William G. Blaikie 
 
 Letter to 
 A.A. Bonar 
 
 ^'■ 
 
 
 'M 
 
 W^^' 
 
 
 :^y^^\j^ 
 
 -?9ff^ 
 
MAR 16 1860 
 
 BX 9084 
 
 .B52 
 
 1890 
 
 
 1 
 
 Blaikie 
 
 , Will 
 
 lam Garden, 
 
 
 1820-1899. 
 
 
 
 
 Letter 
 
 to the 
 
 Rev 
 
 . Andrew 
 
 A, 
 
 Bonar . 
 
 D.D. 
 
 
 
 
LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 :EV. ANDREW A. BONAR. D.D. 
 
 ON 
 
 A MANIFESTO ISSUED BY HIM ON 
 THE DODS AND BRUCE CASES 
 
 WILLIAM G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH 
 
 SECOND EDITION, WITH POSTSCRIPT 
 
 EDINBURGH : MACNIVEN AND WALLACE 
 
 138 Princes Street 
 
 1890 
 
LETTER. 
 
 My dear Dk. Bonae, 
 
 I have to thank you for sending 
 me the " Statement by Ministers and other Office-Bearers of 
 the Free Church, in regard to the decisions of last General 
 Assembly in the cases of Drs. Dods and Bruce." I regret to 
 say that I am quite unable to express that approval of the 
 document which you invite. I think it due to you and the 
 Church that I should state briefly some of the grounds of my 
 inability to support the " Statement." I regret to differ from 
 you on any point connected with the authority of that Divine 
 Book on which you have so lived, and grown, and thriven that 
 we all bless God alike for the purity of your character and the 
 influence of your life. I acknowledge with pleasure that the 
 framers of the Statement have striven not to be unnecessarily 
 offensive, and to express themselves in as kind and brotherly 
 terms as possible. But for substance, I am constrained to say 
 that I count it a most uncharitable document; it makes no 
 vestige of allowance for possible diversity of view among men 
 loyal to the Scriptures : carried out to its proper conclusions, 
 it would require a majority of the ministers of our Church to 
 be subjected to discipline ; and should that seem impracticable, 
 it hints ominously at a coming disruption ! 
 
 I will confine my remarks to the subject of inspiration. 
 Your personal view on that subject was expressed in the first 
 words of your address at the Mildmay Conference this summer 
 — " Every word of the Bible is true," The " Statement," in 
 like manner, insists on our holding that in the Scriptures, as 
 
4 Letter to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 
 
 originally given, there was not a vestige of error. Errors may 
 have crept in afterwards, but there was not a vestige of error 
 at the first. You conceive that the existence of any error at 
 the first would have proved God to be the author of error, and 
 from that conception you revolt, as horrible and blasphemous. 
 
 Xow I am happy to think that on the great fact of the 
 
 Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and of the whole 
 
 , , . of the Scriptures, there is no difference between us. Our 
 
 Tj- ^t;4.<A -difference is solely as to the exact purport and scope of the 
 
 ■t^- ^>'*^- terni^" inspiration." You hold that it excludes the possibility 
 
 Cfn^titM, of even the smallest inaccuracy in the original Scriptures. I 
 
 ' hold that that is not involved in the proper sense of the term 
 
 ins'piration. You say it cannot be conceived that there was 
 
 any inaccuracy in the original Scriptures. I appeal to the 
 
 J_^r>-^| facts of the case in opposition to your view. I maintain that 
 
 your view is not a direct statement of Scripture, but only an 
 
 inference from its statements. You refuse to tolerate my view 
 
 and threaten or hint that if I and others persevere in it you 
 
 will disrupt the Church. This, to my mind, is a very serious 
 
 and most unwarrantable position, and, allow me to add, a 
 
 position which I cannot think to be in accordance with the 
 
 mind of the Head of the Church. 
 
 I say we agree on the great fact of inspiration. There can 
 be no manner of doubt that again and again the Scriptures 
 claim to be the Word of God ; they assert that in time past 
 God spake to the fathers by the prophets ; they affirm that the 
 Holy Ghost spake by David and other writers of Scripture ; 
 that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God ; and in reference 
 to the New Testament, the Apostle Paul claims that he taught 
 not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the 
 Holy Ghost teacheth ; and there are many other passages of 
 similar tenor. All this we, of course, equally receive. Neither 
 of us has any sympathy with the endeavour to eliminate its 
 iilorious Divine element from the Word of God. God forbid, 
 that any man in the Church should even say one word to 
 
Let^r to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 
 
 y ^,^: ^ 
 
 disparage the glory of Scripture, or to impair the value of the 
 gift which, next to Jesus Christ Himself, is the most precious 
 asset iu all the Church's^ heritage. 
 
 The one point of difference between us respects the ) 
 question, whether there was, or could be conceived to be, any I 
 inaccuracy or error in the Scriptures as originally given ? 
 
 In our mode of dealing with this question the main 
 difference between us is, that' you lay your stress on certain 
 general considerations, and on certain specific statements of 
 Scripture. We, on the other hand, while accepting the specific 
 statements, lay great stress also on the structure pi Scripture ^.^^*^' 
 as we find it, on certain phenomena which lie on the surface, Ci/sU'I.-gL^ 
 and on the inextricable difficulties which are involved in '^"~' 
 carrying out your view in detail. 
 
