orthodoxy. The real question is not, as to 
 whether there is in the Bible faulty style or bad grammar, 
 but, as to whether there are erroneous statements. Some of 
 our friends, and notably Dr. Dods, have slumped these to- 
 gether as if they were things of the same kind. " Their 
 bad grammar " he says, " and rudeness of style were not 
 corrected, neither were their erroneous impressions regard- 
 ing ordinary matters. Holy men of God spake as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost, but this did not prevent their 
 speaking with a provincial accent, neither did it prevent their 
 speaking in that whole region of thought in which their con- 
 temporaries moved."* Surely the merest tyro in theological 
 science must perceive that there is a strange want of homo- 
 geneity in the things here grouped together. A witness in 
 a court of law may speak " the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth," although he uses " bad grammar," 
 has a " rude style," and speaks with a " provincial accent." 
 What we object to in the statements of Dr. Dods, is not 
 that he lays such faults to the charge of the sacred writers, 
 but that he charges them with committing to -writing what 
 is not true. The Spirit was promised to lead them into all 
 truth, but not to make them good grammarians, nor to 
 rectify their dialect, idiom, or style. 
 Not a Again. The question is not as to what were the personal 
 
 ciuestion as vieivs or conduct of the sacred writers, but as to what they 
 to the per- officially committed to writing. It is not, AVere these men 
 sonal views personally infallible, but was the Bible, as written by them, the 
 of the " infallible record of an infallible revelation ? As Dr. C. Hodge 
 sacred well puts it, " They were not imbued with plenary knowledge, 
 writers. As to all matters of science, philosophy, and history, they 
 stood on the same level with their contemporaries. They 
 were infallible only as teachers, and when acting as the 
 spokesmen of God." Further on, he says, "The sacred 
 writers also differed as to their insight into the truths which 
 they taught. The Apostle Peter intimates that the prophets 
 searched diligently into the meaning of their own predictions. 
 . . . . Nor does the Scriptural doctrine on this subject 
 imply that the sacred Avriters were free from errors in conduct. 
 Their infallibility did not arise from their holiness, nor did 
 * Sermon, 4th Etl.,p. iS. 
 
^5 
 
 inspiration render them holy. Balaam was inspired, and 
 Saul was among the prophets. David committed many 
 crimes, although inspired to write psalms. Peter erred in 
 conduct at Antioch ; but this does not prove that he erred 
 in teaching. The influence which preserved him from 
 mistakes in teaching was not designed to preserve him from 
 mistakes in conduct." * 
 
 Again. The question is not as to whether the Bible is Not a 
 the Word of God in the sense only of containing the direct question as 
 utterances of God Hi/nself as the immediate speaker for [here ai-e^'^ 
 the time being. We all hold that there are other things other than 
 in the Bible beside '' Divine revelation strictly so-called," Divine 
 — that it contains a record of human affairs, of the utterances 
 sayings and doings of men and angels, as well as of the ^"^cnpture 
 sayings and doings of God. " Written as it is," to 
 quote the language of Dr. Fairbairn, "with much variety 
 of form, containing 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 Spirit of God, that every portion, viewed singly 
 and apart, is clothed with Divine authority, 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 Avithheld. In speaking, 
 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 circumstances 
 recorded, cannot, 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 bottomless 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. "f 
 
 Again. The question is not as to the use of popular Not a 
 language — language not scientifically exact. As the grand question as 
 design of the Bible is not to teach science, but to teach to the use 
 religion, so, in doing this, it fitly speaks not in the lansfuaee ?^ populai- 
 c • \. i. c rr jr T language in 
 
 of science, but of common life, and of common men. It the Bible, 
 speaks familiarly, for instance, of the sun and the stars rising 
 and setting, of the earth being established that it cannot be 
 moved ; of the falling of a stone to the ground, and of every- 
 thing else in the outer world just as it appears to us, and 
 totally without reference to the earth's motion on its axis, 
 or to the law of gravitation. But this is just the language 
 which every man uses in the intercourse of common life, and 
 ' * Systeniatic Theology, pp. 165, 16G. t Bible Dictionary, p. 78S. 
 
i6 
 
 Not a 
 question as 
 to relative 
 imperfec- 
 tions in 
 some parts 
 of the 
 Bible. 
 
 Quotation 
 from Dr. 
 Fairbairn. 
 
 which even the most eminent scientists use, except when they 
 are speaking or writing for a distinctly scientific purpose. 
 But there is much more significance in the relation of the 
 Bible to science than at first sight appears. While it was not 
 given to teach science, — while it does not, by the use of 
 scientific language, anticipate scientific discoveries, or 
 supersede scientific research, — its references to the facts of 
 science are always of such a kind, as to be perfectly consistent 
 therewith. "When that is made clear, it furnishes," as Dr. 
 Candlish well puts it, "a most striking and irrefragable proof 
 of the infallibility of the Bible ; its having been composed 
 under the eye and hand of an Infallible Mind, knowing all 
 things from the beginning, and taking care that whatever of 
 truth is revealed and written down, from time to time, 
 partially and incompletely, to meet the successive exigencies 
 of human sin, and suff'ering, and sorrow, and salvation, shall 
 be, on the one hand, adapted to the existing state of know- 
 ledge at the time ; and, on the other hand, consistent with 
 all that ever can be known." * In this respect how vast the 
 contrast between the Bible and other sacred books ! 
 
 Again. It is not a question as to whether there are 
 relative imperfections in some parts of the Bible. This 
 word '' imperfections" is one of those used by Dr. Dods, and 
 no fault could be found with it if it stood by itself, and were 
 properly defined and explained. Thus defined and explained, 
 relative imperfection may be a necessary concomitant of 
 God's revelation hy means of man. Permit me, on this 
 subject, to quote again the discriminating statements of my 
 revered theological teacher, the late Principal Fairbairn, 
 who was so well qualified to handle all the difficulties of this 
 question. Dr. Fairbairn, as you all know, was thoroughly 
 conversant with the speculations of the German theology; 
 but there was this great difference between him and some 
 others who seem to make German theology their special 
 study, — they allow the German rationalism to master them, 
 while his well-balanced mind mastered the German ration- 
 alism. Referring to this subject, Dr. Fairbairn says, " As 
 regards the verbal differences in the accounts of our Lord's 
 parables, discourses, and ministerial transactions, it must be 
 admitted that there is a relative imperfection; for the diverse 
 
 reports cannot be equally exact With all the 
 
 supernatural grace and energy of the Spirit, scope must still 
 have been allowed for the operation of personal gifts and 
 tendencies; so that what appeared to one in our Lord's 
 words and actions as fit to be noted, did not always so 
 present itself to another — different epitomes of His dis- 
 courses were adopted, and the Greek words, which seemed 
 to some the best equivalents for the original Aramaic, did 
 not in every instance correspond precisely with those 
 adopted by others. Yet, shall we err, if we hold each 
 sacred? Shall we not find in each something which 
 * Reason and Revelation, p. 85. 
 
17 
 
 expresses the mind of the Lord? Doubtless we shall; 
 none of them give the whole; but what is more specific 
 in one throws light on what is more general in another; 
 what is more full here, on what is more concise there ; 
 and thus, though each by itself is relatively imperfect, the 
 whole together may afford as complete an exhibition of 
 the truth as it is reasonable to expect, or possible to 
 obtain." * Such are the well-balanced statements of Dr. 
 Fairbairn. To the same effect, the late Dr. Islay Burns 
 says, " Where the human and the divine are so inextricably 
 blended in one common result, it becomes absolutely im- 
 possible clearly to discriminate the one from the other, to 
 fix any definite point, where the one element ends and the 
 other begins. We cannot determine a priori, either the kind 
 or the amount of those human characteristics which may in 
 the divine wisdom be found compatible, with the perfection 
 of the final result, what freedom of historical detail, what 
 popular rendering of scientific facts, what peculiarities of 
 style and thought, what lesser irregularities in grammar or in 
 diction, what liberty in quoting and in accommodating remem- 
 bered words, what necessary anthropomorphisms and partial 
 views and perspective glimpses of truth, — which in their 
 absolute fulness, cannot be uttered by man. All this was 
 inevitable from the very conditions of the problem which the 
 divine wisdom had to solve, how best to speak of things 
 divine in human words, and from a human point of view. 
 Of this only we may be sure, that whatever of the distinc- 
 tively human is permitted to mingle with the purely divine, 
 is left there just because it is best that it should be there, and 
 because what might appear to us imperfections in the parts, 
 only contribute in the eye of unerring wisdom to the 
 more absolute perfection of the whole."! Imperfections of 
 this kind, as every one must see, are not errors, and are per- 
 fectly consistent with the infallible truth and Divine authority 
 of every part of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Finally. The question is not about difticulties in Scrip- Not a 
 ture which we may at present be unable to solve. After full question as 
 allowance has been made for errors due to transcription, for difficulties 
 the use of popular language, and for relative imperfections, in the 
 every one admits that there are still difficulties of various Bible, 
 kinds, — apparent anomalies, and things in one part of Scrip- 
 ture which are not easy to reconcile with others that occur 
 elsewhere. This is only what the analogy of God's procedure 
 in nature and providence would lead us to expect. Long ago, 
 Origen drew attention to this point. " In both," he says, 
 (i.e., nature and revelation) " we see a self-concealing, self- 
 revealing God, who makes Himself loiown only to those 
 who earnestly seek Him : in both we find stimulants to faith, 
 and occasions for unbelief." There are always difticulties Difficulties 
 when the Divine and the human meet. We find them in to be ex- 
 * Bible Dictionary, p. 792. t Select Remains, pp. 284, 285. 
 
i8 
 
 Difficulties 
 useful, — 
 I. As an in- 
 tellectual 
 stimulus. 
 
 2. As a 
 moral test. 
 
 These diffi- 
 culties test 
 Churches. 
 
 creation, in the constitution of our own being, in pro- 
 vidence, in the incarnation of Christ, and in the regeneration 
 of beUevers. So is it here. These difficulties often arise 
 from the limited character of our knowledge. We need to 
 know more about all the circumstances, before we are able 
 to determine which of several possible explanations is the 
 right one, or whether there may not be an explanation in 
 reserve. As Westcott states, " Even in those passages which 
 present the greatest difficulties, there are traces of unrecorded 
 facts which, if known fully, would probably explain the whole." 
 The difficulties are vanishing quantities. Many of them 
 that once appeared the most formidable have not only been 
 solved, but have supplied new proofs of the absolute truth- 
 fulness of Scripture in all its details. If we have only a 
 little more patience, they will all be solved by-and-bye. 
 
