R. Howie 
 
 ■^J, V/estminster Doctrine 
 
 anent 
 Holy Scripture 
 
 BX 
 
 9084 
 
 ; .H63 
 
 1 1891 
 
 ^G 
 
BX 9084 .H63 1891 
 Howie, Robert. 
 Westminster doctrine anent 
 holy scripture 
 

Copy 2- / ^ 
 
 WESTMINSTER DOCTRINE 
 
 ANENT 
 
 HOLY SCRIPTURE: 
 
 TRACTATES BY 
 PROFESSORS A. A. HODGE AKD WARFIELD, 
 
 TFITH NOTES ON BEGENT DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 V.Y 
 
 REY. ROBERT HOWIE, M.A. 
 
 GLASGOW : 
 
 DAVID BRY^CE AND SON. 
 
 EDINBURGH: R. W. HUNTER. 
 
 1891. 
 
 '^RICE SIXPENCK. 
 
■;( OF PR/ 
 
 PREFATORY N(3TE. 
 
 The title 1 have adopted shows that, while referring to the Pro- 
 ceedings of the Free Church Confession of Faith Committee, my 
 remarks are confined to the discussions anent Holy Scripture. 
 If objection be taken to my action in thus divulging what took 
 place in the Committee regarding this matter, my apology must 
 be that it is one in respect to which there is much anxiety 
 throughout the Church. Besides, the leading motions proposed 
 in the Committee have been already made public, partly by the 
 authority of the Committee and partly w^ithout its authority. 
 In view of the somewhat misleading accounts of the proceed- 
 ings of the Committee that have reached the public, and of the 
 fact that a construction has been put on the finding finally 
 adopted, different from what would occur to tlie " plain man," 
 ;and certainly from what was intended by myself and others, 
 it seems to me absolutely necessary, if further misunderstand- 
 ing is to be prevented, that a fuller account should be given 
 to the Church, and especially to members of tlie ensuing 
 Assembly, of what took place in the Committee tlian is em- 
 bodied in its brief Eeport. 
 
Inrst Chapter of the Confession. At the same time, in view of 
 anxiety expressed in regard to the Church's position on this 
 subject, the Committee cordially avail themselves of the 
 opportunit}' of recording their full and steadfast adherence to 
 the doctrines laid down in the Confession as to the ^reat 
 truths of the inspiration, infallible trutli, and Divine authority 
 of Holy Scripture as proceeding from God who is the Author 
 thereof. They resolve to bring this finding under the special 
 attention of the Ceneral Assembly." 
 
 Eeferring to the foregoing finding The British Weekly of 
 March 26, in an article entitled "The Positive Side," says, 
 " The positive truth about inspiration urgently needs to be 
 set forth. Much of the mischief wrought by criticism comes 
 from the negative being presented alone. Thus timid minds 
 are thrown into confusion where nothing seems stable. The 
 Free Church of Scotland Committee at present engaged in 
 revising the Confession have agreed to a very strong statement 
 of their positive views on inspiration, the meaning of which, ; 
 as the plain man will take it, is to affirm inerrancy. That | 
 this is not the real meaning is proved by the fact that many j| 
 of those who supported the declaration have declared them- ,' 
 selves convinced that the absolute accuracy of Scripture on 
 all matters of fact cannot be entertained. While sensible of 
 the difficulty, we are yet strongly of opinion that the Church, 
 in the coming struggle to enlist the new generation under i. 
 the old banner, will only succeed by absolute candour. This ! 
 may lose something at first. We see that the ministers in / 
 the United States are complaining that their young men's 
 Bible- Classes have been greatly lessened by the publication of 
 Dr. Briggs' manifesto ; but in the end true sincerity and fear- |\ 
 lessness will win the day. AVe have printed this week a 
 sermon b\' one of the most able and scholarly theologians in I 
 Scotland, which presents the subject under some fresh aspects." 
 
 In reply, I wrote a letter to the Editor, of which the following 
 are extracts : — " You seem so to misunderstand the real state 
 of things in the Free Church of Scotland as to discredit 
 the good faith of ' many ' of those who supported the declara- 
 tion just issued by the Confession of Faith Committee. 
 
 "I am glad that you frankly admit tliat ' the plain man ' will 
 
take ' the very strong statement of their positive views on in- 
 spiration ' issued by the Committee as meaning * to affirm 
 inerrancy.' That undoubtedly is the only legitimate meaning 
 of the words used, and in that sense they were accepted 
 by myself and others. 'Error' is surely excluded by an 
 affirmation of ' infallible truth,' even as it is excluded by 
 the word ' inspiration ' properly understood, and by the words 
 ' as proceeding from God who is the Author thereof.' I cannot 
 be guilty of the blasphemy of holding that God 'who is Trutli 
 itself ' inspired ' error,' or that He is the ' Author ' of ' error.' 
 You say : — ' That this [viz., the ' meaning ' attached to it by 
 ' the plain man '] is not the real meaning is proved by the 
 fact that many of those who supported the declaration have 
 declared themselves convinced that the absolute accuracy 
 of Scripture on all matters of fact cannot be entertained.' 
 
 "I do not know to whom you refer in this connection. What 
 I do know is that a motion was made in the Committee in the 
 following terms:— 'The Committee, after the fullest inquiry 
 and discussion, find that it is neither necessary nor expedient 
 to modify in any way the chapter on Holy Scripture. They 
 unanimously accept and approve the statements of the Con- 
 fession on this great subject. They differ, however, as to the 
 inference to be drawn from the assertion regarding the in- 
 fallible truth and Divine authority of Holy Scripture. Some 
 of their number contend that this declaration implies the 
 absolute freedom from error in every respect of Scripture as 
 originally given, and say that a statement to this effect should 
 accompauy the Confession. But tlie Committee cannot accept 
 this view. Tlie language quoted cannot be regarded as neces- 
 sarily involving it, and is loyally accepted by many who 
 refuse to admit the alleged inference. The Committee, in 
 view of the opinions held on this topic by many eminent and 
 orthodox divines, and of the discussions on it taking place in 
 our own and other countries, are of opinion that it would be 
 in the highest degree unwise for them, or for the Church, to 
 close a question which the Confession certainly leaves open. 
 Besides, the known views of the Reformers touching Scripture, 
 and the principle on which the Westminster Divines pro- 
 ceeded in framing this chapter, make it improbable, in the 
 
8 
 
 nidgiiieivt ol the Cuiiimillec, tliat tli(3 alleged inference was 
 held by the Westminster Divines themselves.' 
 
 " While a nK)tion was made in these terms by a member of 
 the Committee, whom you would probably associate with Mr. 
 Penney as ' one of the most able and scholarly theologians in 
 Scotland ' (all are ' able and scholarly ' who take one side on 
 this question, while those who take the other side are * un- 
 instructed Evangelicals '), the motion did not find a seconder 
 as thus expressed. A young lawyer oh'ered to second it, if 
 sundry amendments w^hich he suggested were made in its 
 terms. I daresay it will not surprise you that the motion, 
 both in its original and in its amended form, was vigorously 
 ■opposed by such members of the Connnittee as Messrs. Wallace, 
 Matthew, Salmond, and myself, who have consistently opposed 
 the views of Dr. Dods. 
 
 "But you will be more surprised when I add that the nioti(3n 
 in question was no less vigorously opposed by ]Mr. lioss Taylor 
 (who stated in the Committee that he disapproved of the use 
 of the terms ' errors ' and ' immoralities ' as applied to Holy 
 Scripture. . . . The motion was also opposed by Mr. Robert G. 
 Balfour and by Dr. Rainy, who left the Chair for the purpose, 
 and made one of the most satisfactory speeches on the subject 
 (satisfactory I mean from my point of view) to which I have 
 ever listened. 
 
 "Nor is that all. Even Dr. Blaikie, who, at the previous 
 meeting of the Connnittee had read a long paper on the same 
 lines as the 'Whither?' of Dr. Briggs, and had made the same 
 quotations from the writings of the Westminster divines, . . . 
 confessed at the (dose of the debate that he had got so much 
 new light in the course of the discussion, that he appealed to 
 the young theologian who had proposed the motion to with- 
 draw it. By this time it had been made abundantly manifest 
 that if that motion had been persisted in, it would have been 
 rejected by an o^^e^whelming majority of the members of the 
 ■Committee who were present. Doubtless coming to the con- 
 clusion that in the circumstances, ' discretion was the better 
 part of valour,' the proposer of the motion asked leave to with- 
 draw it, and the finding of the Committee, as published, was 
 declared to be ' unanimous.' 
 
" In view of these Tacts, I leave you to judge whether you are 
 now entitled to give an interpretation to the finding of the 
 Oomniittee different from what occurs to ' the plain man.' 
 The simple fact is that, living as you do in P]ngland, you 
 seem to be grievously misled by some of your correspondents 
 <is to the real state of belief on this subject in the Free 
 Church of Scotland. You evidently assume that all who 
 voted in favour of ])r. Dods at last Assembly, and who thus 
 ■expressed their admiration for the man, also sympathize with 
 his views, and are prepared to endorse all his utterances on 
 the subject of Holy Scripture including the very worst of all 
 (if correctly reported), viz. that contained in the Christian 
 World of November 20th, 1890, which simply makes the 
 individual consciousness the supreme arbiter as to what parts 
 of Scripture are to be accepted as true and authoritative. 
 
 " So far is this from being the case, I have been assured by 
 large numbers of those who voted in the last Assembly, even 
 for the motion of ]\Ir. Kenny, that (now that they better 
 understand the question at issue, as expounded in the 
 pamphlets we have issued, and as formulated in a paper 
 lodged by four of us with the Confession of Faith Committee, 
 for the very purpose of clearing away all irrelevancies) they 
 -are entirely at one with us on the doctrinal question 
 
 " I have always attached main importance in this matter to 
 the Church's own testimony to the true doctrine of Holy 
 Scripture. That being secured, I have always been prepared 
 to leave not a little to the honour and honesty of those who 
 voluntarily subscribe her creed, but T am sure that ' the 
 plain man ' will have little respect for the honour or honesty 
 of the man w^ho endorses such a statement as is made by the 
 Confession of Faith Committee, and yet goes on affirming that 
 there -loere errors in the Scriptures as originally given." 
 
 In tlie British WeeUy of April 2 an article appeared headed, 
 " Inspiration and ' the Plain Man,' ' in which a summary 
 (slightly inaccurate) was given of my letter. The Editor 
 added in the way of reply : — " Some members of the Committee 
 at least must differ from the interpretation of the ' plain man,' 
 or else they have changed their views. We cordially agree 
 with our friend that the churches liad better deal honestly 
 
10 
 
 with the ' phiiu man.' He is beiiinniiig to look askance, and 
 not without good reason." 
 
 I thank the Editor for remarks so opportune. If they 
 apply to any of those who have concurred in the finding- 
 of the Confession of Faith Committee, or (what is equivalent) 
 have subscribed the Confession itself (for the finding of 
 the Committee simply reduplicates upon its phraseology), 
 I hope they will be laid to heart. It is high time that 
 it should be understood in clerical circles that the " plain 
 man " is somewhat scandalized, when he finds professed ad- 
 hesion to the Scriptures or to the Confession followed by 
 attempts to give to their statements a non-natural meaning — 
 a meaning contrary to what occurs to himself. 
 
 lietter surely even a shorter creed with honest subscription 
 than a professed adherence to our present creed and dishonest 
 subscription. 
 
 While saying this, I will not be so uncharitable as to sup- 
 pose that those who subscribe the Confession and interpret it 
 in a non-natural way are consciously dishonest. They seem 
 always to be able somehow to persuade themselves that their 
 views are really covered by the Confession. The motion in 
 the Confession of Faith Committee above referred to, while 
 professing continued adherence to the Confession, declared that 
 the language of the Confession cannot be regarded as necessarily 
 involving " absolute freedom from error in every respect of 
 Scripture as originally given," and that it is " loyally accepted 
 by many who refuse to admit the alleged inference." Whether 
 by introducing the w^ords " in every respect " the proposer of 
 the motion sought to provide for himself and his friends a way 
 of escape by saying, as some others have done, that there are 
 in Scripture " errors " in grammar, and that the style is not 
 faultless as viewed from their standpoint, I do not know.* But 
 certainly if he understands by " error " what the " plain 
 man " takes it to mean, viz. the logical opposite of truthful 
 statement, I cannot see how the assertion of " infallible truth " 
 (a Confessional plirase homologated by the Committee) can be 
 consistent with holding that there were " errors " in the Scrip - 
 
 * See on this point the jmpoi- on "Inspiration," by Drs. A. A, Hodge 
 and Warfiekl, ]>. 4!). 
 
11 
 
 tiires as proceeding from " God (who is Truth itself), the Author 
 thereof." It is surely no mere " inference " to say that " in- 
 fallible truth " excludes " error " as thus defined. 
 
 This motion also proposed that the Confession of Faith 
 Committee should declare that it is " improbable " (Dr. Briggs 
 speaks more confidently on the subject) that the " alleged in- 
 ference was held by the Westminster divines themselves." 
 Such an assertion on the part of a young theologian can 
 scarcely excite surprise, considering tlie fact referred to by me 
 in my letter to the Editor of The British Weeldy, viz. that at 
 one of the meetings of the Committee, Dr. Blaikie read a long 
 and elaborate paper on the lines of Dr. Briggs, with tlie view 
 of proving that the framers of the Confession held that there 
 were " errors " in the Scriptures as originally given. Some of 
 us were wicked enough to suggest that the paper in question 
 should be published, so that the Church might have an oppor- 
 tunity of knowing what is taught her students by one of her 
 senior professors, and that an opportunity might be given of 
 refuting its statements in detail. 
 