 Among the general considerations on which you or your 
 friends lay stress, one is, that the Scriptures would not be 
 adapted to their purpose as an infallible revelation of God's 
 will if they were not absolutely free from error. This senti- 
 ment appears in various parts of the " Statement." It has 
 been laid down more explicitly by Dr. Cunningham. He owns 
 that in our inquiries as to the scope and extent of inspiration, 
 we start with " a presumption in favour of the doctrine of 
 plenary verbal inspiration as that which we would wish for, 
 and desire to have, in any ^^■ritiug which was to be the rule 
 and standard of our faith." This is very honest of Dr. 
 Cunningham, but it is a position against which I vehemently 
 protest. We have no right to commence this inquiry with any 
 such presumption. We have no right to assume that God 
 will frame His revelation according to what we should wish 
 for and desire. This were rationalism, pure and simple. " My 
 thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, 
 saith the Lord." 
 
 If there be any subject on which men ought to beware 
 of theorising, and to be eager to accept of all the light which 
 can be got from all sources, including a copious and candid 
 
6 Letter to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 
 
 examination of the actual structiire of the Scriptures, it is this 
 doctrine of inspiration. It relates to a profoundly abstruse sub- 
 ject — the contact of God and man, the joint action of the infi- 
 nite and the finite, a process essentially different from dictation, 
 K^ M y^t giving rise to an inf allibly r evelation of God and of His 
 /^M*yf^ ■ will. ■ Contrary to all that we should have naturally expected, 
 it has pleased, God to reveal Himself in His Word through the 
 instrumentality of men. He has condescended to use human 
 language — at best a most imperfect instrument for revealing 
 the Divine, — human logic, human rhetoric, human poetry, 
 human imagination, thought, feeling, conscience. In form 
 and structure the Bible is a very different book from what we 
 should have expected. But in this very fact it is a masterpiece 
 of Divine skill. To my mind one of the most convincing proofs 
 of the Divine inspiration of Scripture lies in this, that amid all 
 its seemingly heterogeneous structure — as if bits of history and 
 biography, poetry and song, didactic teaching and symbolic 
 vision, proverb, parable and prophecy, had been all shot, as it 
 were, into one capacious reservoir — there shines throughout it 
 such a clear, vivid, supernatural revelation of God, and of the 
 way to that communion with Him which sin has destroyed. 
 Studying it, too, as a completed whole, we trace clearly the 
 hand of Him who sees the end from the beginning, and mark 
 the gradual evolution of the Divine plan, till, in the fulness of 
 the time, all converges and culminates in Him who is, pre- 
 eminently and emphatically, " the Word of God." It is mar- 
 vellous, indeed, that amid all the variety of voices and scenery 
 in Scripture there should exist and be clearly visible an in- 
 fallible, objective revelation of the will of God, bearing on the 
 great question of man's relation to Him, and subordinate to 
 that, bearing on the whole round of man's interests and duties, 
 both for the life that now is and that which is to come. 
 
 My belief is, that Dr. Cunningham's "presumption" in 
 favour of a revelation of a particular structure, absolutely free 
 from any inaccuracy, is the determining consideration in a 
 
Letter to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 7 
 
 great many minds. But true loyalty to God demands that it 
 be altogether set aside. " Presumption " is not a trustworthy 
 support. The " presumption " that the supernatural is im- 
 possible is the most fatal error to be dealt with in the whole 
 field of apologetics. Perhaps you have noticed a sermon 
 recently delivered by Dean Perowne in Edinburgh, in which 
 he said — " The cardinal error of theologians seemed to him to 
 be that they would start with a theory, and so long as they 
 started with a theory of what the Bible ought to be, instead of 
 trying to ascertain what the Bible was, they would only increase 
 their doubts and difficulties " {Scotsman, 8th October). 
 
 But, of course, your main support is in those passages which 
 declare emphatically that " God spake " by the inspired writers, 
 and that what they wrote were " God's words." And, as God 
 is truth, they could not have written one word which was not 
 absolutely true. I, for one, cordially accept the position that in ^/^ - ^*^'' 
 many parts of Scripture we have God's very words ; but I am '"^ ' ZT 
 not prepared to extend this to all parts of Scripture. In fact, l/" -^ 
 on the face of them many parts of Scripture are but a record ^T^ ^ ^ 
 of man's words and of man's deeds. Even you allow that all r '_ /CjS 
 that inspiration secures there is a correct record of what was 
 thus said and done ; and the difference between us seems to 
 be that you maintain that record even of man's words and acts 
 to be infallibly correct^ We rather hold that it is . substantially , 
 
 accurat e for all the purposes for which it was needed. 
 
 Don't suppose that it is to please ourselves, or to gratify our 
 own whims, that we take this position. We are obliged to take 
 it by carefully examining the structure of Scripture. We be- 
 lieve it to be more correct, and much more honouring to God 
 than yours. 
 