 Meanwhile, they serve a twofold object, ist. They supply an 
 intellectual stimulus. In a nursery which I know there is 
 a famous toy. It consists of multitudinous parts of a 
 complete building. It is plain that somehow or other 
 the parts fit into each other so as, in the end, to make 
 a'^complete and perfect whole. Inasmuch, however, as no 
 diagram was at first supplied with the toy, the children have 
 hitherto failed in all their efforts to make the parts thus fit 
 together. Do they, on that account, lose their faith in the 
 perfection of the whole, or in the adaptation of all the parts ? 
 Nay rather, this unsolved difficulty becomes again and again 
 a new stimulus to research. And so it is with these un- 
 solved difficulties of the Bible. Because of them, I go the 
 oftener to study the precious Book, use 'more carefully all 
 critical and exegetical appliances, and pray more earnestly 
 for the teaching of the Spirit. But, 2nd. These unsolved 
 difficulties are also a moral test. In this respect the Bible 
 is like the Saviour of whom it testifies. He is " set for the 
 fall and rising again of many in Israel." While He is to 
 some "The Foundation" laid by God in Zion, on which 
 they build securely for eternity, He is to others " a stone 
 of stumbling and rock of offence." If any man "love the 
 darkness rather than the light ; " if he want to find reasons 
 for rejecting the Bible, he will find them in these unsolved 
 difficulties ; while, on the other hand, these same difficulties 
 will prove a means of spiritual humbling and self-emptying 
 to those who sincerely love the light. And these difficulties 
 are, I believe, for the testing of Churches as well as of 
 individuals. Who knows but that this Free Church of 
 ours may now be thereby put on her trial? May she have 
 grace to stand the test which these difficulties supply, and 
 to prove more than ever loyal to that living and abiding 
 Word, which is the charter of all her privileges. 
 
 I have gone thus fully into all these details of a negative 
 kind, in order that there may be no mistake as to the real 
 and only question involved in this case. It is, I repeat, a 
 question not as to a possible Bible, but as the Bible we 
 
i9 
 
 have, and that as originally given by God; not as to a mode 
 of inspiration; not as to the literary characteristics of the Bible; 
 not as to the private views or conduct of the sacred writers ; 
 not as to whether there are other than immediate divine 
 utterances in the Bible ; not as to the use of popular lan- 
 guage ; not as to relative imperfections in some parts of Scrip- 
 ture; not as to apparent discrepancies or unsolved difficulties. 
 
 What then is the question ? It is as I indicated before, Theologi- 
 as to whether the inspiration ascribed to Holy Scripture cal ques- 
 secures infallibility, and as to whether that inspiration and I^^^IJ^'^_ 
 that infallibility apply to all parts of Scripture, — to all the tivdy. 
 statements of fact, as well as to all the statements of doctrine 
 and of duty. 
 
 Now, on the complex question thus raised, the teaching The teach- 
 of Dr. Dods, as presented in the Sermon and Preface, is of the Ser- 
 sufficiently explicit. Whether he at all admits inspiration, ^ods oii ' 
 in the orthodox sense, as securing infallibility, seems very that ques- 
 doubtful ; but even, if he does, it is plain that he restricts tion. 
 it entirely to certain parts of Scripture, — viz., to those 
 described by him as bearing upon faith and life ; and holds 
 that in the other parts of Scripture there is no such inspir- 
 ation and no such infallibility ; but that, on the contrary, 
 there are errors — real errors. 
 
 First of all, it is doubtful whether Dr. Dods admits that Doubtful 
 there is any inspiration whatever in the sense of Divine whether Dr 
 infallible guidance. All the references he makes to the ^"t^^^^^" 
 subject, indeed, go to show that even in regard to doctrine t^ere is 
 and duty, he does no^ hold that there is such inspiration as any in- 
 that I have just defined. It is surely a striking fact that, spiration 
 although the heading of the Sermon is " Revelation and ^^^^g divine 
 Inspiration," there is not, from the beginning to the end, fnfallibYe"^ 
 a single positive assertion which implies that in any matter guidance, 
 whatever, the sacred writers had Divine infallible guidance. 
 The only assertions made are to the effect that the inspiration 
 they had, was an endowirient, that did no^ preserve them from 
 error. Nay more, the definitions given of the inspiration of 
 the 'sacred writers, so far as they are intelligible, plainly 
 mean that Dr. Dods has in view a different kind of inspiration 
 from that which implies Divine infallible guidance. So far 
 as I can make out, it is simply a higher degree of what has 
 been called, though I think improperly, " the inspiration of 
 grace," — that enlightening, sanctifying influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, which is common to all believers, with opportunities 
 of knowing a revelation at first hand, and the historical facts 
 in the ordinary way. Dr. Martin well describes it as " A com- 
 pound of a little, or rather not a little, rrvelation properly 
 so called; of a more than ordinary amount of grace, in the 
 form of spiritual light or illumination; of what may be called, 
 favourable providential circumstances; and of those particular 
 gifts and graces that are required for the office of the Christian 
 ministry: all resulting in what is called ' special equipment.""'-' 
 * The Westminster Doctrine of tlic Inspiration of Scripture, p. 35. 
 
Quotations Here is the way in which Dr. Dods describes it, in the 
 from Ser- j,j^gg ^f ^}^g historical writers of Scripture, " The inspiration 
 Dods! '" °^ ^^^ apostles fitting them to preserve to the world the 
 life and character of our Lord, was not an influence which 
 served them instead of eyes and memory, but it was an 
 influence which set them in the right attitude towards Him 
 they were to reflect, and made them sensitive to everything 
 
 in Him which was of the highest value 
 
 The man who gave himself up to God, who was emptied 
 of self-seeking and worldly ways of looking at things, was 
 best fitted to understand what God sought to declare to men. 
 Such a man became the purest possible channel for the 
 Spirit. What he sees, he sees clearly and truly, having no 
 interest to see anything different from what God actually 
 makes known. . . . Inspiration, in short, is a spiritual 
 gift and only indirectly a mental one. It illuminates the 
 mind as enthusiasm does, by stimulating and elevating it ; 
 it enriches the memory as love does, by intensifying the 
 interest in a certain object and by making the mind sensitive 
 to the impressions and retentive of them. It brings light 
 to the understanding, and wisdom to the spirit, as purity 
 of intention does, or as a high aim in life does. But 
 it is not a gift conferring intellectual acuteness where that 
 did not previously exist, nor imparting any superhuman 
 power of knowledge. If an error existed in the records 
 used by the compiler of the Book of Chronicles, if the 
 documents from which he was gatliering his information 
 mis-stated the numbers that fell in some battle, inspiration 
 furnished him with no means of detecting such an error, 
 any more than it furnished him with the ability to sit down 
 and write the entire history of Israel out of his OAvn brain 
 without any documentary aid at all. If then we ask, What 
 is it then that distinguishes these writers of Scripture? we 
 answer, Mainly this, that they had the revelation at first hand, 
 that they were the men before A^hom the revelation was 
 made, and who were so impressed with it and saw its 
 meaning, as to be moved to preserve and perpetuate this 
 impression for the sake of others."* 
 Meaning Now, from all this it is plain that, according to Dr. Dods, 
 of these the main difference between the writers of the historical 
 (juotations. p^^^j-g of Scripture (and he afterwards applies the same 
 principle to the other \vriters,) and the spiritually-minded 
 Christian of the present day is, that they had the facts 
 they record " at first hand." They Avere " eye-witnesses," 
 or had the facts from those who were so. "They never ask 
 us," he says, "to take their word for a thing which they 
 had not good means of knowing in the ordinary way, they do 
 not come before us as men who by a process called inspira- 
 tion were made aware of facts which had not come 
 within their OAvn observation or knowledge, neither do they 
 bid us accept their testimony without question as infallible, 
 * Sermon, 4tli Edition, pp. 20, 21, 22. 
 
it 
 
 but they say that by many mfallible proofs Christ had 
 appeared to them after the resurrection, and they ask us to 
 believe their word, as honest men, that they saw Him,"* 
 
 Now I do not cite these statements with the view of 
 showing their contrariety with the facts of the case, or the 
 impossibihty on such a theory of inspiration to say what books 
 should be excluded from the Canon, and what others should be 
 included, — although all that could be easily done ; but rather 
 with the view of making plain to the Court, the kind of 
 inspiration ascribed by Dr. Dods to the writers of the Bible, 
 more especially of the historical portions. It is inspiration in 
 the sense in which the term is employed by such men as 
 Schleiermacher, Coleridge, Maurice, Morell. "Inspiration," 
 says Morell, "depends upon the manner, form, and accuracy 
 
 of a man's religious intuitions Let there be 
 
 a due purification of the moral nature, a perfect harmony 
 of the spiritual being with the mind of God, a removal ot 
 all inward disturbances from the heart, and what is to prevent 
 or disturb the immediate intuition of Divine things, and 
 what do we require in inspiration more than this ?"t 
 
 In a note at the end of the Fourth Edition of his Sermon, Dr. Authors to 
 Dods acknowledges his " indebtedness to Erskine's Spiritual ^^om Dr. 
 Order, Home's Reason and Revelation, and Rainy's Cunning- knowledges 
 ham Lectures.'" I am surprised to find Dr. Rainy's Lectures his indcbt- 
 referred to in this connection; but we may well leave it to edness. 
 the learned Principal himself, to shew whether he has given 
 any countenance to such views as are found in the Sermon 
 and Preface of Dr. Dods. Any one, however, who looks into 
 the works of Erskine of Linlathen, and Home's book, Avill 
 see that the admission of indebtedness was needed, as 
 respects both these authors. The parallelism of view, and 
 even of expression, is, to say the least of it, very striking. 
 As illustrations of that parallelism were given some time ago, 
 so far as the work of Erskine is concerned, in an article 
 which appeared in the MontJdy Presbyterian, I will not 
 take up your time by referring to it here. Let me, however, 
 give a few extracts from the volume of Home, with the 
 view of shewing the real character and tendency of the 
 views of the Sermon and Preface. As members of the 
 Synod may not have seen the volume referred to, and may 
 suppose that the author is identical with tlie author of the 
 " Introduction to the Bible," I may exj^lain that, as 
 appears from a Prefatory Note, he was, in 1876, when the Query, 
 Book appeared, a student of St. Andrews, and that the line Who is 
 of inquiry carried out in his volume on "Reason and^^™^'' 
 Revelation" was first undertaken for a Scottish Inter- 
 University Prize of ;^ioo, which was adjudged to him by 
 " Principal TuUoch, Principal Caird, and Dr. Hannah, then 
 Warden of Trinity College, Glenalmond." In that same 
 Prefatory Note Mr. Home acknowledges Jiis special indebted- 
 ness to " Ewald and Rothe." It is evidently indebtedness all 
 