 Considering that such a paper was read ; that similar 
 allegations as to the import of the Confession and the views 
 of its framers are made in the " Whither ? " of Dr. Briggs ; and 
 that we may yet hear of them on the floor of the Assembly 
 or otherwise (even although they received so little countenance 
 in the Confession of Faith Committee), I have felt it to be 
 my duty to anticipate their possible promulgation by repub- 
 lishing the thoroughly conclusive Eeply by Dr. Warfield to 
 Dr. Briggs on " The Westminster Doctrine of Inspiration " (see 
 pp. 64-74). 
 
 That reply was first brought under my notice in a letter by 
 Dr. Warfield to myself in which he says : — " With reference 
 to the question you ask, I should say that it ought not to be 
 a very difficult matter to convince open-minded people that 
 the Westminster Confession teaches the verbal inspiration and 
 inerrancy of the Scriptures. Men who wish to have it other- 
 wise can close their minds to any proof. The phrases em- 
 ployed, taken togetlier, absolutely require this interpretation : 
 e.g. the words in I. viii. ' heing immediately inspired by God ' 
 have a definite historical sense, and can be given no other 
 
12 
 
 honestly. Lot anybody look into any document of the times — 
 e.g. Hall's Catechism — to see what ' immediately inspired ' was 
 intended to teach. 
 
 " I should proceed (1) by bringing together tlie numerous 
 phrases bearing on the point in tlie Confession ; and expound- 
 ing their meaning: (2) by showing that these phrases histori- 
 cally mean verbal inspiration and inerrancy and nothing else ; 
 so that a contrary interpretation is reading a new and un- 
 intended meaning into perfectly explicit words : and {?)) by 
 showing tliat the framers of the Confession all held the 
 strictest theory of inspiration and meant to express it in these 
 words, witli which they were wont to express it. I was 
 amazed to hear Dr. Blaikie speak doubtingly of the old Scotch 
 doctrine. Surely someone will refute him out of the mouths 
 of the fathers. Dr. Briggs made a similar statement as to the 
 Westminster Divines, and I showed in The Indqicndent its 
 absolute incorrectness. The Westminster Divines without ex- 
 ception held to a very strict theory, and it is easy to excerpt 
 them and prove it." 
 
 In another letter, when forwarding his Keply to Dr. Briggs, 
 and authorizing its republication. Dr. Warfield says : — " I 
 regret that it is only a fragment of what might be done : but 
 the limits of a newspaper article are rather narrow for such a 
 discussion. The truth is that tlie attempt to foist any other 
 sense than the strictest on our Confession is the most hopeless 
 of tasks — if we are to interpret hisfnnenlhj : and scarcely less 
 so if we confine ourselves to the limits of the document. 
 The truth is that our Westminster fathers were inclined to a 
 mechanical tlieory of dictation, rather than to a loose theory. 
 T hope some one of your collaborateurs will do at least as much 
 for the Scotch worthies as my little ]iaper does for the West- 
 minster men." 
 
 In order to make perfectly intelligible the strictures 
 appearing in the '•' Whither ? " of Dr. Briggs, on the views on 
 inspiration of the Princeton Divines, and, at the same time, 
 show to what an extent these views have been misrepre- 
 sented by Dr. Blaikie, in his Letter to Dr. J^onar, I (with the 
 permission of Dr. Warfield) also republish the Tractate on 
 " Inspiration " written by Dr. A. A. Hodge and himself I 
 
13 
 
 do this the rather because I had circulated that Tract among 
 members of the Committee, and was thanked by Mr. (now Dr.) 
 Eoss Taylor for liaving thereby contributed to the clearing 
 away of misconceptions and misunderstandings, and thus aided 
 in bringing about the unanimous finding of the Committee. 
 
 In now republishing these valuable papers, I do not wish to 
 stir up the embers of the fires of controversy, but rather to 
 extinguish them by diffusing sucli instruction and information 
 as will tend to dispel the confusion of thought on this whole 
 ([uestion which so widely prevails. 
 
 I do this the more willingly because Dr. Blnikie was. 
 frank enough to admit at the close of the debate that he had. 
 got new light ; thus showing the importance of clear exposition. 
 He in particular expressed satisfaction wdth a statement I had 
 made on the closing night of the debate to the effect that when 
 we speak of the " infallible truth " of Holy Scripture we do not. 
 mean that everything recorded in Scripture is in itself true or 
 right. I instanced the sayings of devils and of wicked men, 
 which may be in themselves untrue, but are always truthfully 
 recorded, — to be refuted by CJod ; and 1 affirmed that, in such 
 cases, the Scriptures are responsible, not for the lies of Satan 
 or of wicked men, but for the Divine refutation thereof. 
 As 1 had already dealt w-ith the same point in my published 
 Eeply to Dr. Blaikie (pp. 17, IS), I was amazed that when- 
 giving expression to a truism with which I had supposed 
 every one to be familiar, it should thus have been regarded as- 
 an admission that brought great relief to the Professor's 
 mind, and convinced him that after all we were not so far 
 apart as he had at first supposed. My amazement was all 
 the greater, because at an early stage in the discussion four 
 of us had (as I have indicated in my letter to the Editor of The 
 British Weekly) lodged a Statement for the purpose of clearing 
 away irrelevancies and preventing misconceptions on the part of 
 our brethren as to the views we held, and so arriving, if 
 possible, at a connnon understanding. In that paper we had 
 l)een careful to specify the points we deemed essential, as also 
 those which we were prepared to regard " as within the 
 sphere of reverent criticism, so far as such criticism does 
 not traverse the statements of Scripture or of the Confession.'*' 
 
14 
 
 We made it perfectly clear that, while concerned about the 
 product of inspiration — viz. a hook of infallihle truth and Diviaf. 
 authority, we liad no desire to commit the Church to any 
 theory as to the modr of insi:)iration. Lest we niioht seem to 
 ask the Church to connnit herself to any theory as to mode, we 
 lefrained even from using the word " verbal," employed by J )r. 
 Warfield, although Dr. Blaikie, in 1880, in correction of a 
 statement he had made to me two years before, said : — " I do 
 believe in the doctrine of verbal inspiration; what I cannot 
 receive is, the doctrine of verljal dictation'' 
 
 Our statement was as follows : — " Although tlie Confession 
 makes no reference to human authorship as concerned in 
 the production of Holy Scripture, it assumes that the men 
 through whom the Lord committed to writing the knowledge of 
 His will were used by Him ns men with their personal 
 idiosyncrasies. 
 
 " This Church does not regard her (^nfession as laying down 
 iiny theory as to the mode of inspiration. As respects the jjto- 
 duct of inspiration, however, she holds, as taught in the 
 Confession, that the Scriptures of the ()ld and New Testaments 
 are all given by inspiration of God, so that they are ' the 
 Word of God written,' and whoever may have been their 
 human authors, ' God (who is Truth itself) is the Author 
 thereof.' 
 
 " While holding that * the full persuasion and assur- 
 .ance of the infallible truth and Divine authority' of these 
 Scriptures is due to ' the inward work of the Holy Spirit 
 bearing witness by and with the Word in the heart,' this 
 Church, at the same time, holds, and regards her Confession as 
 teaching, that as given by their Divine Author, these Scrip- 
 tures are, in all tlieir statements of fact, as well as of 
 doctrine and duty, infallibly true and divinely authoritative, 
 irres])ective of their reception by individuals. 
 
 "While tliis Church thus holds all the statements of the 
 •<jriginal Scriptures to be true in the sense divinely intended ; 
 .that sense being also consistent with a fair use of words within 
 the range of legitimate luiman speech, this is consistent with 
 her regarding as within tlie sphere of reverent criticism, so far 
 as such criticism does not traverse tlie statements of Scripture 
 
15 
 
 or of the Confession, all (|iiestions relating to — (1) the dates 
 and human authors of particular parts of Scripture; (2) the 
 sources whence these authors derived their information regard- 
 ing particular facts ; (o) the progressive character of the re- 
 velation of God's will both as respects doctrine and duty com- 
 municated through them ; (4) the distinction to be drawn be- 
 tween the sayings and doings of men and devils, which may in 
 themselves not be true or right, but are always truthfully re- 
 corded, and the use made of these in Scripture ' for doctrine, 
 for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ' ; (5) 
 the due recognition of the fact that, on the one hand, different 
 accounts of tlie same transaction may vary in the expression, 
 in the fulness or compression of the report, in the aspects which 
 receive emphasis or prominence, and yet be all alike true ; and 
 that, on the other hand, as regards reports of sayings or dis- 
 courses, inspiration does not guarantee verbatim reporting more 
 than any other kind of reporting ; (6) the literary character- 
 istics of the Bible ; (7) the correspondence of the present text 
 of Scripture, or of any particular version or translation with 
 the Scriptures as originally given ; (8) the meaning to be 
 attached to particular statements of Scripture. 
 
 *' While the various readings prove that copyists were not 
 miraculously preserved from mistakes in transcription, and 
 while uncertainty has thus been created in regard to the original 
 text of particular verses or words, this Church holds that no 
 doctrine or duty revealed in the Bible is affected by these 
 various readings, and in that sense she explains the declaration 
 made in sect. 8, chap. 1 of her Confession, viz., ' the Old Testa- 
 ment in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people 
 of God of old); and the Xew 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.' 
 
 " The Church holds that the apparent inaccuracies in incidental 
 and subordinate matters which have been regarded as difficulties 
 may be accounted for in other ways than by supposing any 
 
16 
 
 real iiiiici'urary to have Ijeen in ihe Scriptures as originally 
 given. 
 
 " ItOBEKT Howie. John IM'Ewan. 
 
 " Andrew Incjlis. Geoi{(;e Wallace." 
 
 AMien this detailed statement was made un our part, it was 
 met by assurances on the part of brethren who had been pro- 
 minent in their support of Dr. Dods, to the effect that ee|ually 
 with ourselves they regarded Scripture as infallibly true and 
 divinely authoritative, irrespective of its reception Ijy indi- 
 viduals ; and that they disapproved of the use of the terms 
 *' errors " and " immoralities " as applied to Scripture. So soon 
 as that was done, it became obvious that, notwitlistanding the 
 paper of Dr. Blaikie, which threatened to bring our discussion 
 to an abrupt termination, the great majority of the Committee 
 could not l)e far apart in tlieir views on the doctrinal questions 
 involved. 
 
 That agreement ultimately found expression in a motion of 
 which Dr. Koss Taylor gave notice, which, after sundry amend- 
 ments, was seconded by myself, and became the unanimous 
 finding of the Committee. 
 
 In the debate of last year, on the ease of Dr. Dods, I pressed 
 for the appointment of a Committee to confer with him, in the 
 hope that, in view of the assurances of his supporters, we might 
 arrive, if possible, at a common understanding. I then said : — 
 " If, as our brethren assure us, and if, as the motion of Dr. 
 Adam supposes, Dr. Dods is in harmony with the Church as 
 respects her doctrine — if, as it declares, he has given a strong 
 declaration of adherence to the doctrine of the Church— if that 
 is true, then I do not see why we should not try to get into 
 conference with him, and prevent this matter from being agitated 
 throughout the Church in our Church Courts." The Committee 
 then asked was not appointed, and the result has been agitation 
 to a certain extent in our Churcli Courts and otherwise. But that 
 agitation has been prevented from assuming an acute form by 
 the knowledge that some of us were doing our best, in the first 
 instance, to ascertain by mutual conference in the Confession of 
 Faith Committee, whether there are irreconcilable differences 
 in I lie Church in regard to the inspiration, infallible truth, and 
 Divine authority of Holy Scripture, the Church's supreme standard. 
 
17 
 
 The main drawback connected with these conferences was 
 the fact that neither Dr. Dods nor Dr. Bruce was present 
 (although the latter was a member of the Committee), and that 
 thus the Church is still left in ignorance as to whether they 
 will concur in the unanimous finding of that Committee, and 
 loyally accept it when endorsed by the Assembly. 
 
 If, however, their absence is, in one aspect, to be regretted, 
 in another, it may have contributed to a speedier agreement. 
 The doctrinal question has been happily discussed on its own 
 merits, apart from the l^earing of the Committee's finding upon 
 m\j individual. 
 
 May I express the hope, that in a similarly fearless fashion, 
 the Assembly will realize its duty to the Great Head of the 
 Church, in a matter which so largely concerns His honour, and 
 that, in the presence of other churches and of an unbelieving 
 world (sorely in need of such a testimony), it will boldly 
 •avow the " full and steadfast adherence of the Church to the 
 doctrines laid down in the Confession as to the great truths 
 of the inspiration, infallible truth, and Divine authority of 
 Holy Scripture as proceeding from God who is the Author 
 thereof." 
 
 From numerous communications made to me, and from the 
 large numl^ers (from every part of the country) who have 
 indicated their adherence to the " Statement " issued by the 
 Committee " on the cases of Drs. Dods and Bruce," I have the 
 best means of knowing that only thus can mutual confidence, 
 peace, and harmony be restored throughout the Church. It is 
 simply impossible for me to convey any adequate conception of 
 the anxiety that exists on this subject, especially among office- 
 bearers and members. 
 
 Of the intensity of conviction that exists not a few of our 
 ministers and congregations have had proof in the withdrawal 
 from the Free Church of office-bearers and members (a fact which 
 I greatly deplore) ; while many others, as I have been assured 
 by themselves, only remain in her fellowship in the hope 
 that a deliverance will be adopted by next Assembly in 
 harmony with the finding of the Confession of Faith 
 Committee. 
 