 When we carefully examine such expressions as " God 
 spake " and " the words of God," we find that they are some- 
 times used in an elastic rather than a rigid sense. For 
 instance, in Exodus xx. 1 we read " God spake all these words, 
 saying." Then follow the ten commandments in the usual 
 
8 Letter to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 
 
 form. In Deut. v. 22 we read " Tliese words the Lord spake," 
 with reference to a different form of the commandments. The 
 fourth commandment, especially, is given in a quite different 
 form in the two records. Yet it is said that God spake and 
 also that he wrote " these words." The explanation must be 
 < that in Exo dus you have God's original words expanded in one 
 1 form, an d in Deuteronomy in another. But the term " words " 
 is used in a very elastic sense, and cannot be restricted to the 
 ipsissivia verba. Again, in 1 Cor. ii. 13, the Apostle says, in 
 a verse usually regarded as a principal proof of the very rigid 
 view : — " Which things also we speak, not in the words which 
 man's wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." 
 Yet in the same chapter (ver. 9) the Apostle, quoting the words 
 of the Holy Ghost in Isa. Ixiv. 4, makes a very m aterial altera- 
 ' jtion of them, and especially changes " what he hath pre- 
 pared for him that waiteth for Him " into, " the things which 
 God hath prepared for them that love Him." Could anything 
 be more clear than that in such passages the term " words " is 
 used not in a rigid but in an elastic or literary sense ? There- 
 fore you are not entitled, even in view of the language of such 
 passages, to insist on your rigid view of inspiration. 
 
 It would be tedious, and in a letter to you needless, to go 
 over the well-known facts in the actual structure and contents 
 of Scripture which prevent many sincere believers from accept- 
 ing the very rigid doctrine of inspiration. But for the sake of 
 others I refer to some of them in an Appendix (No. I.). 
 
 In the " Statement " it is afiirmed, in much bolder words 
 than I think even primd facie warrantable, that your view has 
 always been the view of the Scottish Church, and that it is 
 laid down clearly in the Confession of Faith. As to the 
 Confession of Faith, your claim to its support is based on 
 your interpretation of the phrase, " God, the author of Holy 
 Scripture," a phrase which I cordially accept, and which I 
 maintain to be in perfect harmony with my view of inspiration. 
 It is a phrase which could only be claimed by you exclusively 
 
Letter to the Rev. Z?r. Bonar. 9 
 
 if it were allowed that God is an author to precisely the same 
 effect as man — which I think is unwarrantable. As to the 
 historical question, I am not aware that the precise point 
 between us was ever formally discussed by our earlier divines, 
 nor do I find any reference to any treatise formally bearing on 
 it in my friend Dr. Walker's Cunningham Lectures. There are 
 some considerations bearing on this subject which would not 
 be suitable for discussion in a letter, but which I will refer to 
 in Appendix No. II. 
 
 It strikes me with surprise that the " Statement " dwells so 
 little on the question of morality. It criticises the expression 
 in the deliverance of the Assembly: "the Church views the 
 use of the term ' mistakes and immoralities ' to describe recog- 
 nised difficulties in the Scriptures as utterly unwarranted, and 
 fitted to give grave offence." If this refer only to the form of 
 ex-pression (as I believe it does), the '' Statement " highly dis- 
 approves of it. But you make no attempt to place in a satis- 
 factory light the actual difference in moral tone between earlier 
 and later parts of the Bible. You cannot but be aware that 
 here lies a grave difficulty demanding careful examination. 
 You content yourselves with looking it in the face and passing 
 on ; or rather you content yourselves with denouncing what is 
 said of it by Dr. Dods, and what is said by the Assembly of 
 Dr. Dods's way of putting it. Do you really think that this 
 will do % Do you suppose that our people will hold this ques- 
 tion settled by a burst of indignation ? Perhaps you accept 
 the view of a progressive revelation of morality. If you do, 
 you go a great way to meet Dr. Dods and to meet the Assembly. 
 In that case you might even view with some charity the 
 expressions used by Dr. Dods about it, although, with the 
 Assembly, you disapprove of them. But you may be very sure 
 that the vast mass of our thoughtful people believe, in what- 
 ever terms it may be put, that there are very strange points 
 in the morality of the Old Testament. This is a matter 
 that demands all the coolness, all the charity, all the rever- 
 
 A 2 
 
lo Letter to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 
 
 ence, all the humble' crying for Pivine light, that we can 
 bring to bear upon it. It is a delicate task to reconcile Old 
 Testament morality in some points with the inspiration of 
 Scripture. Instead of fighting over this we have much more 
 need to fall on our knees, and, with united and humble voice, 
 implore the light we need to see the whole subject as God 
 sees it. 
 
 Let me advert to one of your other arguments. You have 
 a strong conviction that any relaxation of the most rigid view 
 of inspiration, any concession of possible inaccuracy in any, 
 even the most insignificant, statement of Scripture, would open 
 the way to concessions without end, would introduce a policy of 
 surrender, the end of which would be the entire subversion 
 both of the objective truth and the binding authority of the 
 Bible. There is no doubt that this consideration tells power- 
 fully on many minds. But it does not so much tend to con- 
 vince them, as to make them unwilling to move. They are in 
 constant terror, because if they conceded the slightest point 
 they know not whither they might ultimately be borne. 
 
 It seems to me that, substantially, this is an argument of 
 unbelief. It is not based on the truth or falsehood of the view 
 objected to, but only on its apparent tendency. It would be 
 equally valid whether the view were true or false. We have 
 to meet many such objections to some of our doctrines, founded 
 not on truth, but on their possible or probable tendencies. Pre- 
 destination to eternal life is objected to because it leads some 
 to say, if we are to be saved, we must be saved; if we are to be 
 lost, we must be lost. Salvation by grace is objected to because 
 some infer that it matters not how they live. The validity of 
 prayer is objected to because it would place the Almighty at 
 the disposal of His creatures. We must always be on our guard 
 against arguments that are based on possible inferences. 
 