 * Sermon, p. 19. t Philosophy of Religion, pp. 158, 176, 1S6. 
 
round. And now for the views of Mr. Home. At p. 164, he says, 
 Parallel- "There are in the various parts of the Old and New Testa- 
 vklvs of ^ ments accounts of revelations, to perceive which originally, as 
 Home and even now vitally to know them, presupposed spirits prepared 
 those of for the reception of this sphere of truth, (Dr. Dods says, 
 Dr. Dods. i emptied of self-seeking and worldly ways of looking at 
 things,') — to record which, however, required only, that those 
 who received the revelations, and represented them to their 
 o\vn spirits, could tell the impressions which the spiritual 
 manifestations produced on their inner life." Further on 
 he says, p. 165, " But their special relation to us and their 
 prime importance is the immediateness of that revelation 
 (Dr. Dods calls it ' revelation at first hand ') in their inner 
 life, and in the times in which they lived. To them in 
 varying measure was given to see and handle the Word of 
 life, and from their position and the reflection they were 
 enabled to give of the manifestation of the Divine, arises 
 their supreme excellence." There is here not a word about 
 Divine infallible guidance, to enable the spiritual man 
 accurately to perceive and record his spiritual experiences. 
 Left thus to himself, he may fail to convey a correct 
 impression of the revelation made to him, — even though it 
 may have come from the Spirit of God. Indeed, 
 infallible guidance is, by Mr. Home, expressly denied 
 to the sacred writers. "If," he says, p. 165, "we 
 ascribe what we call absolute infallibility to these reflectors 
 of the Divine revelation in history, let us take heed lest we 
 attribute more to them than they themselves claim, or than 
 we from facts are warranted in doing." Further on, he 
 says in the same page, " We might infer from the various 
 writings of the authors in both Testaments, that they were 
 able to record the things made known to them, and the 
 thoughts arising out of the new life, as truly as others can 
 depict their experiences and thoughts on natural subjects. 
 And what else do we require ? Freedom from error 
 does not consist in such surveillance over all the 
 faculties of Biblical authors as would prevent memory from 
 stumbling ever so slightly (Dr. Dods says ' lapse of memory'), 
 or inadvertencies occurring, as in Matt. xiii. 35, or in Paul's 
 historical reference in i Cor. x. 8, or a wrong translation of 
 Psalm Ixviii. 18 by him in his letter to the Ephesians 
 
 chap. iv. 8 Even in matters apparently 
 
 more significant, I cannot see that the JSTew Testa- 
 ment writers were exempt from error, or that essential 
 correctness required this; e.^., I cannot see that they had 
 clear and definite rules of prophetical interpretation, or that 
 they were infallibly supplied with exegetical and critical 
 principles, which is so far from being the case, that these 
 principles, so important to us, never appear to occur to 
 . , them." 
 property'' ^'^''°"^ ^^^^^ definition of inspiration adopted by Dr. Dods 
 defined. from the volume of Home, I turn gladly to that given in 
 
*3 
 
 an earlier volume on "Reason and Revelation," by an 
 author whose opinions will always carry much weight 
 in the theological world, I mean the late Principal Candlish. 
 Inspiration he defines ^"'as an infallible Divine guidance 
 exercised over those who are commissioned to declare the 
 mind of God, so as to secure that in declaring it they do not 
 err. What they say or write under this guidance, is as truly 
 said and written by God, through them, as if their instru- 
 mentality were not used at all. God is in the fullest sense 
 responsible for every word of it."* So essential to inspiration 
 did Principal Candlish regard this " infallible Divine 
 guidance," that he says, "As to inspiration, I care for no 
 admission or acknowledgment of it which does not imply 
 infallibility. I intend, indeed, rather to avoid the use of 
 this word inspiration ; not because I consider it unsuitable 
 — it is the right word — but because it has been, I fear I 
 must say disingenuously, perverted from its recognized 
 meaning, as expressive of that Divine superintendence of 
 the process of revelation which secures infallibly the truth 
 and accuracy of what is revealed, and made to signify the 
 mere elevation, more or less, of human, and therefore fallible 
 capacity or faculty, "t 
 
 Now, any one who reads the Sermon of Dr. Dods must Definition 
 see that he uses inspiration in the perverted sense here of mspira- 
 indicated by Principal Candlish, as signifying "the i^ere j|)°" ^^^ '' 
 elevation, more or less, of human, and therefore fallible 
 capacity or faculty." The men inspired were, according to 
 him, not only liable to err, but did actually err. The Books 
 written by them under the inspiring Spirit contain "errors 
 and imperfections"! "inaccuracies such as occur in ordinary 
 writings through imperfect information or lapse of memory."§ 
 The " erroneous impressions " of its writers " regarding 
 ordinary matters," were not corrected. || The " popular Errors 
 fallacies which existed in the minds of those who con- with which 
 tributed to the Scriptures" were not corrected. Inspiration ^^ consists. 
 did " not prevent them from speaking in that whole region 
 of thought in which their contemporaries moved. "H " I 
 will not deny, that he {i.e., Paul) was occasionally wrong in a 
 date." ... "I will not deny that his style is often awkward, 
 nor that his ideas and modes of argument are sometimes 
 strangely out of harmony with our modes of thought." ** 
 Dr. Dods speaks of the errors referred to in his Sermon as 
 "trifling," and as of "no real importance;" and with the 
 view evidently of minimising their importance, his supporters 
 discard the use of the word "error" altogether, except as 
 referring to "grammar, numbers, and dates," while they 
 constantly substitute for it such expressions as " apparent 
 anomalies," "apparent inaccuracies," "imperfections." Now, 
 no one who carefully reads the extracts I have just given 
 
 Reason and Revelation, p. 23. t Reason and Revelation, p. 54. 
 Sermon, p. 17. § Sermon, Preface, p. 9. || Preface, p. 18, 
 IT Sermon, p. 18. ** Sermon^ p. 24. 
 
24 
 
 can admit their right to do so. Here we have not only 
 " errors in dates," " inaccuracies," — not apparent but real 
 inaccuracies, — and " imperfections ; " but also " erroneous 
 impressions," "popular fallacies," "the region of thought in 
 which their contemporaries moved," " ideas and modes of 
 argument strangely out of harmony with our modes of 
 thought." Who can tell how much error may be covered 
 by such a variety of expressions ? First, We have a general 
 description of these errors, viz., " such as occur in ordinary 
 writings " — thus bringing the Bible, in this respect, practically 
 to a level with other books. Second, We have the various 
 kinds, errors of dates, numbers, facts, ideas. Third, We 
 have the sources from which they come, (i.) "Imperfect 
 information," — how much will that cover? (2.) " Lapse of 
 memory," — what a fruitful source of error? (3.) "Erroneous 
 impressions," truly a wide door ! (4. ) " Popular fallacies," — is 
 that not sufficient to cover all the errors of the age in which 
 they wrote ? (5.) " Region of thought, in which their con- 
 temporaries moved," — how many errors may be derived 
 from such a source ? (6.) " JNIodes of argument," — may 
 not that vitiate the whole doctrinal system of Scripture? 
 Such statements as these make it plain either that Dr. Dods 
 does not admit inspiration at all in the orthodox sense, 
 or, at all events, that he, limits its application to certain parts 
 of Scripture. 
 _ Nor am I moved from this position by anything con- 
 
 Drrbods tained in the written communication from Dr. Dods which 
 to Con-^ was laid before the Committee, and which is paraded in 
 the Report as settling the question of " his orthodoxy in 
 this respect, which is the fundamental matter here involved." 
 The leading questions put to Dr. Dods by the Convener, — 
 and they were put solely on his own responsibility, and 
 without any consultation with the Committee, — are so 
 Its am- ambiguous, that affirmative replies to them by Dr. Dods 
 l)iguity. are utterly valueless in this connection. In reply to the first 
 question of the Convener, Dr. Dods says, " You are right 
 in believing that I hold, and do not mean by anything in 
 my Sermon to call in question, the Divine supernatural 
 inspiration of the Scriptures." Here everything depends 
 upon what Dr. Dods means by " the Divine supernatural 
 inspiration of the Scriptures." Does he mean inspiration, 
 in the sense so fully elaborated in the Sermon and Preface, 
 as implying simply a higher degree of enlightening and 
 sanctifying grace, with " knowledge of facts at firsthand;" 
 or inspiration in the orthodox sense, as implying infallible 
 Divine guidance? Of inspiration in both of these senses, 
 you may say that it is both "Divine" and "supernatural." 
 It is " Divine," inasmuch as it is produced by the Spirit of 
 God; and it is "supernatural," inasmuch as it is beyond the 
 mere working of nature. I obtain no light, therefore, as to 
 the real views of Dr. Dods, from his thus answering a question, 
 couched in such ambiguous language. We all know that 
 
 Letter of 
 
 vener of 
 Committee 
 
error is often veiled under orthodox language, for, as Mr. 
 Home says truthfully, p. 157, "Inquirers in England even 
 more than in Germany, although the complaint conies from 
 Germany, have to lament that they often find, even among 
 liberal thinkers on this subject, a certain playing with the 
 views of older times ; ' they make use of the Church expres- 
 sions, but unite with them an altogether different meaning.' " 
 Will Dr. Dods accept of me as his questioner in the place of 
 Dr. Adam, and let me ask whether he believes in the " Divine 
 supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures in the orthodox 
 sense as implying infallible Divine guidance?" But why 
 should I ask him to give an answer to that question, seeing 
 that in his Preface he has already done so? Referring to the 
 charge of evacuating " the term ' inspiration,' at least as 
 regards the historical books, of the meaning which is 
 commonly supposed to attach to it," he goes on to say, 
 "I have no wish to shelter myself and hide what I believe 
 to be the truth under an ambiguous term. Therefore, I 
 say plainly that if I supposed the Confession to mean what 
 Dr. Hodge says it means, I could not accept it. Dr. 
 Hodge, on page 55 of his Commentary on the Confession, 
 and speaking of Inspiration, says : 'The nature of this 
 Divine influence we, of course, can no more understand 
 than we can in the case of any other miracle. But the 
 effects are plain and certain, viz., that all ^\^:itten under it is 
 the very Word of God, of infallible truth, and of Divine 
 authority; and this infallibility and authority attach as well 
 to the verbal expression in which the revelation is conveyed 
 as to the matter of the revelation itself.' This I dis- 
 tinctly deny." * Observe what he denies. He denies, if his He denies 
 language has any meaning, the fourfold averment he the four- 
 quotes from Dr. Hodge. He denies, ist, that all written ["gJ^j^Q^' 
 under inspiration is " the very Word of God." He denies, Dr.Hodge. 
 2nd, that all written under inspiration is "of infallible 
 truth." He denies, 3rd, that all written under inspiration 
 is "of Divine authority." He denies, 4th, that the 
 " infallibility and authority attach as well to the verbal 
 expression in which the revelation is conveyed as to the 
 matter of the revelation itself" If^ I have not misunder- 
 stood his meaning, and if he still adheres to this fourfold 
 denial, I do not see how it can be admitted that he holds 
 " Divine supernatural inspiration," in the orthodox sense, 
 for plainly he does not. 
 