 Ominous rumours have already been put into circulation to 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 the efi'ect, that iilth()U«'h unable to cany their point in the 
 Confession of Faitli Committee, and not having the courage to 
 show the comparative insignificance of their following by pro- 
 ceeding to a division, the "forward movement" party (who 
 went the length of proposing in the Committee to treat as 
 an open question what Books should be included in the 
 Canon), may yet propose a deliverance in the Assembly in the 
 line of the motion which was withdrawn, and thus prevent 
 a unanimous finding of the Assembly. 
 
 I can scarcely credit such a rumour. But if this is the 
 policy to be pursued, I have no hesitation in saying that peace 
 will be impossible. Nay more, if peace is to be lasting, 
 and if confidence is to be fully restored, there must be more 
 than a deliverance of the Assembly in harmony with the find- 
 ing of the Confession of Faith Committee. Individual pro- 
 fessors and ministers must hereafter loyally respect that deliver- 
 ance in their teaching and public utterances. If, through 
 the discussions that have taken place, they have not yet 
 got sufficient light to lead them (to use the phrase of The 
 British Wcdiy) to "change" their views," they must at least,, 
 so long as they continue in the Church, discontinue those 
 '' intemperate " utterances, in which, on the one hand, they 
 misrepresent the views of their brethren, and, on the other,, 
 convey the impression that they regard it as their main 
 mission to prove that there were " errors " in the Scriptures 
 as originally given, and thus to subvert faith in the Word of 
 Cod, and seriously to hinder the work of the Christian 
 ministry. 
 
 In last Assembly, the late Dr. Adam, referring specially to 
 the theory of Dr. Dods on inspiration, according to which " the 
 sacred writers were not guarded against inaccuracies of all 
 kinds," said that it " involved tremendous risks," and put the 
 pertinent questions : " Here was a principle, and where were 
 they to stop in its application ? Here was a chink, and 
 would it not open, would it not widen, until the whole flood 
 came rushing in ? " 
 
 Already the truth of these words has been verified, and that 
 too notwithstanding the findino- of last Assembly, that 
 the Church " views the use of the term ' mistakes and im- 
 
19 
 
 moralities ' to describe recognized difficulties in the Scriptures 
 as utterly unwarranted, and fitted to give grave offence." 
 
 The " chink " is opening. Did not Dr. Blaikie, in his 
 Letter to Dr. Bonar, warmly espouse the cause of Dr. Dods ? 
 Have there not been other utterances of a similar kind by less 
 influential men ? And then as regards Dr. Dods himself. So 
 far from publicly modifying the views condemned by last 
 Assembly ; so far from ceasing those " intemperate " utterances 
 on which the College Committee animadverted ; so far from 
 yielding to the remonstrances even of some of his supporters, 
 he has, since last Assembly, made statements of such an objec- 
 tionable and offensive kind, that anyone who may desire 
 to institute proceedings against him, under the re-affirmed 
 Confession of Faith, will not be under the necessity of raising 
 any question as to whether the finding of last Assembly 
 went far enough in condemnation of his views, and of thus 
 dealing with a res judicata. On the contrary, he will be able 
 to plead that the fresh utterances of Dr. Dods, since last 
 Assembly, are specially worthy of condemnation, because they 
 are even more sweeping and far-reaching in their consequences 
 than those dealt with by that Assembly, while their pro- 
 mulgation is more blameworthy, in view of the action already 
 taken in his case, first by the Assembly of 1878 and then 
 by that of 1890. 
 
 In my Reply to Dr. Blaikie (pp. 41-42), I have dealt 
 with one of these utterances, viz., that contained in The 
 British Weekly of October 2, 1890. All now needed in this 
 connection is to give extracts from a letter I received from 
 the Editor of that paper and from my reply to him. 
 He says : " I w^as not aware I had used the phrase ' un- 
 instructed Evangelicals ' which you quote, and I am sorry 
 I did. There are ' uninstructed Evangelicals ' just as there 
 are * uninstructed Broad- Church men,' but such phrases are on 
 the whole both offensive and untrue." To this I replied : 
 "When I quoted the words 'uninstructed Evangelicals,' I 
 did not mean to say that they had been used by yourself, 
 although they appeared in The British Weekly . . . The 
 words ... as you will see from my Eeply to Dr. Blaikie (p. 5) 
 were used by Dr. Dods in an article in The British Weeliy ot 
 
date October 2, in whicli he tia^j^raiitly iDisre[)reseiits the 
 opinions of those opposed to him l)y declaring that they affirm 
 ' Tliat Christianity stands or falls with the absolute inerrancy 
 of every clause of Scripture,' and represents them as com- 
 bining 'with Secularists, Atheists, and anti-Christians in general 
 to betray the Christian position.' I know of no ' Evangelical 
 in Scotland wdio affirms ' that Christianity stands or falls with 
 the absolute inerrancy of every clause of Scripture.' Apart 
 from: the fact that some clauses in Scripture contain, as I said 
 in my last, the lies of Satan and of wicked men, which 
 are trutlifuUy recorded in order to be refuted, it is surely 
 one thing to contend for the inerrancy of the original Scrip- 
 tures, properly understood and defined, and quite another thing 
 to make it the foundation of Christianity.* This is a specimen 
 however of the nnsrepresentations of our views with which we 
 are familiar in this controversy, another being, that Ave are con- 
 tending for the theory of mechanical inspiration or verbal 
 dictation. These misrepresentations, though again and again 
 repudiated, seem to be reiterated for the purpose of proving 
 that all ' Evangelicals ' who contend for the inerrancy of the 
 original Scriptures are ' uninstructed,' and that they ' cond)ine 
 with Atheists, Secularists, and anti-Christians in general to 
 betray the Christian position ' . . . I am glad that you so 
 frankly admit that there are ' uninstructed Broad-Church men ' 
 even as there are ' uninstructed Evangelicals,' and that witli 
 myself you deprecate the use of such phrases as ' on the wliole 
 both offensive and untrue.' " 
 
 Another of the " intemperate " utterances of ])i\ Dods was 
 very fully reported in The Christian World of Nov. 20, 181)0. 
 When. I directed the attention of the Confession of Faith Com- 
 mittee to what appeared to be its underlying principle, viz. 
 that the individual consciousness is the supreme arbiter of wdiat 
 parts of the Bible are to be accepted as infallibly true and 
 divinely authoritative, there was on tlie part of all wdio spolce 
 an emphatic repudiation of such a principle, and an affirmation of 
 the objective truth and authority of the Bible, irrespective of 
 its " finding " the individual. But T was reminded, that as 1 
 
 *8ee the beHefs of Evangelicals on this point, well stated by l)r. 
 Warfield at p]). 28, 29. 
 
21 
 
 had not put myself into personal communication with Dr. Dods 
 I had no right to assume that the report in question correctly 
 represents what he actually said on the occasion referred to. 
 Some of his friends have even gone the length of telling me 
 in private that they do not believe he could utter such state- 
 ments as are there imputed to him, and urged in support of 
 that view the self-contradictory character of some of the re- 
 ported utterances. 
 
 Xo one will rejoice more tlian myself if Dr. Dods is in a 
 position to say that the report in question is inaccurate, and^ 
 either point out clearly and definitely in what respects he has 
 been misreported, or publish a correct version of w^hat he 
 actually did say in addressing the students of Edinburgh 
 University. 
 
 I humbly submit that, in view of the extraordinary 
 nature of the statements reported to have been uttered by 
 him — their self-contradictory character — the combination of 
 Eationalism, Mysticism, and liomanism they exhibit, — it was 
 clearly the duty of Dr. Dods from a regard both to his own 
 reputation and to that of the Church of which he is a Pro- 
 fessor, to have long ere this made the necessary correction, if 
 he has been to any extent misreported, and the more so as 
 attention has been publicly called on more than one occasion 
 to that report. 
 
 While I do not admit that all the ministers of the Church 
 are bound to put themselves into personal communication with 
 Dr. Dods before animadverting on statements publicly reported 
 to have been made by him, especially after he has failed to 
 correct the report when his attention has been called to it (as 
 was done in my Eeply to Dr. Blaikie, a copy of which was for- 
 warded to Dr. Dods), I am still so unwilling to believe that he 
 could have made the statements in question, that I forbear 
 further comment until he states publicly whether in any respect 
 that report requires correction. I shall content myself with 
 quoting it xerhatim et literathn — as follows : — 
 
 "THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE." 
 
 " Professor Marcus Dods lectured on Friday evening to the Edin- 
 burgh University Theological Society on ' The Seat of Authority in 
 
Ix elision.' Protestantisiu, he remarked in tlie course of his lecture, 
 is not merely the substitution of one external authority for another — 
 the Church for Scripture — it is rather the exchange of what is out- 
 ward for what is inward, of what is indirect for what is direct. It is 
 tlie exchange of God's voice recognized and interpreted Vjy the Church, 
 for God's voice recognized and interpreted by the individual. But he 
 is only half a Protest.-mt who merely transfers his allegiance from the 
 Church to the Bible. To accept the Bible on the Church's authority, 
 und to accept every statement in it as infalliljly true, whether it 
 awakes res})onse in the conscience or not, is to remain precisely in the 
 Komanist's position. It is to yield the guidance of our own spiritual 
 affairs to something external to conscience, and thereby separate our- 
 selves from God. The two extreme positions are equally untenable. 
 It is impossible to maintain the infallibility of the Bible on the 
 ground of its literal accuracy ; and it is impossible to maintain that 
 the Bible is not infallible because there may be found in it inaccur- 
 acies. That the Bible was not meant to be used as a mechanical 
 standard of truth is proved by the fact that it is not infallible in all 
 its particular statements. Literal and mechanical accuracy in minute 
 details was evid'^.ntly not aimed at, or, at all events, has not been at- 
 taijied. From the discrepancies we find we cannot but conclude that 
 in the Gospels we do not })ossess an account of our Lord's words and 
 iictions flawlessly accurate in all details. We have reports which 
 vary and sometimes contradict one anothei*, and which cannot both be 
 accurate. Yet there are persons who say they will give up the Bible 
 altogether if there be one proved error in it, that their salvation de- 
 pends on the absolute accuracy of every word and sentence from the 
 first verse of Genesis to the last of Revelation. Their salvation de- 
 })ends on no such thing. It is the merest infatuation to say it does. 
 Our faith depends on a living Person who cannot be separated from 
 us, and Wiio drew to iliuiself and redeemed many before ever there was 
 a written New Testament. The Bible is infallible as a guide to those 
 who, with childlike spirit and seeking the truth, follow its light. It 
 actually leads men to Christ. It is infallible in its substance, though 
 not in its form, as a whole though not in each particular pait, in the 
 .spii^it though not always in the letter. 
 
 "The discrepancies, in themselves tiifling and of no consequence, 
 l)ecome of alarming consequence when used as a lever to subvert the 
 infallibility of Scripture by writers who take advantage of the claim 
 of literal infallibility advanced by well-intentioned persons. This 
 
23 
 
 claim is easily disposed of by means of those discrepancies, and the 
 inference is drawn that the infallibility for which we contend does 
 not exist. But literal infallibility is not that for which we contend, 
 and those discrepancies might be multiplied a hundnidfold and yet 
 not be inconsistent with true infallibility. 
 
 " For, first, unimportant errors in detail are never allowed to dis- 
 credit a historian. The rule ' Fahua in uno, fahu!:i in omnibus' is 
 followed in the case of a deliberate falsifier, but is absurd if applied 
 to one who errs through lack of knowledge. One who intentionally 
 deceives you, a witness on oath who deliberately gives false witness, 
 cannot any more be trusted, and the whole of his evidence is dis- 
 credited ; but there is no man who would not occasionally stumble 
 into error — error at once condoned, and which casts no shadow on 
 bis general reputation for truth. There is no historian who has not 
 been proved in error ; but occasional, unintentional, uniiuportant 
 error is lost to view in the general reputation for accuracy which the 
 historian acquires. But what is unimportant error 1 Is not all 
 error important where Divine and eternal interests are concerned 1 
 No ! else God would have provided for the absence of all error. 
 Error is unimportant when it does not affect the purpose of the 
 whole. No errors in Scripture are im]iortant which do not hinder 
 it from conveying to us an adequate apprehension of God's 
 revelation. It must bfe judged by its fulfilment of its object, which 
 was to enable us to apprehend God in Christ, and lead us to Him. 
 To deny that it has fulfilled this object is too audacious even for 
 scepticism. The Christian ages stand behind us loudly witnessing 
 that Scripture has done its work. Here we find the 'impregnable 
 rock' of Sciipture. No Church or criticism can come in between 
 my soul and the Figure it presents. That Figure I see in the 
 Gospels I find also in my life. The same patience and wisdom and 
 divinity that command my adoration in the Gospels shine on my life 
 and <^ive it all the worth and hope it has. Criticism may cut off a 
 frinj^e or a tassel from His garments, but the features and expression 
 it cannot touch. They shine with self-evidencing power into every 
 perplexed heart. 
 