 As in the case of the doctrines just specified, it is quite 
 possible that any concession on inspiration would be taken 
 advantage of by some for illegitimate purposes. There are always 
 
Letter to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 1 1 
 
 people in abundance who, if you give them an inch, will take an 
 ell. I grant, too, that some of your opponents have been fear- 
 fully indiscreet. But as I cannot see that the rigid view was 
 held by the fathers of the Church, or that it is contained in the 
 Confession of Faith, I do not hold our view to be properly speak- 
 ing a concession. It is a conce ssion as compared with the pr£- 
 valentopinion in Scotland in the early and middle part of this 
 cenhiry, but not as compared with the standards of the Church. 
 But apart from all that, even if it were a concession, it is a 
 strictly limited concession. I will not go into this here, but 
 advert to it more fully in the Appendix (No. III.). It will 
 appear there that the liberty which is sought is a liberty which 
 we are allowed to exercise by the very principles of Protes- 
 tantism on much more vital matters and without danger to 
 the authority of Eevelation. 
 
 In conclusion, let me express my great regret at the new 
 agitation which you now propose to institute. It will keep up 
 noise, discontent, and strife, without succeeding in its aim. I 
 think some of your friends are prone to forget that to tolerate 
 a position is not necessarily to approve of it. Where a mass 
 of thinking men are associated in a common body, they must 
 tolerate more than they approve. It is always open to them 
 to contend for the truth, and we must esteem them very highly 
 when they conscientiously try to do so. But it is a 'different 
 thing to contend for the Church exercising discipline on their 
 opponents, and perhaps ejecting them from its bosom. Especi- 
 ally when among these are many fathers and brethren with 
 whom you have been accustomed to co-operate in every good 
 work, and whose loyalty to your Master you never found cause 
 to doubt. To attempt discipline against half the Church were 
 Quixotic. I remember, as probably you do likewise, that in 
 the Convocation of 1842, a proposal to discipline all who sym- 
 pathised with the Strathbogie ministers, although this would 
 have been the proper logical outcome of the case, was scouted 
 
1 2 Letter to the Rev. Dr. Bonar. 
 
 as monstrous by the Common sense of the meeting. You point 
 ominously to another, course — disruption. I am amazed. I 
 had thought that we had all become convinced that separation 
 could be justified only as the last resort of persecuted men. 
 We ought not to think lightly of rending the body of Christ, 
 and you know that you and the other fathers of 1843 
 would have continued to sit side by side with the extremest 
 Moderates, if you had not absolutely been driven out. I believe 
 that you yourself tolerate many things in the "Statement" 
 which you do not approve, for they do not savour of your 
 mature and mellow charity. All that we desire is, that you 
 would extend your toleration to views more worthy of it. 
 
 I am. 
 
 Yours, with much respect and affection, 
 
 W. Ct. BLAIKIE. 
 
 October 1890. 
 
APPENDIX I.A*^.H^/ fTyy 
 
 Phenomena of Scripture to be taken into account in /-^ ^J^j^^ 
 inducting a doctrine of inspirati0n.'^^2!i^--^ /^"t^ala^w- 
 
 What we contend for is, that instead of taking such expressions as g>. r ^t 
 " God spake," " God's words," by themselves, and establishing upon them »-■ / _- 
 an absolute doctrine, we ought to take into account the structure and con- ^i^^i'**^^ 
 tents of Scripture, so as to ascertain the true sense in which such expressions ^W>*- • 
 are used. Among these phenomena are — 
 
 1. Pre-existing Documents. — That the inspired writers of Scripture often 
 use such documents is very apparent. In some cases this is beyond doubt ; 
 in other cases it is very probable. For instance, the genealogies reproduced 
 in Scripture were unc^oixbtedlj copied from the Hebrew archives. The 
 book of Jasher and the book oif the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and 
 Israel were undoubtedly placed under contribution in the composition of 
 existing books. Quotations are given from Greek and other pagan poets 
 by Paul. No man will say that these documents were inspired. No man 
 will say that God was the author of them in the special sense of the phrase. 
 Luke tells us that in composing his gospel he derived assistance from 
 persons — some doubtless uninspired — ■" which from the beginning, were 
 eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.'' What are we to infer from the 
 fact that the inspired writers incorporated portions of these uninspired 
 writings or statements ? Simply that the Holy Ghost guaranteed their \ y , 
 
 substantial accuracy and allowed their use, but not that He stood sponsor^ w/U-^ i*-*^* 
 for every word. He accepted in this sense, for example, Matthew's forty- 
 two generations, or three fourteens (Matt. i. 17), copied doubtless from the ^^7 ' 
 national archives, although we know that there are omissions in them, 
 rendering them not absolutely correct. 
 
 With regard to the use of pre-existing documents on a more extensive 
 scale, I desire to write with caution. I have never seen cause to apply that 
 hypothesis to the book of Genesis, for example, to the extent to which it 
 has been proposed to carry it. Yet I cannot deny that in some places the 
 internal evidence for the use of pre-existing documents is very strong. 
 I must say that the fourteenth chapter of Genesis contains expressions 
 that indicate its having been taken from another narrative. 1 Samuel xvii. 
 12-15 looks very like a summary, either out of place or drawn from another 
 quarter. The question as to the extent to which Scripture was composed 
 out of pre-existing documents seems to me to be one on which we may for 
 the present suspend our judgment, waiting for more light, and along with i 
 this, the possibility of God's weaving into His inspired, records larger por- /;rC/^^V^ 
 tions of uninspir ed material than we have been accustomed to suppose. <:jJa.^ • ^ 
 Let it be carefully observed, however, that this remark applies not to the ^^^-f^ ^ 
 substance of God's revelation proper, but to the records of historical events y^ -J 
 
trvvYp 
 
 14 Appendix. 
 
 in connection with -which' it pleased Him to make Himself known. One 
 thing is very certain, that in whatever manner the historical records of the 
 Old Testament may have been compiled, they are marvels of accuracy. All 
 the information recently gathered from the cuneiform inscriptions and other 
 monuments of antiquity attests this fact. 
 