 But perhaps it may be supposed that his reference in his 
 letter to the expression, " inspiration does not impart any 
 superhuman power of knowledge " and his virtual withdrawal The ex- 
 thereof, as being " much too broad and sweeping," are pression 
 evidence that his view of inspiration does not after all, fall withdrawn 
 so very far short of the orthodox one. Such a conclusion ^^^ broad 
 is not for a moment to be thought of. Either the Sermon and sweep- 
 * Preface, pp. 8, 9. i"g'" 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 is very illogical, or the words in question are the natural 
 outcome of the preceding statements and reasonings. 
 These words are not an isolated statement which can 
 be wrenched from the context. They rather form the 
 flower and fruit of the general doctrine of the Sermon 
 on the subject of inspiration. They only express a little 
 more clearly and distinctly what is plainly implied in 
 many other statements of the Sermon, and carry them to 
 their logical consequences. It is to no purpose then, that 
 Dr. Dods tells us that the expression is " much too broad 
 and sweeping," (and that is all he says,) when the premises 
 and reasonings from which it springs, lie embedded 
 throughout the whole Sermon and Preface. Surely it would 
 have been well if Dr. Dods had used these words as a 
 mirror, in which to discover the true character and 
 tendencies of the theory of inspiration laid down in the 
 Sermon. 
 His answer That Dr. Dods limits the range of inspiration and con- 
 to the Con- sequent infallibility, is further evident from the answer 
 Second ^e gives to the second question of Dr. Adam. " I hold," 
 Question, he says, " that the inaccuracies alluded to in my Sermon in 
 no way affect the authority and sufficiency of the Scrip- 
 tures as an infallible revealed rule of faith and life." This 
 also has been paraded as an important admission by Dr. 
 Dods, evidencing the harmony of his views on this point, 
 both with the doctrine and the Standards of our Church. I 
 wonder whether our friends who talk in this fashion are aware 
 that Bishop Colenso, and men of that stamp, have used 
 language which goes quite as far in the way of admitting 
 "the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures, as an 
 infallible revealed rule of faith and life." After affirming 
 that "the Pentateuch, as a whole, was not written by Moses, 
 and that, with respect to some, at least, of the chief portions 
 of the story, it cannot be regarded as historically true ; " 
 even Colenso goes on to say — " But the Bible does not, 
 therefore, cease to ' contain the true Word of God,' 
 to enjoin ' things necessary for salvation,' to be ' profitable 
 for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteous- 
 ness.' It still remains for us that Book, which, whatever 
 intermixture it may show of human elements, — of error, 
 infirmity, passion, and ignorance — has yet, through God's 
 Providence, and the special working of His Spirit on the 
 minds of its writers, been the means of revealing to us His 
 True Name, the Name of the only Living and True God, and 
 has all along been, and, as far as we know, will never cease 
 to be, the mightiest instrument in the hand of the Divine 
 Teacher, for awakening in our minds just conceptions of 
 His Character, and of His gracious and merciful dealings 
 with the children of men." * Such an extract shows to what 
 extent the Bible may be practically set aside as erroneous, 
 
 * Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch, y, 28. 
 
27 
 
 while it is yet spoken of as the authoritative, sufficient, and 
 infalUble rule of faith and life. 
 
 Instead of telling us that the inaccuracies referred to in his On the 
 Sermon in no way affect "the authority and sufficiency of the theory of 
 Scriptures as an infallible revealed rule of faith and life," it ^^' ^°'^^' 
 would have been more to the point if Dr. Dods had tried Blblebeau 
 to show how the Bible can be such a rule and yet contain infallible 
 such " inaccuracies," "errors," "imperfections," "erroneous revealed 
 impressions on ordinary matters," " popular fallacies," "ideas ruleoffaith 
 and modes of argument," as are spoken of in the Sermon and 
 Preface. I, at any rate, cannot see how it can. If the 
 sacred Avriters erred on other matters, what guarantee have I 
 that they did not also err in respect to doctrine and duty ? 
 Nor is my way made more clear when I am assured by Dr. 
 Dods, that the errors to which he refers are of " no real 
 importance." The fact that they are real errors does, in my 
 judgment, give them " real importance," and affects very 
 much my reception of the Book in which they are found. 
 They make me feel that I am no longer in the hands of 
 men who enjoyed infallible Divine guidance in all they ^vrote; 
 and that, if they erred in lesser matters they may also have 
 erred in greater. As respects their alleged errors, it is with 
 me a question not of quality or of quantity, but of existence. 
 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 proof have I that 
 they were infallibly guided in any? On what principle 
 can you afhrm that their infallibility extends to doctrine and 
 duty, if it does not also extend to other things ? To use the 
 language of Dr. Adam when referring to this part of the sub- 
 ject, — " How, when you open the door for the entrance of 
 small defects, can you sliut it against those which bring in 
 all sorts of errors?" If you admit Avhat you call "trifling" 
 errors, how can you object to the criticism of Row, when, in ,, ,, 
 his Bampton Lectures, he treats as non-trustworthy the Bibli- ^\^^^,^ 
 cal account of the creation, the antiquity of man, and the 
 deluge? I refer thus specially to him, because he holds 
 the same views as Dr. Dods on this question, and was cited, 
 with approbation, by those on the other side of the bar.* 
 
 * It was only after a very keen and protracted debate, that those who 
 dissented from the Report succeeded in excluding from it the follow- 
 ing sentences, which formed part of the original draft : — "Now, while 
 the Committee express no acquiescence in the views thus stated," (viz., 
 that inspiration ' ' consists with the existence of certain inaccuracies or 
 errors in Sacred Scripture"), " they are unable to see that there is any- 
 thing so unsound or dangerous about them, that liberty to hold them 
 should be denied ; that there is aught in the Standards to call for 
 ecclesiastical action in such a case as the present, so far as the aspect 
 of it now under consideration is concerned. To bind up the infalli- 
 bility of Scripture with a theory the opposite of this, to make it stand 
 or fall with the contention that there is, and can be no minute inaccur- 
 acies on any .'-ubject referred to, however incidentally, in the Bible, is 
 to play into the hands of ihe enemies of the faith, and to endanger 
 
28 
 
 The length to which the principle is carried by Mr. 
 Row shows that, when it is once admitted, every man will, 
 according to his own theological stand-point., draw for him- 
 self 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 also of such 
 doctrines and duties as do not commend themselves to his 
 acceptance. What light does this throw upon the statement 
 of Dr. Dods; in pp. 6, 7 of his Preface ? "I can only accept 
 in doctrine that which fits itself in with my previously received 
 ideas and my stage of mental growth. When the doctrine 
 of the Trinity is conveyed to me, I accept this because I find 
 in it the root which the facts of redemption require. But if 
 as yet I have not received the leading facts of redemption, I 
 shall be unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, on 
 whatsoever authority announced." Does it also supply 
 the key to the following statement : — "I do not believe 
 what Paul says, because I first believe him to be inspired ; 
 but I believe him to be inspired, because he brings light 
 to my spirit, which can only have proceeded from God " ? * 
 If Erskine of Linlathen supplies this idea of a spiritual 
 faculty of itself perceiving and receiving Divine truth, (and, 
 of that no one who only glances at Erskine's Spiritual 
 Order can have any doubt), is it not the criticism of the 
 Row School which casts down the Bible before it, and makes 
 it free to take or reject at its pleasure? 
 Thus no According to this principle there is no clear, fixed, definite, 
 
 objective authoritative, objective standard of doctrine and duty. For 
 that there, is substituted the Christian consciousness which, 
 according to its own caprice, extracts from the Bible 
 what it regards as an infallible rule of faith and life. The 
 divine communications are in that case 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 Jiow much of it I shall accept, and how much of it 
 I shall reject. In this way I may, on the very same principle 
 on which I reject part of the Bible as fallible, come ultimately 
 to reject the whole. As Heber well puts it in his Bampton 
 Lectures, " It is the misfortune of this Scythian mode of 
 warfare, that it is only suited to a territory which, like Scythia, 
 is litde 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 
 
 under the plea of vindicating the authority of the sacred vohnne. The 
 warnings uttered on this subject by the most eminent apologetic 
 writers of the present day — as, for example, by one so distinguished in 
 this department as Mr. Row, in his lately issued " Bampton Lectures" 
 — are not to be lightly regarded by men M'ho have any understanding 
 of the times " ! ! ! 
 * Sermon p. 24. 
 
 Standard, 
 
29 
 
 at length remain for those tenets themselves which we now 
 regard as of vital importance." 
 