 " It is feared by some that if we frankly accept the Reformation 
 principle it v;ill leave every man to be the judge of what is Scripture 
 and what is not, and that even when a book is acknowledged to be 
 apostolic it remains with the individual to say how much of it he 
 is pleased to receive as God's Word. But this is practically our 
 
■2i 
 
 present method of treating the Bible. Who is at the reader's elbow 
 as he reads Exodus and Leviticus to tell him what is of ^^ermanen^ 
 authority and what was for the Mosaic dispensation alone ? Who 
 whispers as we read Genesis and Kings, * I'his is exemplary ; this is 
 not ' 't Who sifts for us the speeches of Job and enables us to 
 treasure as divine truth what he utters in one verse while we reject 
 the next as Satanic ravings l Who gives the preacher accuracy, — 
 who gives him authority of aim to pounce on a sound text in 
 Ecclesiastes while wisdom and folly toss and roll over one another in 
 confusion and inextricable contortions ? What enables the humblest 
 Christian to come safely through all the cursing Psalms and go 
 straight to forgive his enemy ? What tells us we may eat things 
 strangled though the whole college of apostles deliberately and ex- 
 pressly prohibit such eating? Who assures us we need not 
 anoint the sick with oil though James bids us do so ? In a word, 
 how is it that the simplest reader can be trusted with the Bible, and 
 can be left to find liis own spiritual nourishment in it? Paul solves 
 the whole matter for us in his bold and exhaustive words, 'The 
 spiritual man — the man who has the Spirit of Christ — ^^judgeth all 
 things.' This, and only this, is the true touchstone by which all 
 things are tried. Let a man accept Christ and His Spirit, and there is 
 no fear of him rejecting what Christ means he should receive, 
 
 "Two things effectually prevent an extreme individualism. First, 
 the Christian knows that certain men were commissioned and 
 equipped by Christ to teach His religion, who therefore come with 
 enormous primd facie evidence in their favour. Towards their 
 writings, whose truth has been verified by thousands of every genera- 
 tion finding in them the God and Saviour their souls craved, no 
 reverence can be too great. Second, the extremest Christian indi- 
 vidualist must acknowledge the Church of which he is but a small 
 member. If there be lessons which do not find him, and elicit 
 cordial response in him, he remembers that he is not the whole 
 Church for whom Scripture is needed ; and that what seems to him 
 useless may be to another full of help ; and that, as his own ex- 
 perience varies, what he considers a stone to-day he may find to be 
 the bread of life at some future period." 
 
 As showing further how unsatisfactory are the public utter- 
 ances of another of our professors, and how impossible it is 
 for a co-presbyter to draw from him any definite statement of 
 
25 
 
 his positive beliefs in regard to important truths which he 
 seems to have controverted or ignored, I have, for the informa- 
 tion of the Church, now published (pp. 81-86), letters 
 sent by me to Professor Drummond with reference to his 
 Pax Vohiscum. They sutticiently explain why his letters in 
 reply are not included. As the Professor excludes reporters 
 from his meetings with students, so, when I wrote to him in 
 regard to his published booklet, and intimated at the outset 
 that my letters to him might be published, he insisted on 
 marking his replies as " private." 
 
 I have also reprinted (pp. 75-80), critifjues by Dr. Warfield 
 which appeared in the April number of the New York Presby- 
 terian and Ilef armed Eexiev: ; an Extract from the Writings of 
 the late Principal Cunningham ; and the leading article of the 
 Kings Own for February last. I do so the rather, because 
 they embody in the smallest possible compass the essential 
 principles involved in this controversy. 
 
 In republishing in Scotland these valuable papers, written by 
 men held in high esteem in all Presbyterian, and, indeed, in 
 all Evangelical Churches, it is my aim to make Confessional 
 truth so plain that there shall be no further ground of offence. 
 Very specially do I desire that there shall be no misunder- 
 standing in regard to so vital a point as the Church's doctrine 
 of Holy Scripture — a point which must be settled and sure, if 
 there is to be any agreement whatever on otlier Scripture 
 doctrines. 
 
 In conclusion, let me say that I regret exceedingly that in 
 this controversy, now drawing to a close, as I hope, I have come 
 into renewed collision with professors for whom I have a high 
 personal regard, and from whose published w^ritings I have 
 derived not a little profit. My present references to their 
 utterances since last Assembly are made most reluctantly, but 
 made under a solemn sense of duty, and in the earnest 
 hope that these professors may yet volunteer public explana- 
 tions of so satisfactory a kind in regard to the matters to which 
 I have thus directed attention, as to allay anxiety throughout 
 the Church and restore confidence in tlieir teaching. 
 
 " Shall the sword devour for ever ? " Are not the ordinary 
 ministers of the Church (who are brought face to face with 
 
26 
 
 the baneful efl'ec^ts of unceilaiiity as to JJivine verities) 
 entitled to ask that their efforts to commend tlie Word of 
 God, the God of the Word, and the Saviour tlierein revealed, 
 shall not be counteracted by the ''intemperate" and mischievous 
 utterances of those occupying influential positions in the 
 Ohurch, and entrusted with the training of her future ministers? 
 In presence of the remarkable fact that the Scriptures, of 
 whose inspiration, infallible truth, and Divine authority the 
 other proofs are so alnuidant, have during recent years been 
 receiving from arclueological discoveries fresh confirmation, 
 even in their most minute details,* we may surely expect our 
 theologians of " light and leading " soon to cease their rash, 
 irreverent, unproved, and unprovable assertions as to the 
 existence of errors in these Scriptures, as they proceeded from 
 " God (who is Truth itself) the Author thereof," especially as 
 such assertions contradict the express testimony of Scripture 
 and of our Lord and His Apostles. 
 
 *(See pp. 50-54), Canon Tristram says :—" Looking back for less 
 than forty years, it requires no small effort to grasp the vast advance 
 whicli has been made in a single generation in the confirmation and 
 illustration of Old Testament history from external sources. The sepul- 
 chres of Egypt have been ransacked, the mounds of Assyria and Baby- 
 lonia have been excavated, the hills and rivers of Palestine have been 
 searched, and the result is that there is scarcely a single incident, wher- 
 ever the sacred narrative imi)inges on the history or transactions of 
 neighbouring nations, in Avhieh the minute accuracy of the Biblical record 
 is not established." 
 
TRACTATE ON INSPIRATION. 
 
 BY 
 
 Professor ARCHIBALD A. HODGE, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 AND 
 
 I'ROFESSOR BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, D.D. 
 
 (Reprinted, hy permission. ) 
 
 Tpie word " Inspiration," as applied to the Holy Scriptures, 
 has gradually acquired a specific technical meaning inde- 
 pendent of its etymology. At first this word, in the sense of 
 '' God-breathed," was used to express the entire agency of 
 God in producing tliat divine element which distinguishes 
 Scripture from all other writings. It was used in a sense 
 compreliensive of supernatural revelation, while the immense 
 range of providential and gracious divine activities concerning 
 the genesis of the word of God in human language was 
 practically overlooked. But Christian scholars have come to 
 see that this divine element, which penetrates and glorifies 
 Scripture at every point, has entered and become incorporated 
 with it in ver}- various ways, natural, supernatural and 
 gracious, through long courses of providential leading, as well 
 as by direct suggestion — through tlie spontaneous action of the 
 souls of the sacred writers, as well as by controlling infiuence 
 from without. It is important that distinguishable ideas 
 should be connoted by distinct terms, and that the terms 
 themselves should be fixed in a definite sense. Thus we have 
 come to distinguish sharply between Eevelation, which is the 
 frequent, and Inspiration, which is the constant, attribute of 
 all the thoughts and statements of Scripture, and between the 
 problem of the genesis of Scripture on the one hand, which 
 includes historic processes and the concurrence of natural and 
 supernatural forces, and must account tor all the phenomena 
 •of Scripture, and the mere fact of inspiration on the other 
 
/ J 
 
 28 
 
 liand, ur the supiTiiiU'iHlciR-c hv (iud of the writers in the 
 entire proeess of their wrilinLi, wliieli accounts for nothing 
 wlial.'ver l)ut tlie absolute infaUibility of the record in which 
 the n'velation, once generated, appears in the original auto- 
 graph. It will he observed tliat we intentionally avoid ap)ply- 
 ing to this inspiration ilie })redieate ' inHuence." It sum- 
 moned, on occasion, a great variety of influences, but its 
 essence was superintendence. This superintendence attended 
 the entire process of the genesis of Scripture, and particularly 
 the process of the final coiu])osition of the record. It inter- 
 fered with no spontaneous natural agencies, which were, in 
 iheniselves, producing results conformable to the mind of the 
 Jloly S[)irit. On occasion it sunnuoned all needed divine in- 
 Huences and suggestions, and it sealed the entire record and all 
 its elements, however generated, with the imprimatur of Ood,. 
 sending it to us as his Word. 
 
 The ini])ortance of limiting the word " inspiration " to a 
 detiniie and never-varying sense, and one which is shown, by 
 the facts of the case, to be applicable ecjually to every part of 
 Scrii)ture, is self-evident, and is emphasized by the embar- 
 rassment which is continually recurring in the discussions of 
 tliis subject, arising sometimes from the wide, and sometimes 
 from the various, senses in which this term is used by 
 different parties. The hist(.)ry of theology is full of parallel 
 instances, in which terms of the highest import have come ta 
 l)e accepted in a more fixed and narrow sense than they bore 
 at first either in scriptural or early ecclesiastical usage, and 
 witli only a remote relation to their etymology; as, for in- 
 stance, IJegeneration, Sacrament, etc. 
 
 i'i;Ksri'i'()siTi()Ns. 
 
 From this detiniiion of ihc term it is evident that instead of 
 being, in tlie order of thought, the first religious truth which 
 we embrace, U])on which, subsei^uently, the entire fabric of 
 true religi(.n rests, it is the last and crowning attribute of 
 those sacred books from which we derive our religious know- 
 ledge. Very many religious and historical truths must be 
 established before we come to the (question of inspiration; as^ 
 
29 
 
 for instance, tlie being and moral goveinnieut of Goc), the 
 fallen condition of man, the fact of a redemptive scheme, the 
 general historical truth of the Scriptures, and the validity and 
 authority of the revelation of God's will, which they contain — 
 i.e. the general truth of Christianity aud its doctrines. Hence 
 it follows that, wliile tlie inspiration of the Scriptures is true, 
 and, being true, is a principle fundamental to the adequate 
 interpretation of Scripture, it nevertheless is not in the first 
 instance a principle fundamental to the trutli of the Christian 
 religion. In dealing with sceptics it is not proper to begin 
 with the evidence which immediately establishes inspiration, 
 but we should first establish theism, then the historical credi- 
 bility of the Scriptures, and then the divine origin of Chris- 
 tianity. Nor should we ever allow it to be believed that the 
 truth (jf Christianity depends upon any doctrine of inspiration 
 whatever, lievelation came in large part before the record of 
 it, and the Christian Church before tlie Xew Testament Sci-ip- 
 tures. Inspiration can have no meaning if Christianity is not 
 true, Ijut Christianity would be true and divine — and, being 
 so, would stand — even if Cod had not been pleased to give us, 
 in addition to his revelation of saving truth, an infallible 
 record of that revelation absolutely errorless 1)y means of 
 inspiration. 
 
 In the second place, it is also evident that our conception of 
 revelation and its methods must be conditioned upon our 
 general views of God's relation to the world, and his methods 
 of influencing the souls of men. Tlie only really dangerous 
 opposition to the Church doctrine of inspiration comes either 
 directly or indirectly, but always ultimatel}', from some false 
 view of (jJod's relation to the world, of his methods of working, 
 and of the possibility of a supernatural agency penetrating and 
 altering the course of a natural process. But the whole genius 
 of Christianity, all of its essential and most characteristic 
 doctrines, presuppose the immanence of God in all his creatures, 
 and his concurrence with them in all of their spontaneous 
 activities. In him, as an active, intelligent Spirit, we all live 
 and move and have our being. He governs all his creatures 
 and all their actions, wTjrking in men even to will and spon- 
 taneously to do his good pleasure. The currents, thus, of the 
 
30 
 
 di\iiit' at'livities do not only tlow around us, conditioning or 
 controlliuL: our action from without, but they none the less 
 llow wiiliin tlic inner current of our personal lives, confluent 
 with our sjjontaneous self-movements, and contributing to the 
 effects whatever properties God may see fit that they shall 
 have. 
 
 There is also a real logical and ideal, if not a physical, 
 continuity between all the various provinces and methods of 
 God's working : providence and grace, the natural and the 
 supernatural, all constitute one system in the execution of one 
 plan. All these agents and all these methods are so perfectly 
 adjusted in the plan of God that not one interferes with any 
 other, and all are so adjusted and controlled as that each works 
 perfectly, according to the law of its own nature, and yet all 
 together infallibly bring about the result God designs. In 
 this case that design is a record without error of the facts and 
 doctrines he had commissioned his servants to teach. 
 
 Of the manner in which God may inform and direct a free 
 intelligence without violating its laws we have a familiar 
 analogy in Nature in the relation of instinct to free intelligence. 
 Intelligence is personal, and involves self-consciousness and 
 liberty. Instinct is impersonal, unconscious, and not free. 
 Both exist alike in man, with whom intelligence predominates, 
 and in the higher animals, with whom instinct predominates. In 
 every case the instinct of the creature is the intelligence of the 
 Creator working through the creature's spontaneity, informing 
 and directing, yet never violating any of the huvs of his free 
 intelligence. And in Nature we can trace this all the way 
 from the instinct of the bee, Avhich works mechanically, to the 
 magic play of the lesthetic instincts, which largely constitute 
 the genius of a great artist. We are not absurdly attempting 
 to draw a parallel between natural instinct and supernatural 
 inspiration. lUit the illustration is good simply to show that 
 as a matter of fact God does prompt from within the spon- 
 taneous activities of his intelligent creatures, leading them by 
 unerring means to ends imperfectly discerned by themselves ; 
 and that this activity of God, as in instinct or otherwise, does 
 not in any wise reveal itself, either in consciousness or in the 
 cliaracter of the action to which it prompts, as interfering with 
 
31 
 
 the personal attributes or the free rational activities of the 
 creature. 
 
 THE GENESIS OF SCRIPTUKE. 
 
 We allude here to this wide and as yet imperfectly explored 
 subject only for the purpose of distinctly setting apart the 
 various problems it presents, and isolating the specific point of 
 inspiration, with which we, as well as the Church in general, 
 are more particularly interested. All parties of believers 
 admit that this genesis of Holy Scripture was the result of the 
 co-operation, in various ways, of the agency of men and the 
 agency of God. 
 