 2. Another class "of phenomena is — Quotations. We often find a change 
 of language, and in some instances modification of thought, in quotations 
 from the Old Testament in the New. I need not multiply instances ; let 
 me just note the passage that is most frequently quoted in the New Testa- 
 ment — Isaiah vi. 10, and in all the six cases with considerable variation 
 [see Matt. xiii. 14 ; Mark iv. 12 ; Luke viii. 10 ; John xii. 40 ; Actsxxviii. 
 26 ; Eom. xi. 8]. Of course we must remember that the original is in 
 Hebrew, and that the New Testament writers wrote in Greek, using some- 
 times the hSeptuagint translation, and sometimes translating for themselves. 
 But both in language and in the train of thought the quotation often difi'ers 
 from the original. A few years ago the use of non-verbal quotations from 
 the gospels in early Christian writers was represented by the author of 
 " Supernatural Religion " as a proof that our gospels did not exist when 
 these writers wrote. All of us were grateful for the eminent service of 
 Bishop Lightfoot in showing what was the habit of quotation .in those 
 dajs, and inducting from many quarters proofs that verbal variations were 
 no evidence that the text of the authors quoted from was then different from 
 the present. But it is difficult to see how the writers of the New Testament 
 could have allowed themselves any such liberty had they believed that in 
 ' (^0 every case the original words, in the form in which they stood in the 
 
 ' ^5,, u^ Hebrew, and no other, were those of the Spirit. 
 
 , ;^ ip:^ I have seen it argued that the New Testament writers were led by 
 
 ! inspiration of the Spirit to modify the words, and that by this means the 
 
 words as modified became as much the words of the Sj^irit as the words 
 originally written. I thoroughly believe that it was under the guidance 
 and sanction of the Holy Spirit that the New Testament writers did make 
 the modifications, on the ground that they conveyed the spirit and sub- 
 stance of the passages in a form perhaps better adapted to their immediate 
 purpose. But this recognised a certain flexibility in the original words not 
 
 i:(u,«/'i'l consistent with the rigid doctrine of inspiration. Moreover, we must 
 remember what the purpose of a quotation is. It is to bring an admitted 
 definite authority to bear on a question under discussion. The whole force 
 and value of a quotation lie in the identity between what is quoted and what 
 is sought to be proved. If you substantially u lter the original passage you 
 
 ^V» . deprive it of all force as a quotation. Whatever alterations, therefore, the 
 inspired writers of the New Testament made must be held to have been 
 within the true scope of the passages, and in harmony with the view of 
 inspiration held by those to whom they were writing. They were not 
 bound to the ipsissima verba. 
 
 I do not forget here how our Lord and His apostles, in quoting from 
 the Old Testament, sometimes made their argument turn on particular words 
 or forms of words. This, I think, is the strongest point in your position. 
 It undoubtedly ought to have most earnest attention in any comprehensive 
 
 -," 
 
Appendix. 1 5 
 
 endeavour to induct a doctrine of inspiration. But in all fairness it ought \/-*/* *^ 
 
 to be considered alongside the other practice of which I have been speak-^gi^x- 71** 
 
 ing. Our business must be to harmonise the two practices. "We should 
 
 seek for some common ground on which to justify both. Perhaps there 
 
 may be something peculiar to the j^assages which were used as verbal 
 
 arguments. This is one of the difficulties of the subject, regarding which 
 
 brethren on both sides should be more ready to help each other than to 
 
 run their opponents up into a corner and prove them heretics. It is one 
 
 of the most painful features of this controversy, as it has been of most of 
 
 our controversies, that we are so combative on both sides when we might 
 
 be conciliatory. 
 
 3. Discrc2}ancies. — A third phenomenon of Scripture bearing on this 
 subject is its discrepancies. These are of two kinds, verbal and sub- 
 ,s tantial . Of verbal discrepancies, we have already adverted to the two 
 versions of the decalogue, and we shall only notice the four versions of the 
 superscription over the cross. These variations are no difficulty to me, 
 because I believe that in matters of this kind the inspiration of the four 
 evangelists by the Holy Spirit was not meant to secure verbal,but only sub- 
 stantial, accuracy. But if we adopt that rigid interpretation of the phrase, 
 "God, the author of Scripture," on which the "Statement" proceeds, this 
 view is untenable. The precise words of the inscription must have been 
 present to the Holy Ghost. If the words of Scripture are as much the / 
 
 words of God as the words of'^uan, why were they not then, in all the '' 
 
 four cases, accurately reproduced ? 
 