 But that is not all. Even those matters in respect to 
 which Dr. Dcds contends that the sacred writers did fall 
 into error, without invalidating their authority in respect to 
 matters of doctrine and duty, are not as he represents, of 
 " no real importance." There are no such matters in the 
 Bible. We may be sure that every statement there is of 
 real importance. Even those parts of Scripture which may 
 seem to us comparatively unimportant, have uses that can 
 be readily discerned and appreciated. To quote the lan- 
 guage of Dr. Fairbairn, " They connect the writer witli 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 after^vards supplying data for the verifi- 
 cation of its contents. How much would the Bible have 
 wanted in 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 genuine- 
 ness and authenticity should have been lost, which, mainly in 
 connection ^^ith 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 Horcz Paul- 
 ince, Smith's Narrative of FauTs Shipwreck, 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 interesting 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." * 
 
 If his language has any meaning, the views which we Injurious 
 have seen to be so objectionable, are those promulgated effects of 
 by Dr. Dods in the Sermon and Preface. Considering ^'^.^l ^'" 
 his evangelical stand-point, his devotional spirit, and the acdon on 
 spiritual character of his writings, I have always clung to Dr. Dods. 
 the hope that he has not done justice to himself in that 
 Sermon, and that these are not the views to which he will, 
 after reflection, give a fixed adherence. I do so the rather 
 because the Sermon is, as the Report puts it, "fragmentary and 
 immature," and is evidently not the result of his own inde- 
 
 * Bible Dictionary, pp. 795, 796. 
 
3^ 
 
 pendent thinking. As any one who reads the volumes of 
 Erskine and Home will perceive, he has got into the current 
 of thought and speculation found there, and has allowed 
 himself to be borne along, without seeming to be fully aware 
 of all the dangerous consequences to which it leads. For 
 this reason I was anxious that there should be a formal 
 disapproval of his views by his Presbytery. I expected, 
 from the courteous attitude uniformly maintained by Dr. 
 Dods towards his brethren, that he would have paid due 
 deference to the clearly expressed judgment of his Presbytery. 
 I consider that the Presbytery has done a grievous wrong 
 to him, as well as to the cause of divine truth by the course 
 they have followed. Instead of passing a judgment that 
 might have been of use in leading our brother to reconsider 
 the views he has advocated in his Sermon and Preface, 
 they have, per saltiim, committed the whole Free Church, so 
 far as their act can do so, to these views, by giving them 
 official sanction. 
 This is Now, surely this is a new doctrinal position, so far as the 
 
 a new Free Church is concerned. These certainly are not the 
 doctrinal views that have been hitherto held in this Church, and pro- 
 position, niulgated from her pulpits and professorial chairs. That is 
 apparent, from the quotations I have already made from the 
 writings of such men, as Principal Candlish, Principal Fair- 
 bairn, and Dr. Islay Burns. I could easily multiply quotations 
 to the same effect, from such trusted theologians of our 
 Church, as Chalmers, Cunningham, and Bannerman; and, 
 indeed, from all who have written on the subject. But your 
 time does not permit, and such authorities are not needed, 
 inasmuch, as it will scarcely be disputed, that this is the first 
 time that such views as those in the Sermon and Preface of 
 Dr. Dods have been published in our Church. The 
 attempt made by Dr. Dods, in his letter to the Daily 
 Review, to find support for his views, in the volume of the 
 late Principal CandUsh on " Reason and Revelation," was 
 so unsuccessful, that I scarcely expect it to be repeated. 
 Nor need I dwell on the futile attempts made in the Report, 
 and in the Court below, to prove that the views of Dr. 
 Dods have been held and advocated by such theologians 
 as Dr. C. Hodge, Scott, Henry, Baxter, and Howe. 
 Not held Fortunately, the veteran theologian of America is still 
 by authors alive, and, as appears from a letter sent by him to my friend 
 cited in its Mr. Bremner, able to make it abundantly evident — although 
 support. |-,jg published writings had made any testimony of that kind 
 superfluous — that he holds views on the subject of inspiration 
 directly the reverse of those advocated in the Sermon and 
 Preface. Had the passage from Scott been fully quoted, it 
 would have been equally clear that his views also are in 
 direct antagonism to those of Dr. Dods. The views of 
 Henry on inspiration are also the very reverse of those 
 advanced in the Sermon and Preface. Tlie quotations 
 from the published writings of Baxter and Howe, of which so 
 
much was made by Dr. Adam, referring as they do, not to 
 the facts or truths of Scripture, but simply to the style or 
 language in which these have been recorded by the several 
 writers, are totally irrelevant. Here is, for instance, what 
 Baxter says — I cite him because he was quoted both by Dr. 
 Adam and Dr. Bruce, — " If Scripture be so certamly true, 
 then those passages in it that seem to men contradictory, 
 must needs be true ; for they do but seem so, and are not 
 so indeed. Ignorance makes men think all dark and self- 
 contradicting which they read. It would make one pity 
 some wretched souls, to hear how confidently they will 
 charge some texts with contradictions, through their mere 
 ignorance of the plain sense, which when knowing men 
 have manifested to them, they are ashamed of their rash- 
 ness." * I hope the supporters of Dr. Dods, who have 
 cited such authors as countenancing his views, are now 
 ashamed of their "rashness," and that, henceforth, they will 
 cease to quote theologians " of world-wide reputation for 
 orthodoxy," and fall back upon those of the School of 
 Ewald, Schleiermacher, Row, Morell, Erskine of Linlathen, 
 and Home of St. Andrews. 
 
 But, after all, this is not to a question to be determined by inconsist- 
 the number or weight of the authorities on either side, ent with 
 It is one that must be decided by the Standards of the ^^^ p°^- 
 Church. Now, the complainants hold that the teaching of pJth" 
 the Sermon and Preface is inconsistent with the Confession of 
 Faith. In maintaining that it is so, it is not needful for us 
 to hold that the theory on the subject of inspiration, broached 
 in this Sermon, was present to the minds of the authors of 
 the Confession, and intentionally excluded by them. They 
 lay down no theory of inspiration. The term inspiration is 
 introduced by them only as the connecting link between the 
 Divine and the human authorship of the Bible. According 
 to them, inspiration is, as Dr. Martin well puts it — " Just that 
 action of the Divine will which brings the two authorships — 
 the Divine and the human — into concurrence, giving to 
 each its place, and doing injustice to neither. It was 
 needful, because what men were to write was to be the 
 Word of God ; because what God was to commit to writing 
 He was to commit to writing by the instrumentality not 
 merely of men, but of the authorship of men. T/iai t's 
 inspiratio7i, defined not as in itself, but by what rendered it 
 necessary, and by what it has accomplished. . . . Divine 
 authorship through the instrumentality of human authorship; 
 — that calls for inspiration; that is what inspiration effects. 
 And if a definition of inspiration is required, inspiration is 
 what effects that. More about inspiration, we do not and we 
 cannot know. More, our Confession does not profess 
 to teach or call us to believe or profess, scarcely even that, 
 except inferentially. Without any exposition, it simply quotes 
 (in a connexion, however, that fairly implies that), concerning 
 * Baxter's Works, Vol. II., p. 257. 
 
32 
 
 the Old and New Testaments, the scriptural assertion that 
 they are 'all given by inspiration of God,' 2 Tim. iii. 16."* 
 Its teach- jjm- while the Confession lays down no theory of inspira- 
 as^topro- ^^^^> ^^ ^^ clear and unmistakable in its teaching as to 
 duct of \he product of inspiration. It explicitly asserts, and that in 
 Inspiration different forms of expression, the divine authorship of the 
 viz.,Divine BJbig jn all its parts. And this divine authorship is 
 101 s lip ^^^ asserted in any loose or general sense. It rests on the fact 
 " that it pleased the Lord " " to commit" "wholly unto writ- 
 ing," "that knowledge of" Himself and "of His will which is 
 necessary unto salvation." f These it was the object of this 
 Divine action to convey, and these things accordingly the 
 Scriptures principally teach. But the Divine authorship, 
 according to the teaching of the Confession, is not confined 
 to these; it extends to the whole contents of Holy Scripture. 
 Hence it is said (Conf. I. 2.) that, "Under the name of Holy 
 Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained 
 all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, which are 
 these : — (and then follows a detailed list of the Books). All 
 which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith 
 and life." " All which," /. e., not merely some books, or 
 some parts of books, but all the books just enumerated and 
 in all their parts, " are given by inspiration of God, io be " — 
 not to contain but " fo be the rule of faith and life." The 
 authors of the Confession declare that the design of Holy 
 Scripture is "to be the rule of faith and life;" but they give 
 no shadow of a foundation for the inference which has been 
 drawn from their words, that there are some parts of the 
 books which are, and others which are not "the rule of 
 faith and life." On the contrary, they assert of all the books 
 equally, and of all the parts thereof, without distinction or ex- 
 ception, that they are " the word of God written," and that 
 they " are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith 
 and life." To the same effect they say, in Section 4th of 
 the same chapter, " 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." There can be 
 no mistake as to the meaning of these words. Whatever 
 human authorship belongs to the Bible, God is also, according 
 to this statement, "the author thereof" — the author, that is, 
 of Holy Scripture — of the whole Book, and of every part of 
 it, for there is no limitation of the divine authorship merely to 
 these parts, which, on the face of them, refer to " doctrine 
 or duty." He is the author "thereof" — of the whole Book 
 equally and without distinction of parts. God is thus 
 represented by the Confession as responsible equally for 
 everything which Holy Scripture contains ; for its statements 
 of fact, as well as for its statements of doctrine and duty. 
 If the affirmations of the Confession about divine authorship 
 do not apply to all the parts of the Book, it cannot be shewn 
 * The Westminster Doctrine of the Confession,pp.i i, 12. + Confession 1. 1. 
 