 The human agency, both in the histories out of which tlie- 
 Scriptures sprang, and in their immediate composition and 
 inscription, is everywhere apparent, and gives substance and 
 form to the entire collection of writings. It is not merely in 
 the matter of verbal expression or literary composition that the 
 personal idiosyncrasies of each author are freely manifested by 
 the untrammelled play of all his faculties, but the very sub- 
 stance of what they write is evidently for the most part the 
 product of their own mental and spiritual activities. This is 
 true except in that comparatively small element of the whole 
 body of sacred writing in which the human authors simply 
 report the word of God objectively communicated, or, as in 
 some of the prophecies, they wrote by divine dictation. As 
 the general characteristic of all their work, each writer was 
 put to that special part of the general work for which he alone 
 was adapted by his original endowments, education, special 
 information and providential position. Each drew from the 
 stores of his own original information, from the contributions of 
 other men and from all other natural sources. Each sought 
 knowledge, like all other authors, from the use of his own 
 natural faculties of thought and feeling, of intuition and of 
 logical inference, of mejnor}' and imagination, and of religious 
 experience. Each gave evidence of his own special limitations 
 of knowledge and mental power, and of his personal defects as 
 well as of his powers. Each wrote upon a definite occasion,, 
 under special historically grouped circumstances, from his own 
 standpoint in the progressively unfolded plan of redemption^ 
 
32 
 
 and each made; his own special contribution to tlie fabric of 
 (ioiVs word. 
 
 The divine !i,L;ency, although originathi.Li; in a different source, 
 yet emerges into the effect very much througli the same 
 channels. The Scriptures have been generated, as the plan 
 4)i" redeni])li(tn has been evolved, tlirough an historic process. 
 From the l)eginning (Jod lias dealt witli man in the concrete, 
 by self-jnanifestations and transactions. The revelation pro- 
 <;eei]s from facts to ideas, and has been gradually unfolded as 
 the preparation for the execution of the work of redemption 
 lias advanced tlu'ongh its snccessive stages. The general pro- 
 vidence unfolding this plan has always been divine, yet has 
 also been largely natural in its method, while specially directed 
 to its ends, and at tlie same time surcharged along portions of 
 its line, especially at the beginning and at great crises, with 
 the supernatural, as a cloud is surcharged with electricity. 
 There were divine voices, appearances, covenants, supernatural 
 connnunications and interventions — the introduction of new 
 institutions, and their growth nnder special providential condi- 
 tions. The prophet of God was sent with special revelations 
 and authority at particular junctures to gather and interpret 
 the lessons of the past, and to add to them lessons springing 
 out of the providential conditions of the present. The Scrip- 
 tures were generated through sixteen centuries of this divinely- 
 regulated concurrence of (iod and man, of the natural and the 
 supernatural, of reason and revelation, of providence and grace. 
 Tliey are an (.)rganism consisting of many ])arts, each adjusted 
 to all the rest, as the "many members" to the "one body." 
 Each sacred writer was by God specially formed, endowed, 
 educated, providentially conditioned, and then supplied witli 
 knowledge naturally, supernaturally or spiritually conveyed, so 
 tliat he, and he alone, could, and freely would, produce his 
 allotted ])art. Thus God predetermined all the matter and 
 form of the several books largely by the formation and training 
 of the several authors, as an organist determines the character 
 nf his nuisic as nmch when lie builds his organ and when 
 lie tunes his pipes as when he plays his keys. Each 
 writer also is put providentially at the very point of view 
 in tlie general progress of revelation to which his i)art assigns 
 
33 
 
 hirn. He inherits all the contributions of tlie past. He 
 is brought into place and set to work at definite providential 
 junctures, the occasion afibrding him object and motive, giving 
 form to the writing God appoints him to execute. 
 
 The Bible, moreover, being a work of the Spirit for spiritual 
 ends, each writer was prepared precisely for his part in the 
 work by the personal dealings of the Holy Spirit with his 
 soul. Spiritual illumination is very different from either re- 
 velation or inspiration, and yet it had, under the providence 
 of God, a large share in the genesis of Scripture, contributing 
 to it a portion of that divine element which makes it the 
 word of God. The Psalms are divinely-inspired records of 
 the religious experience of their writers, and are by God 
 himself authoritatively set forth as typical and exemplary for 
 all men for ever. Paul and John and Peter largely drew 
 upon the resources and followed the lines of their own per- 
 sonal religious experience in the intuitional or the logical 
 development of their doctrine ; and their experience had, of 
 course, been previously divinely determined for that very 
 purpose. And in determining their religious experience God 
 so far forth determined their contributions to Scripture. And 
 he furnished each of the sacred writers, in addition to that 
 which came to him through natural channels, all the know- 
 ledge needed for his appointed task, either by vision, sug- 
 gestion, dictation or elevation of faculty, or otherwise, accord- 
 ing to his will. The natural knowledge came from all 
 sources, as traditions, documents, testimonies, personal obser- 
 vations and recollections — by means also of intuitions, logical 
 processes of thought, feeling, experience; etc. ; and yet all were 
 alike under the general direction of God's providence. The 
 supernatural knowledge became confluent with the natural in 
 a manner which violated no law of reason or of freedom. 
 And throughout the whole of his work the Holy Spirit was 
 present, causing his energies to flow into the spontaneous 
 exercises of the writer's faculties, elevating and directing where 
 need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in 
 language of the thought designed by God. This last element 
 is what we call " Inspiration." 
 
 In all this process, except in a small element of prophecy, 
 
34 
 
 i: is evideiiL tliat as the sacred writers were free and active in 
 tlieir thinking and in the expression of their thoughts, so they 
 were conscious of what they were doing, of what their words 
 meant, and of the design of their utterance. Yet, even then, 
 it is no less evident that they all, like other free instruments 
 uf Trovidence, " builded better tlian they knew." The mean- 
 ings of their words, the bearing of the principles they taught, 
 of the facts they narrated, and the relation of their own part 
 to the great organism of divine revelation, while luminous 
 to their own consciousness, yet reached out into infinitely 
 wider horizons than tliose penetrated by any thought of 
 theirs. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE DOCTPJNE. 
 
 During the entire history of Christian theology the word 
 " Inspiration " has been used to express either some or all of 
 the activities of God co-operating with its human authors in 
 the genesis of Holy Scripture. We prefer to use it in the 
 single sense of God's continued work of superintendence, by 
 which, his providential, gracious and supernatural contributions 
 liaving been presupposed, he presided over the sacred writers 
 in their entire work of writing, with the design and effect of 
 rendering that writing an errorless record of the matters he 
 designed tliem to communicate, and hence constituting: the 
 entire volume in all its parts the word of God to us. 
 
 AVhile we have restricted the word " Inspiration " to a 
 narrower sphere than that in which it has been used by many 
 in the past, nevertheless we are certain that the above state- 
 ment of the divine origin and infallibility of Scripture accu- 
 rately expresses the faith of the Christian Church from the 
 first. Still, several points remain to be more particularly con- 
 sidered, concerning which some difference of opinion at present 
 prevails. 
 
 First. Is it proper to call this inspiration " plenary " ? This 
 word, which has often been made the occasion of strife, is in 
 itself indefinite, and its use contributes nothing either to the 
 precision or the emphasis of the definition. The word means 
 simply " full," " complete," perfectly adequate for the attain- 
 ment of the end designed, whatever that miirht have been. 
 
Z6 
 
 There ought not to be on any side any hesitancy to affirm this 
 of the books of the Bible. 
 
 Second. Can this inspiration be properly said to be ''verbal"? 
 The objection to the application of this predicate to inspiration 
 is nrged upon three distinct grounds : 
 
 (1.) We believe that the great majority of those who object 
 to the affirmation that inspiration is verbal are impelled 
 thereto by a feeling, more or less definite, that the phrase 
 implies that inspiration is, in its essence, a process of verbal 
 dictation, or that, at least in some way, the revelation of the 
 thought or the inspiration of the writer was by means of the 
 control which God exercised over his words. And there is the 
 more excuse for this misapprehension because of the extremely 
 mechanical conceptions of inspiration maintained by many 
 former advocates of the use of this term " verbal." This view, 
 however, we repudiate as earnestly as any of those who object 
 to the language in question. At the present time the advo- 
 cates of the strictest doctrine of inspiration in insisting that it 
 is verbal do not mean that in any way the thoughts were 
 inspired by means of the words, but simply that the divine 
 superintendence, which we call inspiration, extended to the 
 verbal expression of the thoughts of the sacred writers, as well 
 as to the thoughts themselves, and that hence the Bible, con- 
 sidered as a record, an utterance in words of a divine revela- 
 tion, is the word of God to us. Hence, in all the affirmations 
 of Scripture of every kind there is no more error in the words 
 xjf the original autographs than in the thoughts they were 
 chosen to express. The thoughts and words are both alike 
 human, and therefore subject to human limitations, but the 
 divine superintendence and guarantee extend to the one as 
 much as the other. 
 
 (2.) There are others who, while insisting as strongly as any 
 upon the presence of the divine element in Scripture, developed 
 through special providences and gracious dealings, religious 
 experiences and mental processes, in the very manner we have 
 just set forth under the head of the " Genesis of Scripture," 
 yet substantially deny what we have here called " inspiration." 
 They retain the word "inspiration," but signify by it the 
 divine element in the revelation, or providential or gracious 
 
36 
 
 dealing aforesaid, and they believe that the sacred writers, 
 having been divinely helped to certain knowledge, were left to 
 the natural limitations and fallibility incidental to their human 
 and personal characters, alike in their thinking out their 
 several narrations and expositions of divine truth, and in their 
 reduction of them to writing. This view gives up the whole 
 matter of the immediate divine autliorship of the Bible as the 
 word of God, and its infallibility and authority as a rule of 
 faith and practice. We have only the several versions of 
 God's revelations as rendered mentally and verbally, more or 
 less adequately, yet always imperfectly, by the different sacred 
 writers. This class of objectors are, of course, self-consistent 
 in rejecting verbal inspiration in any sense. But this view 
 is not consistent either with the claims of Scripture, the 
 consciousness of Christians or the historic doctrine of the 
 Church. 
 
 (3.) There are others who maintain that the Scriptures have 
 been certainly inspired so far forth as to constitute them in all 
 their parts, and as a whole, an infallible and divinely-authori- 
 tative rule of faith and practice, and yet hold that, while the 
 thoughts of the sacred writers concerning doctrine and duty 
 were inspired and errorless, their language was of purely human 
 suggestion, and more or less accurate. The question as to 
 whether the elements of Scripture relating to the course of 
 Nature and to the events of history are without error will be 
 considered below : it is sufficient to say under the present head 
 that it is self-evident that, just as far as the thoughts of Scrip- 
 ture relating to any element or topic whatsoever are inspired, 
 the words in which those thoughts are expressed must be in- 
 spired also. Every element of Scripture, whether doctrine or 
 history, of which God has guaranteed the infallibility, must be 
 infallible in its verbal expression. No matter how in other 
 respects generated, the Scriptures are a product of human 
 thought, and every process of human thought involves language. 
 " The slightest consideration will show that words are as 
 essential to intellectual processes as they are to nmtual inter- 
 course. . . . Thoughts are wedded to words as necessarily as 
 soul to body. Without it the mvsteries unveiled before the 
 
37 
 
 'eyes of the seer would be confused shadows ; with it, tliey are 
 made clear lessons for human life." * 
 
 Besides this, the Scriptures are a record of ilivine revela- 
 tions, and as such consist of words ; and as far as the record is 
 inspired at all, and as far as it is in any element infallible, its 
 inspiration must reach to its words. Infallible tliought must 
 be definite thought, and definite thought implies words. I ut 
 if God could have rendered the thoughts of the apostles regard- 
 ing doctrine and duty infallibly correct without words, and 
 then left them to convey it to us in their own language, we 
 should be left to precisely that amount of certainty for the 
 foundation of our faith as is guaranteed by the natural com- 
 petency of the human authors, and neither more nor less. 
 There would be no divine guarantee whatever. The human 
 medium would everywhere interpose its fallibility between God 
 and us. Besides, most believers admit that some of the pro- 
 phetical parts of Scripture were verbally dictated. It was, 
 moreover, promised that the apostles should speak as the Spirit 
 gave them utterance. " Tlie word of God came unto the 
 prophet." The Church has always held, as expressed by the 
 Helvetic Confession, II., " that the canonical Scriptures arc the 
 ■word of God." Paul claims that tlie Holy Spirit superintended 
 nnd guaranteed his words as well as his thoughts (1 Cor. ii. 18). 
 The things of the Spirit we teach " not in the words which 
 man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy ( rhost teacheth " 
 {(TvjKpLvovTe<i), comparing spiritual things with spiritual — i.e, 
 •spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that it is not clearness of thought 
 which inclines any of the advocates of a real inspiration of the 
 Holy Scriptures to deny that it extends to the words. What- 
 •ever discrepancies or other human limitations may attach to 
 the sacred record, the line (of inspired or not inspired, of in- 
 fallible or fallible) can never ratiorudly he drawn between the 
 thoiufhts and the 'words of Scripture. 
 
 Third. It is asked again : In what way, and to what extent, 
 is the doctrine of inspiration dependent upon the supposed 
 results of modern criticism as to the dates, authors, sources and 
 
 * Canon Westcott's Introduetion to the Stadij of the Gospels, 5th edition : 
 [ntrothictioii, p]). 14, 15. 
 