 But variations in substance are more serious than variations in words. 
 As a sample of these, let me refer to the speech of Stephen in Acts vii. In 
 his resume of early Hebrew history, he makes several statements which are 
 at variance with the Old Testament narrative. For instance, he says that 
 when Jacob died, he and the fathers "were carried over into Sychem 
 (Shechem), and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of 
 money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem (Shechem)." We have 
 .an express record in Genesis of the burial of Jacob, but there is no mention 
 of any of his sons except Joseph being carried up for burial in Canaan, and 
 that was centuries after, when the whole people left Egypt. Further, 
 Jacob was not buried at Shechem, but at Machpelah in Hebron. Thirdly, 
 Abraham did not buy the sepulchre of the sons of Emmor, but of Ephi'on, 
 one of the children of Heth. And, fourthly, while the Greek implies that 
 Emmor was the son of Sychem, he was really his father, and the authorised 
 version, for purposes of harmony, has inserted that word. The revised 
 version, however, has it — " Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons 
 of Hamor (or Emmor, marg.) in Shechem." On what ground Stephen 
 departed from the Old Testament narrative is not very obvious, and it is 
 not our business here to inquire : he was a man "full of faith and of the 
 Holy Ghost," yet he seems to have been allowed to make these deviations . 
 while, in the v pvy liiajippt spttsp^ under the Spirit's influence. ^"^ 
 
 Now, the rigid view of inspiration requires that all these statements of 0^4.k-^' * 
 Scripture should be brought into harmony with one another. And, in order 
 to accomplish this, men have embarked on a sea of the very wildest conjee- 
 
1 6 Appendix. 
 
 ture. Let us take the hypothesis of Turretine. The patriarchs may have 
 been buried at Shechem, though this is not mentioned in the Old Testa- 
 ment. But it is said that Joseph's bones were carried up, and had the 
 bones of his brothers been taken too, mention would surely have been made 
 of it. But Turretine's supposed reason for the substitution of Jacob for 
 Abraham is positively grotesque. Abraham is an indeclinable noun, and 
 it may be in the genitive case, governed by " grandson " understood ; or 
 Abraham may be used as a patronymic, like Abrahamides in Greek. 
 Many cannot brook this way of torturing Scripture. They can hardly 
 keep their patience when it is proposed as an act of homage to the Word 
 i■of|^ i*^- ^^ G-od, and to the Holy Spirit by whom Stephen w as inspired . It is 
 ' a way of treating the Bible which would never be proposed for any other 
 
 book. If Pascal in his " Provincial Letters " had come across it, he would 
 have had something racy to say of it ! 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Historical Position of the Church. 
 
 I should like to say something more of the contention that the Church 
 is committed by its standards and otherwise to the extreme view of in- 
 spiration. 
 
 It is beyond question that it has been widely held in Scotland, especi- 
 ally in the present century. Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Hodge, two of the 
 most powerful Calvinistic theologians of the century, have maintained it. 
 Many men, both in England and Scotland, have strongly upheld it, men of 
 the highest ability and excellence, and of temperaments as varied as 
 Haldane, the fervent evangelist, and Carson, the bitter controversialist, Dr. 
 Chalmers, Dr. Candlish, Dr. Bannerman, Cardinal Newman, and Mr. 
 / Spurgeon. ButJt_has_never, in the jorm. now proposed, been an article of 
 
 our theology. 
 
 Take, for instance, Calvin. Dean Perowne, in his admirable work on 
 the Psalms, calls Calvin the"imnce of commentators," and "the great 
 master of exegesis." " He is always careful to ascertain as exactly as pos- 
 sible the vohole scope and meaning of the writer on whom he comments. 
 In this respect, his critical sagacity is marvellous and quite unrivalled." 
 The Dean proceeds to remark that if Calvin were now alive, some of 
 his interpretations of the Psalms, especially the INIessianic Psalms, would 
 expose him to the charge of rationalism. He also comments on Calvin's 
 charging the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews with a quotation 
 "not made in accordance with the genuine sense of the passage as it 
 stands in the Psalms." This is too strong ; he should have said " with the 
 a2)parent sense of the passage." Calvin repeatedly says that if the quota- 
 tion be substantially accurate, the words are of little consequence. Let us 
 see how he treats Paul's quotation from Isaiah Ixiv. 4 in 1 Cor. ii. 9, where 
 the Apostle, besides other changes, has substituted " them that love him " 
 for "him that waiteth for him." In so doing, Calvin says, "he has fol- 
 
Appendix. 1 7 
 
 lowed the Greek interpreters, who have translated it in this way from 
 having been misled by the resemblance beween one letter and another 
 [Heb. ^['ZVi to -wait, 32n to love] ; but as that did not affect the point in 
 hand, he did not choose to depart from the common reading, as we fre- 
 quently have occasion to observe how frequently he follows the revised 
 version." In other words, Calvin holds that Paul, writing by inspiration 
 of the Holy Spirit, accepted an error of the Septuagint caused by con- 
 founding one Hebrew letter with another. Yet who could reasonably 
 accuse Calvin of denying the most ample inspiration to Paul? What 
 divine ever appreciated more fully tlian Calvin the noble testimony of Paul 
 to the Divine inspiration of the Old Testament, or the wonderful contribu- 
 tion which that Apostle made to the unification of the entire Scriptures ? 
 Calvin in this case may be right or wrong; all that I say is, that he 
 furnishes a clear proof that the rigid view has not always been held by the 
 masters of Calvinistic theology. 
 