33 
 
 that they apply to any part, not even to those affecting 
 ''doctrine or duty;" for they are made about the whole 
 Book without limitation or distinction. And what, accord- 
 ing to the Confession, does this divine authorship involve ? 
 That is plain from the parenthetical words, " who is truth Implying 
 itself," introduced in this connection, — " God, (who is truth infallibility 
 itself,) the author thereof." Manifestly, these words are'"^^^^'^ 
 introduced by the authors of the Confession for the very ^^^ ^' 
 purpose of excluding " error " from Holy Scripture as 
 originally given by its Divine Author; for the very purpose 
 of emphasising the absolute truthfulness and infallibiUty of 
 the whole Bible in all its parts. Plainly, they would have 
 regarded it as akin to blasphemy to affirm that the God 
 of truth, the God " who is truth itself," has been or can be 
 the author of " error." By calling its author " truth itself," 
 the Confession stamps, with the seal of infallibility, whatever 
 the Bible originally contained. If we impugn, as has been 
 done by Dr. Dods, the truthfuLiess of any of its statements, 
 we make an affirmation inconsistent with the teaching of the 
 Confession that " the author thereof" is " truth itself" 
 
 But that is not all. The result of this Divine authorship, 
 of Holy Scripture in all its parts, is indicated with equal 
 clearness by the assertion of the "infallible truth, and Divine 
 authority thereof," contained in the fifth section of the same 
 chapter. You will be told, no doubt, as we were told in the 
 Court below, that " the infallible truth, and Divine authority," 
 which are there asserted, are based on ' the witness of the Evidenced 
 Spirit ; ' and that, therefore, the assertion can be fairly held by the wit- 
 to apply only to those parts which treat of matters affecting "^^.^.°^ ^^^ 
 doctrine and duty, inasmuch as to these alone, the witness ^ ^ 
 of the Spirit is directly applicable. But is this the light in 
 which the matter is regarded by the authors of the Con- 
 fession ? Is it not rather that the witness of the Spirit 
 to the infallible truth, and Divine authority of those parts 
 to which alone it is directly applicable, is to be regarded as 
 evidence of the Divine authorship, and consequently, of 
 "the infallible truth, and Divine authority" of the w/iole 
 Book to which they belong, — a Book so unique and marked 
 by such clear and well defined characteristics as one 
 homogeneous whole ? I should like to hear some of our 
 friends on the other side attempt to construe the language 
 of the fifth section on any other supposition. Nothing 
 could be plainer, both from the scope of the passage 
 and the words employed, than this, that the witness of 
 the Spirit is adduced as the ultimate ground on which we 
 are to rest for "our full persuasion and assurance of the 
 infallible truth, and Divine authority" of all Scripture. 
 What other meaning can you assign to the words — " Our 
 full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and 
 Divine authority thereof — that is of Holy Scripture /« all 
 its parts "i And that this is the sense, becomes all the 
 
34 
 
 clearer,"when we put alongside of it the language employed 
 
 in the parallel passage of the Larger Catechism. In the 
 
 answer to the fourth question we read : — " But the Spirit of 
 
 God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart 
 
 of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the 
 
 very Word of God." By the witness of the Holy Spirit, say 
 
 the authors of our Confession, in the Larger Catechism, men 
 
 are fully persuaded that '■'■they are {i.e., the several writings 
 
 of which Holy Scripture is made up), the very Word of^ God." 
 
 And by the same witness comes, as it is put in the 
 
 Confession itself, "our full persausion and assurance of 
 
 the infallible truth, and Divine authority thereof," i.e., of 
 
 Holy Scripture in all its parts. Need I say, that all this 
 
 is utterly inconsistent with the distinct denial by Dr. Dods, 
 
 in pp. 8, 9, of his Preface, of the fourfold averment of Dr. 
 
 Hodge, to which I have already referred (see page 25.) 
 
 There, as I have already shown. Dr. Dods, if his language 
 
 Dv. Dods bas any meaning, denies (ist.) that all written under inspira- 
 
 clistinctly tion is the "very Word of God." He denies (2nd.) that all 
 
 denies con- written under inspiration is " of infallible truth." He denies 
 
 !isse°dous (3^^') ^^^^ ^^ written under inspiration is "of Divine author- 
 
 assei ions. .^^„ ^^ denies (4th.) that "this infallibility and authority 
 
 attach as well to the verbal expression, in which the revelation 
 
 is conveyed as to the matter of revelation itself." 
 
 But the supporters of Dr. Dods endeavour to neutralize 
 the force of these statements of the Confession, about the 
 Divine authorship, the infallible truth, and the Divine 
 authority of the Scriptures as originally given, by referring 
 Objection to the passage of the Con. I. 8,: — "The Old Testament, 
 from Con. j,^ Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people 
 ^' ^' of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which 
 
 at the time of the writing of it was generally known to 
 the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by 
 His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are 
 therefore authentical ; so as in all controversies of religion, 
 the Church is finally to appeal unto them." Our friends try 
 to make out, that whatever is affirmed in the Confession 
 regarding the Scriptures as originally given, must according 
 to the authors of the Confession, hold good of our present 
 Scriptures, seeing that Holy Scripture is said not only to be 
 of infallible truth and Divine authority as originally given, 
 but also to have been " kept pure in all ages ; " and, that, if 
 we admit any impurity in the text, even the most trivial, as 
 introduced through transcription, then our argument from 
 the Confession is vitiated. To this I reply : (i.) That it is 
 matter of history that the authors of the Confession had be- 
 fore them various readings along with the printed text, and 
 so they could not have used the word "pure" as implying 
 that copyists were miraculously preserved from every inaccur- 
 acy however slight, in the course of transcription. (2.) They 
 limit the purity, here predicated of our existing Scriptures, 
 by the assertion that follows: — "Are therefore authentical; 
 
3i 
 
 so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally 
 to appeal unto them ; " and, as I have already shown, in 
 page 13, our present Scriptures are, nothwithstanding of the 
 various readings of MSS., "pure" in that sense. (3.) The 
 authors of the Confession make perfectly clear in another of 
 their documents, what they mean by the word " pure " in this 
 connection. In The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, 
 under the heading "The evidences of faith," they assert, section 
 7, "That as God hath had a care of the Scriptures from the 
 beginning,so shall He have a care of them still to the world's 
 end, that there shall not one jot or one tittle of i/ie substance 
 thereof be taken away; so saith the text, Matthew v. 18." 
 
 I hold the views of Dr. Dods, therefore, to be inconsistent Inconsist- 
 with the Confession of Faith. But even although it had been ent with 
 otherwise, although the doctrine of the Sermon and Preface p^^j^g ' 
 had not been explicitly condemned by our subordinate standard. 
 Standard, I hold that the Church as "the Pillar and Ground 
 of the Truth," would still be bound to look at their bearing 
 upon her Supreme Standard. I can conceive of a case in 
 which the Confession of a Church might have taken no cog- 
 nizance of a particular heresy, because it had not been 
 propagated at the time the creed was framed, and yet that 
 the heresy in question might be so directly opposed to the 
 Word of God, and of such a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency, that the Church might be called upon to add some 
 article to her creed bearing on the subject thus raised for 
 the first time. In point of fact, the Confessions of Faith of 
 the Reformed Churches have reached their present dimen- 
 sions by meeting new heresies as they arose. Now, as 
 already stated, I do not for a moment admit that this case 
 is not fully met by our Confession of Faith. But even 
 if it had not been so met, if ever there was a case in which, 
 on Scriptural as well as on Confessional grounds, the 
 Church was called upon to give forth no uncertain sound, 
 the present is that case. It touches the very foundation 
 of the Church's existence, and life, and faith, and hope. 
 The views propounded in the Sermon and Preface directly 
 contradict the testimony of Scripture regarding itself. 
 When we make our appeal to the Bible, we find that its 
 writers claim to be the organs of God divinely inspired and 
 infallibly guided in their official work, and assert that in con- 
 sequence all these writings are in all their parts of infallible 
 truth and divine authority. Old Testament writers in num- 
 berless passages assert such a claim for themselves. The 
 claim which these writers make is endorsed by New Testa- 
 ment writers, and by our Lord and His apostles. The mis- With the 
 cellaneous writings of the Old Testament existed in our testimony 
 Lord's day in one volume of which throughout God was °„°t"His° 
 held to be the Author, and whenever Christ or His apostles Apostles, 
 alluded to that Book or to any part of it, it is always in lan- 
 guage implying in the strongest terms its inspiration, infallible 
 truth, and divine authority. The New Testament writers claim 
 
36 
 
 for their writings' the same inspiration, and the same infalli- 
 bility as had been assigned by our Lord and His apostles to 
 the Old Testament writings. We can thus apply, both to the 
 Old and the New Testament, the well known words of Paul, 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Nor is that all. 
 The manner in which our Lord and His apostles constantly 
 refer to Holy Scripture shows plainly that they ascribed 
 inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority equally 
 to all the parts of the sacred volume, and to the very words. 
 As Dr. C. Hodge puts it : '• Christ and His apostles refer to 
 all parts of the Scriptures, or to the whole Volume, as the 
 Word of God. They make no destinction as to the 
 authority of the Law, the Prophets, or the Hagiographa, . . . 
 Christ and the writers of the New Testament refer to 
 all classes of facts recorded in the Old Testament as in- 
 fallibly true. Not only doctrinal facts, such as those of the 
 creation and probation of man; his apostasy; the covenant 
 with Abraham; the giving the law upon INIount Sinai; not 
 only great historical facts, as the deluge, the deliverance of the 
 people out of Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, and the 
 like; but incidental circumstances, or facts of apparently 
 minor importance, as, e.g. that Satan tempted our first 
 parents in the form of a serpent; that Moses lifted up a ser- 
 pent in the wilderness; that Elijah healed Naaman,the Syrian, 
 and was sent to the widow in Sarepta, that David ate the 
 shew-bread in the temple, and even that great stumbling- 
 block, that Jonah was three days in the whale's belly, are 
 all referred to by our Lord and His Apostles with the sub- 
 lime simplicity and confidence with which they are received 
 
 by little children Christ and His Apostles 
 
 argue from the very words of Scripture. Our Lord says 
 that David by the Spirit called the Messiah Lord, i.e., 
 David used the word. It was in the use of a j)articular 
 word, that Christ said (John x. 35), that the Scripture 
 cannot be broken, ' If he call them gods unto whom the 
 word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,' 
 etc. The use of that word, therefore, according to Christ's 
 view of the Scripture, Avas determined by the Spirit of 
 God." * 
 This is ad- So self-evident, indeed is all this, that even Mr. Home is 
 mittedeven constrained to admit that what Dr. Hodge affirms is true, at 
 ^j^ ^^^' least, as regards the Apostles. Here is what he says at p. 
 145: — "The apostles constantly use the common phrases 
 when quoting the Old Testament. It is to them, as to 
 other Jews peculiarly // ycacpi), or o( ypacpal; or ayiai ypatpa), 
 an expression which we shall have occasion to notice below. 
 We cannot see that they distinguish one part of these writings, 
 as differing in authority or otherwise, from another part. 
 For anything we can gatlier from their phraseology they 
 regarded tlieir sacred writings as wholly the direct Word of 
 God." Further on, he says, p. 146, " The arguments of Paul 
 * Systematic Theology, pp. 163, 164. 
 