38 
 
 modes of composition of the several Looks? To us the follow- 
 ing answer appears to be well founded, and to set the limits 
 within wliich tlie Church doctrine of inspiration is in equil- 
 ibrium with tlie results of modern criticism fairly and cer- 
 tainly : 
 
 The doctrine of inspiration, in its essence — and, consequently, 
 in all its forms — presupposes a suj)ernatural revelation and a 
 supernatural providential guidance entering into and deter- 
 mining the genesis of Scripture from the beginning.- Every 
 naturalistic theory, therefore, of the evolution of Scripture, 
 however disguised, is necessarily opposed to any true version of 
 the catliolic doctrine of inspiration. It is also a well-known 
 matter of fact that Christ himself is the ultimate witness on 
 whose testimony the Scriptures, as well as their doctrinal con- 
 tents, rest. We receive the Old Testament just as Christ 
 handed it to us, and on his authority. And we receive as be- 
 longing to the New Testament all, and only those, books which 
 an apostolically-instructed age testifies to have been produced 
 by the apostles or their companions — i.e. by the men whom 
 Christ commissioned, and to whom he promised infallibility in 
 teaching. It is evident, therefore, that every supposed conclu- 
 sion of critical investigation which denies the apostolic origin 
 of a New Testament book or the truth of any part of Christ's 
 testimony in relation to the Old Testament and its contents, or 
 wliich is inconsistent with the absolute truthfuhiess of any 
 affirmation of any book so authenticated, must be incon- 
 sistent with the true doctrine of inspiration. On the other 
 hand, the defenders of the strictest doctrine of inspira- 
 tion should cheerfully acknowledge that theories as to the 
 autliors, dates, sources and modes of composition of the several 
 books which are not plainly inconsistent with the testimony of 
 Christ or His apostles as to the Old Testament, or with the 
 apostolic origin of the books of the New Testament, or with the 
 absolute truthfulness of any of the attirmations of these books 
 so authenticated, cannot in the least invalidate the evidence or 
 pervert tlie meaning of the historical doctrine of inspiration. 
 
 Fourth. The real point at issue between the more strict and 
 the more lax views of inspiration maintained l^y believing 
 scholars remains to l)e stated. It is claimed, and admitted 
 
ec^ually on both sides, that the great design iuid effect of 
 inspiration is to render the Sacred Scriptures in all their parts 
 a divinely infallible and authoritative rule of faith and practice, 
 and hence that in all their elements of thought and expression, 
 concerned in the great purpose of conveying to men a revela- 
 tion of spiritual doctrine or duty, the Scriptures are absolutely 
 infallible. But if this be so, it is argued by the more liberal 
 school of Christian scholars that this admitted fact is not incon- 
 sistent with other facts which they claim are matters of their 
 personal observation : to wit, that in certain elements of Scrip- 
 ture which are purely incidental to their great end of teaching 
 spiritual truth, such as history, natural history, ethnology, 
 archaeology, geography, natural science and philosophy, they, 
 like all the best human writings of their age, are, while for the 
 most part reliable, yet limited by inaccuracies and discrepancies. 
 AVhile this is maintained, it is generally at the same time 
 affirmed that when compared with other books of the same 
 antiquity these inaccuracies and discrepancies of the Bible are 
 inconsiderable in number, and always of secondary importance, 
 in no degree invalidating the great attribute of Scripture — its 
 absolute infallibility and its divine authority as a rule of faith 
 and practice. 
 
 The writers of this article are sincerely convinced of the 
 perfect soundness of the great catholic doctrine of biblical in- 
 spiration — i.e. that the Scriptures not only contain, but ARE, 
 THE WORD OF GoD, and heuce that all their elements and all 
 their affirmations are absolutely errorless, and binding the faith 
 and obedience of men. Nevertheless, we admit that the ques- 
 tion between ourselves and the advocates of the view just stated 
 is one of fact, to be decided only by an exhaustive and im- 
 partial examination of all the sources of evidence — i.e. the 
 claims and the phenomena of the Scriptures themselves. There 
 will undoubtedly be found upon the surface many apparent 
 affirmations presumably inconsistent with the present teachings 
 of science, with facts of history or with other statements of the 
 sacred books themselves. Such apparent inconsistencies and 
 collisions with other sources of information are to be expected 
 in imperfect copies of ancient writings, from the fact that the 
 orii^inal readincj may have been lost, or that we may fail to 
 
40 
 
 realize the point of view of the author, or tliat we are destitute 
 of tlie circumstantial knowledge which would fill up and har- 
 nioni/e the record. Besides, the human forms of knowledge by 
 which the critics test the accuracy of Scripture are themselves 
 suhject to error. In view of all the facts known to us, we 
 attirni tliat a candid inspection of all the ascertained phenomena 
 of the original text of Scripture will leave unmodified the 
 ancient faith of the Church. In all their real affirmations 
 these books are witliout error. 
 
 It must be remembered that it is not claimed that the 
 Scriptures, any more than their authors, are omniscient. The 
 information they convey is in the forms of human thought, 
 and limited on all sides. They were not designed to teach 
 philosophy, science or human history as such. They were not 
 designed to furnish an infallible system of speculative theology. 
 They are written in human languages, whose words, inflections, 
 constructions and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of 
 human error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the 
 writeis were in large measure dependent for their knowledge 
 upon sources and methods in themselves fallible, and that 
 their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters 
 liesitating and defective, or even wrong. Nevertheless, the 
 historical faith of tlie Church has always been that all the 
 ntfirmations of Scri})ture of all kinds, whether of spiritual 
 doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of 
 j».-sychological or philosophical jmnciple, are without any error 
 when the ipdssima verba of the original autographs are ascer- 
 tained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense. 
 Tliere is a vast difference between exactness of statement, 
 ulnV'h includes an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute 
 literalness, which the Scriptures never profess, and accuracy, 
 ')n tlie other hand, wliich secures a correct statement of facts 
 or })iinciples intended to be affirmed. It is this accuracy, and 
 this alone, as distinct from exactness, wliich the Church doc- 
 trine maintains of every affirmation in the original text of 
 Scri])ture without exception. Every statement accurately cov 
 res])onds to trutli just as far forth as affirmed. 
 
41 
 
 PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE. 
 
 We of course do not propose to exhibit this evidence in tliis 
 .article. We wish merely to refresh the memory of our readers 
 with respect to its copiousness, variety and cogency. 
 
 First. The New Testament writers continually assert of the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament, and of the several books 
 which constitute it, that they are the word of God. What 
 their writers said God said. Christ sent out tlie apostles with 
 the promise of the Holy Ghost, and declared that in hearing 
 •them men would hear him. The apostles themselves claimed 
 to speak as the prophets of God, and with plenary authority 
 in his name binding all consciences. And while they did so 
 -(.iod endorsed their teaching and their claims with signs and 
 wonders and divers miracles. These claims are a universal and 
 inseparable characteristic of every part of Scripture. 
 
 Second. Although composed by dift'erent human authors on 
 various subjects and occasions, under all possible varieties of 
 ])rovidential conditions, in two languages, through sixteen cen- 
 turies of time, yet they evidently constitute one system, all 
 their parts minutely correlated, the whole unfolding a single 
 purpose, and thus giving induljitable evidence of the controlling 
 ])resence of a divine intelligence from hrst to last. 
 
 Third. It is true that the Scriptures were not designed to 
 teach philosophy, science or ethnology, or human history as 
 such, and therefore they are not to be studied primarily as 
 sources of information on these subjects. Yet all these 
 elements are unavoidably incidentally involved in the state- 
 ments of Scripture. Many of these, because of defective 
 knowledge or interpretation upon our part, present points of 
 /.apparent confusion or error. Yet the outstanding fact is, that 
 j tlie general conformableness of the sacred books to modern 
 j knowledge in all these departments is purely miraculous. If 
 ! these books, which originated in an obscure province of the 
 ^incient world, be compared with the most enlightened cosmo- 
 gonies or philosophies or histories of the same or innnediately 
 subserpient centuries, their comparative freedom even from 
 apparent error is amazing. AVho prevented the sacred winters 
 from falling into tlie wliolesale and radical mistakes which 
 
42 
 
 were iiecessurily iiieidenlal to their position as mere men ? 
 The fact tliat at this date scientists of the rank of Faraday 
 and Henry, of Dana, of Gnyot and Dawson, maintain that 
 there is no real conflict between the really ascertained facts 
 of science and the first two chapters of Genesis, rightly inter- 
 preted, of itself demonstrates that a supernatural intelligence 
 must have directed the writing of those chapters. This, of 
 course, proves that the scientific element of Scripture, as well 
 as the doctrinal, was within the scope of inspiration. And 
 this argument is every day acquiring greater force from the 
 results of the critical study of Scripture, and from advanced 
 knowledge in every department of history and science, which 
 continually tend to solve difficulties and to lessen the number 
 of apparent discrepancies. 
 
 Fourth. The moral and spiritual character of the revelation 
 which the Scriptures convey of God, of the person of Christ, 
 of the plan of redemption and of the law of absolute righteous- 
 ness, and the power which the very words of the record, as 
 well as the truths they express, have exercised over the 
 noblest men and over nations and races for centuries, — this 
 is the characteristic self-demonstration of the word of God, and 
 has sufficed to maintain the unabated catholicity of the strict 
 doctrine of inspiration through all change of time and in spite 
 of all opposition. 
 
 Fifth. This doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, in all 
 its elements and parts, has always been the doctrine of the 
 Cliurch. Dr. Westcott has proved this by a copious catena of 
 quotations from Ante-Mcene Fathers in Appendix B to his 
 Introchtction to the Study of the Gospels. He quotes Clemens 
 Ptomanus as saying that tlie Scriptures are " the true utter- 
 ances of the Holy Ghost." He quotes Tertullian as saying 
 that these books are " tlie writings and the words of God," and 
 Cyprian as saying that the " gospel cannot stand in part and 
 fall in part," and Clement of Alexandria to the effect that the 
 foundations of our faith " we have received from God tlirough 
 the Scriptures," of wliich not one tittle shall pass away 
 without being accomplished, " for the mouth of the Lord the 
 Holy Spirit spake it." Dr. Westcott quotes Origen as teaching 
 that tlie Scri})tures are witliout error, since " they were accu- 
 
43 
 
 lately written by the co-operation of the Holy Ghost," and that 
 the words of Paul are the words of God. 
 
 The Itonian Church (Can. Cone. Trid., Sess. IV.) says, " God 
 is the author of both " Testaments. The second Helvetic Con- 
 fession represents the whole l^rotestant Eeformation in saying 
 (Ch. I.) : " The canonical Scriptures are the true word of God," 
 for " God continues to speak to us through the Holy Scrip- 
 tures." The Westminster Confession says : " It pleased the 
 Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself 
 and to declare his will unto his Church, and afterward . . . 
 to commit the same wholly unto writing." It declares that 
 the Scriptures are in such a sense given by inspiration, that 
 they possess a divine authority, and that " God is their author," 
 and they " are the word of God." 
 
 It is not questionable that the great historic churches have 
 held these creed definitions in the sense of affirming the error- 
 less infallibility of the Word. This is everywhere shown by 
 the way in which all the great bodies of Protestant theologians 
 have handled Scripture in their commentaries, systems of theo- 
 logy, catechisms and sermons. And this has always been pre- 
 eminently characteristic of epochs and agents of reformation 
 and revival. All the great world-moving men, as Luther, 
 Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Whitefield and Chalmers, and propor- 
 tionately those most like them, have so handled the divine 
 Word. Even if the more lax doctrine has the suffrage of 
 many scholars, or even if it be true, it is nevertheless certain 
 that hitherto in nineteen centuries it has never been held by 
 men who also possessed the secret of using the word of God 
 like a hammer or like a fire. 
 
 LEGITIMATE PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 In testing this question by a critical investigation of the 
 phenomena of Scripture, it is evident that the stricter view, 
 which denies the existence of errors, discrepancies or in- 
 accurate statements in Scripture, has the presumption in its 
 favour, and that the onus iirohandi rests upon the advocates of 
 the other view. The latter may fairly be required to furnish 
 positive and conclusive evidence in each alleged instance of 
 
44 
 
 error until the presumption has been turned over to the other 
 side. The primd facie evidence of the claims of Scripture is 
 assuredly all in favour of an errorless infallibility of all 
 scriptural affirmations. This has been from the first the 
 general faith of the historical Church and of the Bible-loving, 
 spiritual people of God. Tlie very letter of the Word has been 
 proved I'rom ancient times to be a tremendous power in human 
 life. 
 
 It is a (juestion also of infinite importance. If the new 
 views are untrue, they threaten not only to shake the con- 
 fidence of men in the Scriptures, but the very Scriptures 
 lliomselves as an objective ground of faith. We have seen 
 that the Holy Spirit has, as a matter of fact, preserved the 
 sacred writers to a degree unparalleled elsewhere in literature 
 from error in the departments of philosophy and science. 
 Who then shall deternnne the limit of that preserving in- 
 fluence ? We have seen that in God's plan doctrine grows 
 out of history, and that redemption itself was wrought out in 
 human history. If, tlien, the inspiration of the sacred writers 
 <lid not embrace the department of history, or only of sacred 
 and not of profane history, who shall set the limit and define 
 what is of the essence of faith and what the uncertain 
 accident ? It would assuredly appear that, as no organism 
 can be stronger than its weakest part, if error be found in 
 any one element or in any class of statements, certainty as to 
 any portion could rise no higher than belongs to that exercise 
 <jf human reason to which it will be left to discriminate the 
 infallible from the fallible. 
 
 The critical investigation must be made, and we must abide 
 by the result wlien it is unquestionably reached. But surely 
 it must be carried on with infinite humility and teachableness, 
 and witli prayer for the constant guidance of the gracious 
 Spirit. The signs of success will never be presumption, an 
 evident sense of intellectual superiority, or a want of sympathy 
 with the spiritual Church of all ages or with the painful con- 
 fusion of God's humble people of the present. 
 