 So also with regard to the divines of the Westminster Assembly. I 
 quote from Mr. Eoss Taylor's speech in the last General Assembly. " On 
 consulting the published Minutes of the Westminster Assembly in regard 
 to this subject, and taking the words of the well-known Dr. Mitchell, who 
 had edited these Minutes, he found him making this declaration : — That 
 the Westminster divines were at special pains to leave open all reasonable 
 questions as to the mode and degree of inspiration which could consistently 
 be left open by those who accepted the Scriptures as the infallible rule of 
 truth and duty. This I think goes a long way to deprive of all validity 
 the argument founded on the article en Holy Scripture in the Confession 
 of Faith. No one can read that article without seeing that it is expressed 
 in a very peculiar way ; that the phrases do not occur in it which the 
 " Statement " uses to denote its position, and that it is only by putting an 
 interpretation which is not conceded by others on the phrase " God the 
 author of the Scriptures " that any claim to Confessional authority can be 
 dvanced for the view of the " Statement." 
 
 With regard to the views of Drs. Cunningham and Hodge, I do not 
 think that either of them argues the case satisfactorily. Dr. Cunnino-ham 
 repeatedly and deliberately uses the words " dictate " and " dictation " as 
 equivalent to inspiration. These words are now generally allowed to be 
 appropriate only to the theory of mechanical inspiration, now all but 
 abandoned. In referring to the difficulties in the speech of Stephen, he 
 just remarks in an easy way that they may be easily overcome. It is 
 really hard that so many of these dogmatic, as opposed to exegetic, divines 
 attempt so little to work out the exegesis of such passages. One thincf to 
 be commended in Dr. Cunningham, and especially to be pressed on those 
 who would force all the Church into their views, is his candour in admitting 
 that some writers have attached undue importance to the doctrine of the 
 plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, as if any one denying it could not 
 be a genuine believer in its divine authority. He rebukes the " dogmatism 
 and arrogance " of Carson towards a class of men that includes such names 
 as Philip Doddridge, Pye Smith, Ebenezer Henderson, Bishop Daniel 
 
1 8 Appendix. 
 
 Wilson of Calcutta, Dr. George Hill, to say nothing of more modern divines 
 like Dean Alford and Dean Perowne. 
 
 With reference to Dr. Hodge, all I would say is, that he lays down the 
 position that the true doctrine of inspiration is to be inducted conjointly 
 \ from the statements and the phenomena of Scripture. Yet in his argument 
 he entirely overlooks the latter. Dr. A. A. Hodge, in his " Evangelical 
 Theology," does not look at either of these, but deals a 'priori and analogi- 
 cally with the subject. 
 
 In the attempt of the " Statement " to show that its view is the re- 
 ceived doctrine of the Church, there is one point, however, which has sur- 
 prised me. It is the reference to what was done in the Assembly of 1878. 
 In that Assembly the case of Dr. Dods was discussed, and a finding 
 was come to sustaining the decision of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, in 
 which decision of the Synod condemnation was passed on the opinion that 
 there are errors in the Scriptures. I am surprised that in the circum- 
 stances of that case it should be maintained that the doctrinal views of the 
 Synod are morally binding on the Church, especially after the explana- 
 tion given by Principal Rainy during the discussions of last General 
 Assembly, and without any attempt to meet his statement. He said 
 that in 1878 the motion carried was proposed by him, and that "this 
 motion said that the Assembly were not in circumstances to discuss the 
 merits, but that in the attitude and aspect which the case presented 
 (neither the Presbytery of Glasgow nor Dr. Dods complaining), it did not 
 appear that any serious harm would be done by allowing the decision of 
 the Synod to become final. In the decision of the General Assembly it 
 was expressly affirmed that the Assembly refused to make any decision on 
 a 2mnci])le. His own speech from end to end was a protest against the 
 Assembly in their circumstances pretending to decide so serious a ques- 
 tion." Yet your paper affirms (without any authority) that " it was as- 
 sumed by all parties that the doctrine of the Free Church, respecting the 
 infallibility and divine authority of Holy Scripture, then reaffirmed and 
 declared to be contained in the Standards of the Church, excluded views 
 exactly similar to those brought under the notice of last Assembly." How 
 could this be, when the Assembly expressly refused to make any decision 
 of a principle ? The " Statement " says the Assembly decided the whole 
 case ; Dr. Rainy says the Assembly decided no principle. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 Effects of Toleration. 
 
 I do not think that there is any necessary connection between such 
 toleration as I contend for and the abuse apprehended. 
 
 (a) By Protestants the true doctrine of inspiration must be inducted 
 from the Word of God, and from that alone. It must be derived from a 
 fair, candid, comprehensive view both of the statements of Scripture and of 
 
Appeizdix. 1 9 
 
 the phenomena of Scripture. Men are not entitled to consult their own 
 fancy on the subject. To sift Scripture, and accept or reject statements 
 because we like or dislike them, is contrary to the first princii)les of Pro- 
 testantism. To any such course the toleration which I advocate lends no 
 shadow of sanction. 
 
 (6) The toleration asked is practically limited to matters that are sub- 
 ordinate and incidental ; it does not extend to the great verities of revela- 
 tion. It is connected with the structure rather than the substance of the 
 Scripture . It in no degree invalidates the truth and preciousness of the 
 grand testimony : — " This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal 
 life, and this life is in his Son." 
 