37 
 
 are sometimes based on an extreme Jewish theory of literal 
 infallibility; e.g., Gal. iii. 15, 16, he reasons as if the very 
 letters were divinely inspired, and superhumanly preserved : 
 ' Not to seed . . . but ... to thy seed,' etc." 
 
 How then, does Mr. Home get over such clear testimony 
 of the Apostles ? Simply by affirming that they were un- 
 critical blunderers, who "held the doctrinal view of the Old 
 Testament writings current in their time, as they held 
 certain doctrinal views in philosophy. On none of these 
 points," he adds, " do I think we can say that they were men 
 'raised above their time,' nor does this appear to me a view of 
 New Testament authors in the least derogatory to them. A 
 Christian of the present day, who fully believes and feels 
 that he has the power of spiritual discernment promised him 
 by Christ, does not imagine that, on scientific ground, he has 
 an insight wholly unlike that of contemporaries who pretend 
 to no such enlightment." * Is this one of the so-called 
 "popular fallacies " referred to by Dr. Dods, as existing in the 
 minds of those who contributed to the Scriptures ? t Is it 
 an illustration of their " speaking in that whole region of 
 thought in which their contemporaries moved "? Farther on, 
 Mr. Home says, "These writers {i.e., those of the New gut he re- 
 Testament) accepted very much the popular theory of their jects the 
 time, modified as has been already stated. It is quite teaching of 
 evident, from our previous remarks, what their views in theApostles 
 general of the Old Testament Scriptures were ; but it is not -^"ct. 
 so evident that their views innst be ours. We know that in 
 every case it is simply bnpossible for their views and ours 
 to coincide." % Is it to this that Dr. Dods refers when he 
 says, '* I will not deny that his (Paul's) style is often 
 awkward, nor that his ideas and modes of argument are 
 strangely out of harmony with our modes of thought?"^ 
 If so, he afterwards expresses himself rather more cautiously 
 than Mr. Home. While Dr. Dods would " remember that it 
 is somewhat dangerous to differ from a man who could 
 see what Paul saw, who had one of the world's hugest 
 tasks to perform, and who performed it ; " Mr. Home goes 
 on to say, " We practically set aside their view of the Old 
 Testament when we institute historical inquiries in regard 
 to its origin, &c.; a fid in this way, the question of hozu far 
 the examples of the apostles, in their interpretation of the 
 Old Testament prophecies, for instance, and their manner 
 of dealing 7uith its narratives, is to be followed by us, remains 
 an open one." || 
 
 This is an intelligible method of getting rid of the 
 testimony of the Apostles as to the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. But I ask, Is it the method which this 
 Church is prepared to sanction? I press this question, 
 
 * Home's Reason and Revelation, pp. 144, 145. + Sermon, p. 18. 
 + Home's Reason and Revelation, p. 161, The italics are mine. 
 
 \ Sermon, p. 24. 
 il Home's Reason and Revelation, p. 161. The itahcs are mine. 
 
38 
 
 Which in- 
 volves the 
 rejection 
 also of 
 Christ's 
 teaching 
 and of 
 His in- 
 fallibility. 
 
 A broad or 
 a narrow 
 Church. 
 
 for it is one that effects not merely the trustworthiness 
 of the Apostles, but also of our blessed Lord Himself. If 
 the Apostles erred on this matter, so also did their Divine 
 Master. Whatever Mr. Home tries to prove to the con- 
 trary, it is plain, to any unbiassed reader of Scripture, that 
 He held the very same view of the inspiration and infallibility 
 of the Old Testament Scriptures, as did His inspired Apostles. 
 What they taught on this question, He also taught. If, 
 therefore, they erred, He erred. And if, on such a question 
 as this. He erred, how can He be trusted on any other ques- 
 tion? How can He be Divine and infallible? It almost 
 makes one's blood run cold to face this, as the logical outcome 
 of the views laid down in the Sermon and Preface, and I 
 know that, if Dr. Dods for a moment supposed that, by adopt- 
 ing these views, he was shut up to such a conclusion, he 
 would instantly renounce them as most dangerous. For my 
 part, however, I cannot see how, as the matter is put in our 
 present Scriptures, such a conclusion can be avoided. That, 
 I may say, is the main reason why I take so serious a view 
 of the nature, the issues, and the tendencies of the teaching 
 of the Sermon and Preface. We hear loud talk in certain 
 quarters against our so-called Bibliolatry, and we are told 
 that, as we Protestants have already got rid of an infallible 
 Pope, so the time has now come for us to get rid also of an 
 infallible Book. For myself, I cannot see how this can be 
 done, without our getting rid, at the same time, of an infallible 
 Christ ; to find that nothing infallible remains to us, unless 
 perhaps it be an infallible self. 
 
 We have been accused of seeking to narrow this Free 
 Church of ours, and have been represented as wishing to ex- 
 clude from it men of the type of Dr. Dods. I repel, with 
 indignation, all such insinuations. Any reference to a judi- 
 cial process has, so far as I know, been made exclusively by 
 those at the other side of the bar, and has been used by 
 them, as an in terrorem argument to prevent the Church from 
 faithfully declaring her mind, in regard to the unscriptural and 
 dangerous character of the views promulgated by Dr. Dods 
 in his Sermon and Preface. I believe that the Church of 
 Christ ought to embrace within her pale men of all kinds 
 of gifts and graces, and fitted for all kinds of service. 
 But here the question is not about variety of gifts and 
 ministries, but about variety of doctrine on a question so 
 fundamental as that of the inspiration, infallible truth, and 
 divine authority of Holy Scripture. Is our Church prepared 
 for a breadth of that kind ? If so, then I am afraid she will 
 soon become narrow enough in other respects. The state 
 of things in Germany at the present day, — the practical 
 estrangement of the masses of the population from public 
 ordinances — not more than three per cent of the male popu- 
 lation being in connection with the Christian Church, — should 
 make any Church take warning as to what will be the inevi- 
 table result of loose views as to the inspiration, infallible 
 
39 
 
 truth, and divine authority of Holy Scripture. It has 
 hitherto been the glory of our Free Church that she has 
 been loyal to the Bible in all its parts, as the unerring 
 record of the will of her Great King and Head. If hence- 
 forth she is to occupy a different relation to the Scriptures, 
 we may well exclaim, " I-chabod, I-chabod ; " for the glory 
 will have departed. I leave our case in the hands of the 
 Synod, in the confident persuasion that among its members, 
 there is such regard for the authority of the Word of God, 
 and of the God of the Word, that our complaint will be sus- 
 tained ; the judgment of the Presbytery reversed; ihe views 
 of the Sermon and Preface condemned as contrary to the 
 Standards; and the case otherwise disposed of according to 
 the laws of the Church. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The three Motions, submitted to the Synod, and voted on, were 
 the following: — 
 
 1st, Mr, Laughton's, in these terms — 
 
 "The Synod sustain tlie Complaint in so far as the deliverance of ur. Laugh- 
 the Presbytery commits all who concm- in it to the approval of the to"'s"ioUou 
 Oommitte's Report ; but, at the same time, they find it unnecessary to 
 give any judgment on the Report itself or on anything contained in it. 
 Tlie Synod disapprove of the Sermon and Preface in question as open to 
 grave objection in respect of statements and reasonings which seem to 
 limit the sphere and lower the idea of inspiration, and as giving rise to 
 serious misapprehension as to the author's real meaning ; but consider- 
 ing the explanations he has given, and, further, that he has agreed not 
 to continue the publication of the Sermon and Preface, find that there 
 is no reason for taking further steps in the matter. But in giving 
 this deliverance, the Synod do not admit any understanding that the 
 views objected to in this publication are to be tolerated in future," 
 
 2nd, Mr. M'Crie's, in these terms — 
 
 " The Synod dismiss the Complaint and sustain the judgment of ilr. M'Crie's 
 the Presbytery." »"°t'°"' 
 
 3rd, Mr. Sturrock's, in these terms— 
 
 " The Synod sustain the Complaint in so far as it takes exception ilr. Stur- 
 to the Report approved of by the Presbytery as not being a full tion', ^ '""" 
 
40 
 
 representation of the dangerous character of the views set forth in 
 the Sennou and Preface repoi-ted on, especially iu not with sufficient 
 emphasis condemning the view that there are en-ors in the Scriptures 
 as originally given ; and the Synod, moreover, take this opportunity of 
 affirming the doctrine which was endangered by said Sennon, and 
 which is contained in the Standards of the Church, namely, the 
 infallibility and divine authority of Holy Scripture; and further, 
 having learned from the bar, that the Sennon is now withdrawn, tho 
 Synod are of opinion that the case should here take end." 
 
 In the first division, 19 voted for Mr. M'Crie's motion, and 33 for 
 Mr. StuiTOck's; in the second division, 21 voted for Mr. Laughton's 
 motion, 31 for Mr. StmTOck's. Mr. Sturrook's motion was accord- 
 ingly declat'ed carried. 
 
 Against this judgment, certain members of Synod dissented and 
 complained. 
 
 The Commissioners of the Presbytery also protested and appealed ; 
 as did Mr. Evan Gordon in his own name, and in the name of those 
 who might adhere to him. Messrs. NicoU, M'Intosh, and Howie, 
 Intimated their acquiescence in the judgment. 
 
 At a Special Meeting of the Presbytery of Glasgow, held on 17 th 
 April, the following resolution was, on the motion of Dr. Adam, 
 adopted by tho majority, — (the minority not considering themselves 
 nt liberty to take part in the proceedings): — 
 
 "The Presbytery, while regarding the motion carried in the 
 Synod as unsatisfactory, both in its own nature, and in respect of 
 the cii'cumstances under which it was adopted, yet considering — fii-st, 
 that the only part of the Presbytery's decision affected by it is that 
 relating to the approval of the committee's report, and that as regards 
 it none of tho principles or conclusions which the report embodies is 
 called iu question, but only the fulness of its representation in one 
 direction, and the sufficiency of its emphasis in another : considering, 
 secondly, that the proposed issue in both findings is exactly the same, 
 viz., that no fui-ther action should be taken in the case, and that this 
 issue on the Synod's part is connected with the withdrawal of the 
 sermon (a step Avhich was recommended by the Presbytery, and brought 
 about by its decision) : and considering, finally, how desirable it is that 
 the approaching General Assembly should, if at aU possible, be relieved 
 of the necessity of dealing with the case — and seeking to contribute on 
 their part to the desirable result, the Presbytery find that they can 
 and should abstain from prosecuting an appeal to the Geuei'al Assembly, 
 and they hereby resolve accordingly." 
 