 With these presumptions and in this spirit let it (1) be 
 proved that each alleged discrepant statement certainly 
 occurred in the original autograph of the sacred book in 
 
45 
 
 wliicli it is said to be found. (2) Let it be proved that the 
 interpretation which occasions the apparent discrepancy is the 
 one wliich the passage was evidently intended to bear. It is 
 not sufficient to show a difficulty, which may spring out of 
 our defective knowledge of the circumstances. The true 
 meaning must be definitely and certainly ascertained, and 
 then shown to be irreconcilable with other known truth. (3) 
 Let it be proved that the true sense of some part of the 
 original autograph is directly and necessarily inconsistent 
 with some certainly-known fact of history or truth of science, 
 or some other statement of Scripture certainly ascertained and 
 interpreted. We believe that it can be shown that this has 
 never yet been successfully done in the case of one single 
 alleged instance of error in the word of God. 
 
 CRITICAL objections TRIED. 
 
 It remains only to consider more in detail some of the 
 special objections which have been put forward against this 
 doctrine in the name of criticism. It cannot be, indeed, 
 demanded that every one urged should be examined and met, 
 but it may be justly expected that the chief classes of relevant 
 objections should be briefly touched upon. This, fortunately, 
 is no illimitable task. There are, as already stated, two main 
 presuppositions lying at the base of the doctrine, essential to 
 its integrity, while to them it adds one essential supposition. 
 The presuppositions are — 1. The possibility of supernatural 
 interference, and the actual occurrence of that interference in 
 the origin of our Bible ; and, 2. The authenticity, genuineness 
 and historical credibility of the records included in our Bible. 
 The added supposition is — 3. The truth to fact of every state- 
 ment in the Scriptures. No objection from the side of criti- 
 cism is relevant unless it traverses some one of these three 
 points. The traditional view of the age and authorship of a 
 document or of the meaning of a statement may be traversed, 
 and yet no conflict arise with the doctrine of a strict in- 
 spiration. But criticism cannot reach results inconsistent 
 with the genuineness and authenticity of a document judged 
 according to the professions of that document or the state- 
 
46 
 
 ments or iiii[)lications of any other part uf Scripture, or iii- 
 cniupatible with the triitli of any passage in the sense of that 
 passage arrived at by the correct application of the sound 
 principles of historico-gramniatical exegesis, without thereby 
 arraying herself in direct opposition to the Church doctrine 
 of inspiration. All objections to that doctrine based on such 
 asserted results of criticism are undoubtedly relevant. Our duty 
 is, therefore, to ask what results of criticism are claimed 
 which traverse some one of the three assertions — of a super- 
 natural origin for the Scriptures, of genuineness and authen- 
 ticity for its books, and of absolute freedom fi'om error of its 
 statements. 
 
 I. The Authenticity and Integrity of the Books of the 
 Old and New Testaments, as they have come down 
 
 TO us. 
 
 The first point for us to examine would naturally be the 
 bearing upon the Church doctrine of inspiration of the various 
 modern critical theories concerning the origin and present 
 integrity of the several books of the Old and New Testaments. 
 This is at present the most momentous question which agitates 
 the believing world. The critical examination of all the most 
 intimate phenomena of the text of Scripture is an obvious 
 duty, and its results, when humility, docility and spiritual 
 insight are added to competent learning and broad intelligence, 
 must be eminently beneficial. It is obvious, however, that 
 this department of the subject could not be adequately dis- 
 cussed in this paper. It is consequently postponed to the near 
 future, when it is intended that the wliole subject shall be pre- 
 sented as fully as possible. 
 
 In the mean time, the present writers, wdiile tliey admit 
 freely that the traditional belief as to the dates and origin of 
 the several books may be brought into question without in- 
 volving any doubt as to their inspiration, yet confidently affirm 
 that any theories of the origin or authorship of any book of 
 either Testament which ascribe to them a purely naturalistic 
 genesis, or dates or authors inconsistent with either their own 
 natural claims or the assertions of other Scripture, are plainly 
 
47 
 
 inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration taught by the 
 Church. Nor have they any embarrassment in the face of 
 these theories, seeing that they believe them to rest on no 
 better basis than an over-acute criticism overreaching itself 
 and building on fancies. Here they must content themselves 
 with reference to the various critical discussions of these 
 theories which have poured from the press for detailed refuta- 
 tion of them. With this refutation in mind they simply assert 
 their conviction that none of the claims or assertions of the 
 Scriptures as to the authenticity of a single book of either 
 Testament has hitherto been disproved. 
 
 II. — Detailed Accuracy of Statement. 
 
 We are next confronted with objections meant to traverse 
 the third of our preliminary statements, consisting of bold 
 assertions that, whatever may have been their origin, our 
 Scriptures do exhibit phenomena of inaccuracy, that mistakes 
 are found in them, errors committed by them, untrue state- 
 ments ventured. Nor is this charge put forward only by 
 opponents of revelation : a Van Oosterzee, as well as " a 
 Tholuck, a Neander, a Lange, a Stier," admits " errors and 
 inaccuracies in matters of subordinate importance." * It is 
 plain, however, that if the Scriptures do fail in truth in their 
 statements of whatever kind, the doctrine of inspiration which 
 has been defended in this paper cannot stand. But so long as 
 the principles of historico-grammatical exegesis are relied on to 
 determine the meaning of Scripture, it is impossible to escape 
 the fact that the Bible claims to be thus inspired. And thus 
 it is not a rare thing to find the very theologians who them- 
 selves cannot believe in a strict inspiration yet admitting that 
 the Scripture writers believed in it.-f- We cannot, therefore, 
 
 * See Van Oosterzee's Dogmatics, p. 205. 
 
 t Thus Thohick : " Yet his [the author of Hebrews] application of the 
 Old Testament rests on the strictest view of inspiration, since passages 
 where God is not the speaker are cited as words of God or of the Holy 
 Ghost (i. 6, 7, 8 ; iv. 4, 7 ; vii. 21 ; iii. 7 ; x. 15)." — Old Testament in the 
 New, ill Bihliotheca Sacra, xi. p. 612. So also Richard Rothe : " It is clear, 
 then, that the orthodox theory \^L.e. the very strictest] of inspiration is 
 countenanced by the authors of the New Testament." So also Canon 
 
4S 
 
 (icc.upy the ground on wliicli these great and worthy men seem 
 t'» us so precariously to stand. A proved error in Scripture 
 contradicts not only our doctrine, but the Scripture claims, and 
 tlicrefore its inspiration in making those claims. It is there- 
 fore of vital importance to ask, Can phenomena of error and 
 untrutli ])e pointed out ? 
 
 There is certainly no dearth of "instances" confidently put 
 I'nrward. lUit it is abundantly plain that the vast majority of 
 iliem are irrelevant. We must begin any discussion of them, 
 therefore, by reasserting certain simple propositions, the result 
 of which will be to clear the ground of all irrelevant objections. 
 It is to be remembered, then, that — 1. We do not assert that 
 the common text, but only that the original autographic text, 
 was inspired. No "error" can be asserted, therefore, which 
 cannot be proved to have been aboriginal in the text. 2. We 
 do not deny an everywhere-present human element in the 
 Scriptures. No mark of the effect of this human element, 
 therefore — in style of thought or wording — can be urged against 
 inspiration unless it can l)e shown to result in untruth. 
 ;;. We do not erect inspiration into an end, but hold it to be 
 simply a means to an end — viz. the accurate conveyance of truth. 
 No objection, tlierefore, is valid against the form in which the 
 truth is expressed, so long as it is admitted that that form con- 
 veys the truth. 4. We do not suppose that inspiration made a 
 writer false to his professed purpose, but rather that it kept 
 him infallibly true to it. No objection is valid, therefore, which 
 overlooks the prime question : What was the professed or 
 implied purpose of the writer in making this statement? 
 These few simple and very obvious remarks set aside the vast 
 majority of the customary objections. The first throws out of 
 court numbers of inaccuracies in the Old and New Testaments 
 as either certainly or probably not parts of the original text, 
 and therefore not fit evidence in the case. The second performs 
 the same service for a still greater number, which amount 
 simply to the discovery of individual traits, modes of thought 
 
 Farrar : "lie [Paul] sliared, doul>tleas, in the views of the later Jewish 
 scIiodIs— the Tanaiui and Anioraini — on the nature of inspiration. These 
 views . . . made the words of Scripture co-extensive and identical with 
 the words (»f God.'' — Life of Paul y ii, p. 47. 
 
49 
 
 or expression, or forms of argumentation in the writings of the 
 several authors of the biblical books. The third sets aside a 
 vast multitude, drawn from pressure of language, misreading of 
 figures, resurrection of the primary sense of idioms, etc., in 
 utter forgetfulness of the fact that no one claims that inspira- 
 tion secured the use of good (Ireek in Attic severity of taste, 
 free from the exaggerations and looseness of current speech, 
 but only that it secured the accurate expression of truth, even 
 (if you will) tlnough the medium of the worst Greek a fisher- 
 man of Galilee could write and the most startling figures of 
 speech a peasant could invent. Exegesis must be historical as 
 well as grammatical, and must always seek the meaning 
 intended, not any meaning that can be tortured out of a 
 passage. The fourth in like manner destroys the force of 
 every objection which is tacitly founded on tlie idea that 
 partial and incomplete statements cannot be inspired, no docu- 
 ments can be quoted except vcrhatini, no conversations reported 
 unless at length, etc., and which thus denies the right of 
 another to speak to the present purpose only, appeal to the 
 sense, not wording of a document, give abstracts of discourses, 
 and apply, by a true exegesis, the words of a previous writer 
 to the present need. The sum of the whole matter is simply 
 this : No phenomenon can be validly urged against verbal 
 inspiration which, found out of Scripture, would not be a valid 
 argument against the truth of the writing. Inspiration 
 securing no more than this — truth, simple truth — no phenome- 
 non can be urged against verbal inspiration which cannot be 
 proved to involve an iadispiUable error. 
 
 It is not to be denied that such phenomena are asserted to 
 be discoverable in the Scriptures. Is the assertion capable of 
 ])eing supported by facts ^ That is the only question now befoie 
 us. And it thus becomes our duty to examine some samples 
 of the chief classes of facts usually appealed to. These samples 
 — which will, moreover, all be chosen from the New Testament, 
 and all at the suggestion of opponents — must serve our pre^jent 
 jieeds. 
 
50 
 
 HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL ACCURACY. 
 
 1. It is asserted that tlie Scripture writers are inaccurate in 
 their statements of liistorical and geographical facts, as ex- 
 hibited by the divergence existing between their statements 
 and tlie information we derive from other sources, such as pro- 
 fane writers and monuments. AVhen we ask for the proofs of 
 this assertion, however, they are found to be very difficult to 
 produce. A generation or two ago this was not so much the 
 case ; but the progress of our knowledge of the times and the 
 geography of the region in which our sacred books were written 
 has been gradually wiping out the " proofs " one by one, until 
 they are at this day non-existent. The chief (and almost the 
 only) historical errors still asserted to exist in the New Testa- 
 ment are — the " fifteenth year of Tiberius " of Luke iii. 1 ; the 
 enrolment during Cyrenius's governorship of Luke ii. 2 ; and 
 the revolt of Theudas of Acts v. 36. It is not denied that 
 these statements present difficulties, but it is humbly suggested 
 that that is hardly synonymous with saying that they are 
 proved mistakes. If Herod died in the spring of A.u.c. 750 
 (which seems well-nigh certain), and if, in Luke iii. 23, the 
 " about " be deemed not broad enough to cover two years 
 (which is fairly probable), and if Luke iii. 1 means to date 
 John's first appearance (as again seems probable), and if no 
 more than six months intervened between John's and Jesus' 
 public appearance (which, still again, seems probable), — then it 
 is admitted that the " fifteenth year of Tiberius " must be a 
 mistake — provided that, still further, we must count his years 
 from the beginning of his sole reign, and not from his co- 
 regnancy with Augustus ; in favour of wliich latter mode of 
 counting much has been, and more can be, urged. Surely this 
 is not a very clear case of indubitable error, with its five ifs 
 staring us in the face. Again, if the Theudas mentioned in 
 Acts is necessarily the same as the Theudas mentioned by 
 Josephus, then Luke and Josephus do seem to be in disaccord 
 as to the time of his revolt; and if Josephus can be shown to 
 be, in general, a more accurate historian than Luke, then his 
 account must be preferred. But neither of these ifs is true. 
 Josephus is the less accurate liistorian, as is easily proved ; and 
 
51 
 
 there are good reasons — convincing to a critic like Winer and 
 a Jew like Jost, neither certainly affected by apologetical bias 
 — to suppose that Acts and Josephus mention different revolts. 
 Where, then, is the contradiction ? 
 