 (c) We surely need not fear a little liberty in regard to the letter 
 of Scripture when so much is left to our discretion regarding its spirit. 
 The great object of Scripture is to reveal to us the Divine Will. Happily 
 in the most essential matters the Divine Will is so clearly made known 
 that he that runneth may read. But how are we to ascertain the Divine 
 Will in certain parts of the record, as, for example, in Job and Ecclesiastes ? 
 Or how, in dealing (let us say) with biography, are we to discriminate 
 between the good and the bad in a man's life ? Scripture generally gives 
 no commentary on men's actions — how are we to know the mind of God 
 about them 1 Not by any hard-and-fast rule, not by any mechanical method. 
 We must use our faculties as best we can, humbly seeking light from God. 
 Here is a large sphere for human discretion. It has sometimes been abused, 
 grossly abused. Men have been known to abuse Scriptural examples to 
 torture, to deceive, to murder, and to massacre. Yet we do not feel that 
 there is any serious risk that men will so pervert the liberty they have to 
 jiidge of the right and wrong in Bible biography as to run into all excess of 
 riot. 
 
 {(l) There are other indeterminate questions bearing on Scriptural sub- 
 jects, and yet they do not prevent us from coming to definite conclu- 
 sions. As Principal Eainy put it in his speech in the General Assembly, 
 " God did not always give them mathematical lines. He had not given 
 them clear mathematical lines about the canon, and yet they found that they 
 had surmounted that difficulty, for there was no real difficulty about 
 the canon. God had not given them mathematical lines about the text, 
 and that was a matter of great difficulty once, but they had surmounted it, 
 and there was no difficulty about the text. God had not given them 
 a mathematical line about interpretation, and yet honest students of 
 Scripture were agreed about interpretation — he meant in all the main and 
 essential matters." In Canon Mozley's book on Miracles there are some 
 striking remarks on indeterminate rules. Conscience is not always clear, 
 memory is not always correct, yet who would say they are of no use ? It 
 is not always clear what the Divine voice is in particular passages of 
 Scripture, but what careful and candid reader, habitually seeking the 
 guidance of the Holy Spirit, can be in doubt as to God's will on the whole ? 
 
POSTSCEIPT. 
 
 Mr. Howie of Glasgow has published a reply to this letter, seemingly 
 official, on which I offer a few brief notes : — 
 
 1. He misrepresents my objeci. He frequently and oflFensively affirms 
 that my object is to show that there are " errors in the Bible " (pp. 21, 28, 
 etc.). That is not my object. I examine the Bible doctrine of inspiration, 
 and show its scope and bearing, and my object is to jjwve that it would he 
 wrong to make Mr. Howie^s view a binding article in oxir Church. Mr. Howie 
 speaks of my "eagerness to vindicate Dr. Dods to the utmost" (p. 4). No one 
 Imows better than Dr. Dods how ridiculously incorrect that statement is. 
 
 2. He misrepresents my theological position. He classes me with 
 rationalists of the worst type — "heathenish rationalism" (p. 9). He 
 accuses me of " contradicting the plain statements of Scripture and of the 
 Confession of Faith, as also the testimony of our Lord " (p. 31). I have 
 plainly disregarded my ordination vows. My very hearty recognition of 
 the inspiration and authority of Scripture, and of an infallible objective 
 revelation of the will of God, is merely one of the " devices " of a skilful 
 controversialist (p. 43). My cordial testimony to the glory of revelation is 
 something I am " constrained to admit " (pp. 14, 29). I simply decline 
 to answer these statements. I regard them as the reductio ad ahsnrdum of 
 the method of vicious inference which he follows : of ascribing to an 
 opponent all the wild conclusions which he thinks he can logically deduce 
 from his position, however vehemently the opponent disowns them ; and 
 not only the logical or illogical conclusions, but all the moral turpitude 
 attaching to them ! I had thought that this abuse of logic was now 
 banished from civilised warfare. 
 
 3. He charges me with personal inconsistency and duplicity. He says 
 I privately advocated my views, publicly joined in the cq^parent condemna- 
 tion of them, and "only ventured to avow them publicly after I believed I 
 might do so with ecclesiastical impunity " (p. 69). This is equally offensive 
 and incorrect. I have openly avowed my views on inspiration to my 
 students for a dozen or fifteen years, along with other views, but not press- 
 ing my own ; I submitted a paper on them five or six years ago to the 
 Edinburgh Clerical Club ; I have never concealed them on any occasion. 
 And it was my desire to take my share of responsibility and odium, and to 
 help to ward off what I deemed a danger to the Church, that induced me, 
 when I got Dr. Bonar's circular, to take the opportunity of publishing my 
 reply. 
 
 4. I make Mr. Howie very welcome to his minor skits and flings if they 
 give him any pleasure. He is welcome to hold my letter " pitiably weak " 
 (p. 42), though, if so, it may occur to some reader to ask. Why does he take 
 seventy-six pages to answer it ? And if he or any of his friends is pleased 
 to call it " a new specimen of the feeble outpourings of Dr. Blaikie, using 
 the language of the late Dr. Begg " (p. 42), the question may possibly be 
 put, If, in a public controversy. Dr. Begg, who was usually conspicuous 
 for generosity to opponents, wrote so shabbily, must he not have felt him- 
 self somewhat hard pressed ? 
 
 I wrote in a courteous and brotherly spirit, honestly desiring to remove 
 misunderstanding, and this is my reward ! 
 
 Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majesty, 
 at tlie Edinburgh University Press. 
 
PAMPHLET MWDa 
 
 ■ Syrocuie, N. Y. 
 Sfockfon. Calif. 
 
:*%^ 
 
 BW5546.D6B6 , „ 
 
 Letter to the Reverend Andrew A. Bonar 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00038 5981 
 
 
 w