 On 20th April, the following statement appeared in the newspapers, 
 I>repared by those of the complainants against the judgment of the 
 Presbytery who now acquiesc in tho judgment of the Synod, and who 
 had an opportunity of consulting together; — 
 
41 
 
 "In consequence of the extraordiuaiy representation as to the 
 nature and eflPect of the decision of the Eree Synod of Glasgow 
 and Ayr in the case of Dr. Dods, given by the Glasgow Free 
 Presbytery in their reasons for not prosecuting the appeal taken by 
 their conunissioners against that decision, we, the undersigned, 
 deem it necessary to explain why we have acquiesced in the decision 
 of the Synod, while formerly we felt it to be our duty to dissent 
 from and complain against the decision of the Presbytery. We 
 are not insensible to the manifest defects, in minor details, of the 
 decision of the Synod. We reg-ard it, for instance, as defective 
 in that, although doubtless intended to have such an effect, and 
 substantially doing so, it does not formally reverse the judgment of 
 the Presbytery. We also regret that, in describing the relation of 
 the sermon and preface of Dr. Dods to the Standards, the vague word 
 ■* ' endangered " is used instead of some more definite expression. We 
 beHeve fui-ther that, before assuming that the sermon and preface are 
 now withdrawn, it was due to Dr. Dods that he should have had an 
 opportunity of stating whether — in view of the emphatic condemnation 
 by the Synod on the ground of the Standards of the views set forth in 
 his sermon and preface — he still adhered to the withdrawal, which, as 
 appears from his letter to the Presbytery, was made only ' ' in deference 
 to the Presbytery's opinion, that the publication of these views has 
 been ill-advised in form and time," and "on the distinct vmder- 
 standing" that these views are to be tolerated within the Church, and 
 are not condemned by the Confession." On these grounds, we trust 
 that if, by any party the judgment of the Synod is brought under the 
 review of the General Assembly these defects will be remedied, and 
 that the rather because of the misleading representation now given 
 by the Presbytery as to its true meaning and import. Had we 
 considered that i-epresentation to be just, we would certainly have 
 insisted upon a formal, as we have already got a substantial, reversal 
 of the whole decision. We have acquiesced, however, for the follow- 
 ing reasons : — 
 
 1st, Because the decision of the Synod " sustains the Complaint in so 
 far as it takes exception to the Report approved of by the Presbytery as 
 not being a full representation of the dangerous character of the views 
 set forth in the Sermon and Preface reported on, especially in not 
 with sufficient emphasis condemning the view that there are errors in 
 the Scriptm-es as originally given." 
 
 2nd, Because, instead of its being true, as asserted by the Presbytery, 
 "that the only part of the Presbytery's decision affected by it (the 
 Synod's decision) is that relating to the approval of the Committee's 
 Report," the whole of the Presbytery's decision is not only affected 
 but overturned, and especially its most essential part, which "finds 
 that the sermon of Dr. Dods is open to grave objection, in the respects 
 and on the grounds specified in the Report.' ' Even on the Presbytery' s 
 F 
 
42 
 
 admission that their approval of the Report is condemned, the whole 
 of their decision is necessarily condemned, inasmuch as it is explicitly 
 founded on, limited by, and largely expressed in, the language of the 
 Report, and declared to be " in accordance with the conclusions of it." 
 
 3rd, Because the decision of the Synod is plainly and unambigu- 
 ously a condemnation of the views of the Sermon and Preface, and in 
 that respect is unlike the decision of the Presbytery, which, as ex- 
 pounded by its leading supporters and understood by Dr. Dods, con- 
 demned not the views but simply the "manner " or "form" in which 
 these views are expressed. 
 
 4th, Because the decision of the Synod not only condemns, but con- 
 demns with emphasis, ' * the view that there are errors in the Scriptures 
 as originally given," thus presenting a striking contrast to the Report 
 approved of by the Presbytery, which not only apologizes for that 
 view, but vindicates Dr. Dods in holding and publishing it by declar- 
 ing that it is " one which has been held and advocated by theologians 
 of the highest authority, of world-wide reputation for orthodoxy, not 
 less than for ability and learning." 
 
 5th, Because the decision of the Synod, unlike that of the Presbytery, 
 is explicitly based upon the Standards of the Church, and is in that 
 respect all the more satisfactory, because the two other motions pro- 
 posed, but rejected, evaded any reference to the Standards. 
 
 6th, Because the doctrine of the infallibility and Divine authority 
 of Holy Scripture, in the sense in which it had been endangered by 
 the decision of the Presbytery, has been affirmed by that of the Synod, 
 and has been declared to be "contained in the Standards of the 
 Chiirch." 
 
 7th, Because the decision of the Synod, notwithstanding of its defects 
 in form, is plainly intended to prohibit not only Dr. Dods but every 
 Office-bearer of the Church from publisliing, preaching, or holding 
 such views as are promulgated in the Sermon and Preface ; whereas 
 the decision of the Presbytery, and the letter of Dr. Dods engi-ossed 
 ■without any disclaimer on the records of the Presbytery, imply that 
 any minister of the Church may, without challenge, not only hold, 
 but also preach and publish such views. 
 
 8th, Because while, as alleged by the Presbytery, "the proposed 
 issue in both findings is exactly the same — viz., that no further action 
 should be taken in the case " — the judgment of the Synod on that 
 point was declared after the views contained in the Sermon and Pre- 
 face had been explicitly condemned on the groimd of the Standards, 
 and after the Sermon and Preface had been, in point of fact, with- 
 drawn, and expressly on the groimd of said withdrawal ; while that 
 of the Presbytery was declared after the views were virtually 
 sanctioned, and when no assurance whatever was given that Dr. 
 Dods would concur with the Presbj'tery as to the "desirableness" 
 of withdrawing the Sermon and Preface. 
 
43 
 
 9th, Because, after the decision of the Synod, the continued with- 
 drawal of the Sermon and Preface by Dr. Dods can only be under- 
 stood as meaning that he now acquiesces in the condemnation thus 
 passed on his views as endangering the doctrine of the Standards. " 
 
 Robert Howie, James Nicoll, John RiddeU, R. M. Thornton, Hugh 
 M'Intosh, "William Scott, Ministers. 
 
 The following reasons of protest and appeal appeared in the News- 
 papers of April 23 : — 
 
 " We, the iindersigned, while acquiescing in the judgment of the 
 Synod, on the 10th inst., in the Rev. Dr. Dods' case, so far as it homo- 
 logates our reasons of dissent and complaint, nevertheless feel con- 
 strained to protest and appeal to the General Assembly against said 
 judgment, for following reasons and others to be pled at the bar of 
 the Assembly : — 
 
 1st, Because the Synod do not reverse the judgment of the Presby- 
 tery complained of, and so indirectly affirm that judgment in respect 
 of everything in it not actually specified in the Synod's judgment. 
 
 2nd, Because the Synod give no deliverance either upon our com- 
 plaint against the judgment of the Presbytery in reference to the 
 Sermon and Preface set forth in our second reason of dissent, or upon 
 our complaint against the way in which the Presbytery proposed 
 to deal with the author in regard to the withdi-awal of said Sermon 
 and Preface, as set forth in our third reason of dissent. 
 
 3rd, Because the Synod, while reaffirming the doctrine of our 
 Standards on the infallibility and Divine authority of Holy Scripture, 
 do not declare the views of Dr. Dods on these and other points, as 
 set forth in our second reason, to be contrary to or inconsistent with 
 these Standards, and so leave it doubtful as to whether they regard 
 them in that light or not. 
 
 4th, Because the Synod do not censure the publication of the views 
 called in question, and prohibit the publication of them imder anj/orm, 
 but hold the Sermon and Preface as withdrawn, although it had been 
 denied from the bar, that the publications could be so regarded, 
 seeing the understanding and express ground on which the author 
 had expressed his willingness to withdraw them, had been, however, 
 imwarrantably repudiated by the Presbytery in their answers to ovu: 
 reasons of dissent and complaint. 
 
 5th, Because the Synod do not instruct the Presbytery to confer 
 with Dr. Dods in regard to the unscriptural and dangerous character 
 of the views contained in his Sermon, with a view to his renamciation 
 of them, or even suggest the necessity or propriety of such brotherly 
 dealing. 
 
 Lastly, Because, not having reversed the judgment of the Presby- 
 tery, the Synod have indirectly, however imintentionally, admitted 
 the right of Dr. Dods, or any other minister of this Church, as set 
 forth in our f oiirth reason of dissent and complaint, to hold, preach, 
 
44 
 
 and publish the views contained in the Sermon and Preface in 
 question." 
 
 Evan Gordon, Robert Bremner, Andrew A. Bonar, Robert Gault, 
 D. M'Meikan, Hugh M'Dougall, Henry Anderson, R. C. Smith, 
 Alex. Urquhart, WiUiam Tullo, George Campbell, Alex. Murchison, 
 John Stewart, James Fordyce, William Jeffrey, Ministers; James 
 Robertson, Robert M'Callum, Malcolm M'Grigor, Allan Munro, 
 Thomas Macklin, William Beith, Thomas Lawrie, William C. 
 Morton, Robert Marshall, Donald Macpherson, John Buchanan, 
 Duncan M'Callum, James Allan, Elders. 
 
 It will thus be seen that of the 47, (viz., 29 ministers and 
 18 elders,) who complained against the judgment of the Presbjrtery, 
 28 (viz., 15 ministers and 13 elders,) have appealed against the 
 judgment of the Synod. The names of those who have acquiesced 
 in the judgment of the Synod are the following: — James Nicoll, 
 G. L, Campbell, John F. M'Gregor, A. C. Fullarton, Hugh M'Intosh, 
 John RiddeU, Alexander Andrew, R. M. Thornton, James Stuart, 
 J. Smith, James Drysdale, G. W. Gumming, William Scott, Robert 
 Howie, Ministers ; and H. M'Kinnon, James Donald, George Munro, 
 William Morton, John Wands, Elders. 
 
 Clasgoiv: Charles Glass •^ Co., Printers, 8s Maxwell Street. 
 
1 PHOTC 
 I ft 
 
PHOTOMOUNT 
 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 MofXJf octur^d by 
 
 GAYLORO BROS. Inc. 
 
 SyracuM, N. Y. 
 
 Sfoektcn, Calif.