 The greatest reliance is, however, placed on the third case 
 adduced — the statement of Luke that Jesus was bom at the 
 time of a world-enrolment whicli was carried out in Syria 
 during the governorship of Oyi'enius. Weiss * offers three 
 reasons why Luke is certainly incorrect here, whicli Schurert 
 increases to five facts — viz. ; 1. History knows nothing of a 
 general empire-census in the time of Augustus ; 2. A Eoman 
 census would not force Joseph to go to Bethlehem, nor Mary to 
 go with him ; 3. Nor could it have taken place in Palestine 
 in the time of Herod ; 4. Josephus knows nothing of such a 
 census, but, on the contrary, speaks of that of Acts v. 37 as 
 something new and unheard of; and 5. Quirinius was not 
 governor of Syiia during Herod's life. This has a formidable 
 look, but each detail has been more than fully met. Thus, 
 Objection 1 turns wholly upon an argumentum e silcntio, always 
 precarious enough, and here quadruply so, seeing that (1) an 
 empire-census is just such a thing as Eoman historians would 
 l)e likely to omit all mention of, just as Spatian fails to men- 
 tion in his life of Hadrian the famous rescript of that monarch, 
 and all contemporary history is silent as to Augustus's geo- 
 metrical survey ; (2) We have no detailed contemporary his- 
 tory of this time, the inaccurate and gossiping Suetonius and 
 Josephus being our only sources of information ; (3) Certain 
 oft-quoted passages in Tacitus and Suetonius acquaint us with 
 facts which absolutely require such a census at their base ; and 
 (4) We have direct, though not contemporary, historical proof 
 that such a census was taken, in statements of Cassiodorus and 
 Suidas. Objection 2 gains all its apparent force from a confusio 
 vcrhot^m. Luke does not represent this as a Koman census in 
 the sense that it was taken up after Koman methods, but only 
 in the sense that it was ordered ultimately by Eoman authority. 
 Nor does he represent Mary as being forced to go to Bethlehem 
 with Joseph ; her own choice, doubtless, determined her journey. 
 
 * Meyer's Markus und Lukas, \\ 28G (ed. 6). 
 t N. T. Zeitgeschichte, pp. 268-286. 
 
52 
 
 The same co/ifasio verhoruni follows us into Objection 3. It 
 
 may be im|)iobable that Herod should have been so far set 
 
 aside that a census sliould liave been taken up in his dominions 
 
 after Koman methods and by Iloman officials; but is it so im- 
 
 ])robabl(i tliat he should be ordered to take himself a census 
 
 after his own methods and by his own officials ? Josephus 
 
 can give us the answer/^ Whatever may have been Herod's 
 
 official title, whether rex sociics or, as seems more probable (one 
 
 stage lower), rex amicus Ccesaris, it is certain that he felt bound 
 
 to bow to the emperor's every whisper ; so that if Augustus 
 
 desired statistics as to tlie rer/na (and Tacitus proves he did), 
 
 Herod would be forced to furnish them for his regimm. Objec 
 
 tion 4 again is easily laid : Josephus not only mentions nothing 
 
 he could escape which exhibited Jewish subjection, but actually 
 
 passes over the decade 750-760 so slightly that he can hardly 
 
 be said to have left us a history of that time. That he speaks 
 
 of the later census of Acts v. 37 as something new is most 
 
 natural, seeing that it was, as carried on by the Roman officials 
 
 aid after Koman methods, not only absolutely new, and a most 
 
 important event in itself, but, moreover, was fraught with such 
 
 historical consequences that it could not be passed over in 
 
 silence. Objection 5 is the most important and difficult, but 
 
 not, therefore, insuperable. It states, indeed, a truth : Quirinius 
 
 was not governor of Syria until after Herod's death. But it 
 
 must be noted, on the one hand, that Zumpt has proved, 
 
 almost, if not quite, to demonstration, that Quirinius was twice 
 
 governor of Syria, the first time beginning within six months 
 
 after Herod's death; and, on the other, that Luke does not say 
 
 that Christ was born while (Jyrenius was governor of Syria. 
 
 What Luke says is, that Christ was born during the progress 
 
 <if a census, and then defines the census as the first which was 
 
 carried on when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. If this 
 
 (census was begun under Varus and hnished under Quirinius, 
 
 ( 'hrist may have been born, according to Luke, at any time 
 
 (hiring the progress of this census. This, because Luke ii. 2 is 
 
 not given to define the time of Christ's birth, but more narrowly 
 
 to describe what census it was which had in verse 1 been used 
 
 * Of. A at., XV. 10, 4 ; xvi. 2, 5 ; 4, ] ; 9, ;3 ; xvii. 2, 1 ; 2, 4 ; 5, 8 ; 11, 4, 
 etc., foi' Herod'rt status. 
 
53 
 
 to define the time of Christ's birth,* Thus, doubtless, it is 
 true that Ciirist was born under Varus, and yet during the 
 course of the first Quirinian census ; and thus Schiirer's fifth 
 objection goes the way of all the others. 
 
 The wonderful accuracy of the New Testament writers in 
 all, even the minute and incidental, details of their historical 
 notices cannot, however, be made even faintly apparent by a 
 simple answering of objections. Some sort of glance over tlie 
 field as a whole is necessary to any appreciation of it. There 
 occur in the New Testament some thirty names — emperors, 
 members of the family of Herod, high priests, rabbis, lioman 
 governors, princes, Jewish leaders — some mention of which 
 might be looked for in contemporary history or on con- 
 temporary monuments.-|- All but two of these — and they the 
 insignificant Jewish rebels Theudas and Barabbas — are actually 
 mentioned ; and the New Testament notices are found, on 
 comparison, to be absolutely accurate in every, even the most 
 minute, detail. Every one of their statements has not, indeed, 
 passed without challenge, but challenge has always meant 
 triumphant vindication. Some examples of w^hat is here 
 meant have been given already ; others may be added in a 
 note for their instructiveness.| Now, the period of which 
 
 * Take an example : If one should 'say of any event, that it occuirred 
 during our war with Great Britain, and then add, " I n)ean that war 
 wherein Jackson fought," would lie necessarily refer to an event late in the 
 war, after Jackson came to the front ? Not so, because the war (Aone de- 
 fines the time of the event, and Jackson only which war. So in Luke th^, 
 census alone defines the time of Christ's birth, and Quirinius only which 
 census. It ought to be added that there are at least three other methods 
 of explaining Luke's words, all possible, and none very improbable, on the 
 supposition of any one of which conflict with history is impossible. 
 
 + These are : Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius — Herod Antipas, the 
 two Philips, Archelaus, Agrippa L, Agrippa II., Herodias, Herodias' 
 daughter, Bernice, Drusilla — Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias — Gamaliel — 
 Quirinius, Pilate, Felix, Festus, Gallio, Sergius Paulns — Aretas (Can- 
 dace), Lysanias— [Theudas], Judas of Galilee [Barablms]. Canrlace seems 
 to re])resent a hereditary title, not a personal name ; Theudas and Bar- 
 abbas are not named in profane sources. Cf. the (incomplete) list and fine 
 remarks of Eawlinson {Hist. Evidences, Boston, 1873, p. 195 sq.). 
 
 X It was long boldly asserted that Luke was in error in making 
 Lysanias a contemporary tetrarch with the Herodian rulers. But it is 
 now admitted that Josephus mentions an earlier and a later Lysanias, 
 and so corroborates Luke ; and inscriptions also have been brought 
 forward which supervindicate Luke's accuracy, so that even M. Kenan 
 
54 
 
 these writers treat is absolutely the most difficult historical 
 period in which to be accurate that the world has ever seen. 
 Nothing was fixed or stable ; vacillation, change, was every- 
 where. The province which w^as senatorial to-day was im- 
 perial to-morrow — the boundaries that were fixed to-day were 
 altered to-morrow. That these writers were thus accurate in a 
 period and land wherein Tacitus failed to attain complete 
 accuiacy means much. 
 
 We reach the same conclusion if we ask after their 
 geographical accuracy. In no single case have they slipped 
 here, either ; and what this means may be estimated by noting 
 what a mass of geographical detail has been given us.-^ 
 Between forty and fifty names of countries can be counted 
 in the New Testament pages ; every one is accurately named 
 and placed. About the same number of foreign cities are 
 named, and all equally accurately. Still more to the purpose, 
 thirty-six Syrian and Palestinian towns are named, the great 
 majority of which have been identified, t and wherever testing 
 is possible the most minute accuracy emerges. Whether due 
 to inspiration or not, this unvarying accuracy of statement is 
 certainly consistent with the strictest doctrine of inspiration. 
 
 admits it. Again, it was long contended that Luke had inaccurately 
 assigned a proconsul to Cyprus ; but this was soon set aside by a refer- 
 •ence to Cyprian coins of Claudius's time and to Dion Cassius. liv. 4 ; and 
 now Mr. Cesnola publishes an inscription which mentions the veritable 
 proconsul Paulus whom Luke mentioned {Cyprus, p. 425). So with refer- 
 ence to the titles of the rulers of Achaia, Philippi, Ephesus, etc. (See in 
 general Lee on Inspiration, p. 364, note 2.) 
 
 * Compare the efforts of a real forger with the accuracy of these 
 autoptic writers — e.g. of Prochorus, as given in Zahn's Acta Jocmnis, p. lii. 
 Only nine real places can be found in a long list of geographical names 
 invented for the need. Thus, to the little Fatnios a number of cities and 
 villages is ascribed which would require a Sicily or Cyprus to furnish 
 ground to stand on. 
 
 t These names are : ^x-Enon, *Antipatris, fArimathea, *Azotus, *Beth- 
 any, tBethany beyond Jordan, *Bethlehem, ||Bethpliage, §Bethsaitla, 
 §Cana, gCapernaum, *C{esarea, *C«sarea Philippi, "^Chorazin, |:Dal- 
 manutha, "^Damascus, JEmi^aus, *Ephraim, H^adara, *Gaza, gGerasa, 
 *Jericho, ^Jerusalem, *Jo})i)a, tJouda, tKerioth, *Lydda, *Magdala, 
 *Nain, * Nazareth, *Salim, *Seleucia, ^Sychar, *Tiberias, *Tyre. Those 
 niarked * are pretty certainly identified ; those t, with great probability ; 
 those §, with a choice between the two places ; and those II, as to their 
 neighbourhood. There are, besides, some names quoted from the Old 
 Testament— e.,^. llGomorrah, *Eama, *Sarepta, *Shechem, ||Sodom. Also 
 some other geographical names — e.g. "'^The brook Kedron, ^Jordan, *the 
 Mount of Olives, and *the Sea of Galilee, etc. 
 
55 
 
 COMPLETE INTERNAL HARMONY. 
 
 2. Another favourite charge made against these writers is, 
 that they are often hopelessly inconsistent with one another 
 in their statements ; and this charge of disharmony has some- 
 times been pushed so far as to make it do duty even against 
 their historical credibility. But when we begin to examine 
 the instances brought forward in support of it, they are found 
 to be cases of difficult, not of imj^ossiUe, harmony. And it is 
 abundantly plain that it must be shown to be impossible to 
 harmonize any two statements on any natural supposition 
 before they can be asserted to be inconsistent. This is a 
 recognized principle of historical investigation, and it is the 
 only reasonable principle possible, unless we are prepared to 
 assert that the two statements necessarily contain all the facts 
 of the case and exclude the possibility of the harmonizing 
 supposition. Having our eyes upon this principle, it is not 
 rash to declare that no disharmony has ever been proved 
 between any two statements of the Kew Testament. The best 
 examples to illustrate the character of the attempts made to 
 exhibit disharmony, and the rocks on which these attempts 
 always break, are probably those five striking cases on which 
 Dr. Fisher most wisely rests his charge against the complete 
 harmony of the four evangelists — viz. the alleged disharmony 
 in the accounts of the place and phraseology of the Sermon on 
 the Mount, the healing of the centurion's son, the denials of 
 Peter, the healing of the blind man at Jericho, and the time of 
 the institution of the Lord's Supper.* But that in each of 
 these most natural means of harmonizing exist, and are even 
 in some instances recognized as possible by Dr. Fisher himself. 
 President Bartlett has lately so fully shown in detail t that we 
 cannot bring ourselves to repeat here the oft-told tale. Take 
 one or two other examples : for instance, look at that famous 
 case alleged in the specification of the hour in John xix. 14 
 and Mark xv. 25. The difficulty here, says Dean Alford, is 
 insuperable, and with him Meyer et al. agree. But even 
 Strauss admits that it would be cancelled "if it were possible 
 
 * Beginnings of Christianity, p. 460 sq. 
 
 t Princeton RevieiL\ January, 1880, p. 47 sq. 
 
56 
 
 to prove that tlie Foiiith CJospel proceeds upon another mode 
 of reckoning time than that used by the Synoptics." And 
 that it is possible to prove this very thing any one can satisfy 
 liimself by noting the four places where John mentions the 
 hour (i. 39 ; iv. 6, 52 ; xix. 14); whence it emerges that John 
 reckons his hours according to the method prevalent in Asia 
 ]\Iinor*— from midnight, and not from daybreak. Thus all 
 difficulty vanishes. t The disharmony claimed to exist between 
 Matt, xxvii. 6-8 and Acts i. 18, 19 is also voided by a naive 
 kind of admission ; Dean Alford, for instance, asserting in one 
 breath that no reconciliation can be found consistent with 
 common honesty, and in the next admitting that the natural 
 supposition by which the passages are harmonized is "of course 
 possible." This admission, on the recognized principles of his- 
 torical criticism, amounts simply to a confession that no dis- 
 harmony ought to be asserted in the case. 
 
 Perhaps, however, the two most important and far-reaching 
 instances of disharmony alleged of late years are — that asserted 
 between the narratives of the events preceding, accompanying 
 and following the birth of our Lord given by Matthew and 
 Luke, which is said to prove the historical untrustworthiness of 
 hothCi) narratives; and that asserted between the accounts of 
 Paul's visits to Jerusalem and his relations to the Twelve in 
 Acts and Galatians, which is said to prove the unhistorical 
 character of Acts. In the brief space at our disposal it is not 
 possible to disprove such wholesale charges in detail. It must 
 suffice, therefore, to point out the lines on whicli such a refuta- 
 tion proceeds. In the first instance the charge can be upheld 
 only by the expedient of assuming that silence as to an event 
 constitutes denial of that event, supported by criticisms which 
 tacitly deny a historian's right to give summary accounts of 
 transactions or choose his incidents according to his purpose in 
 writing. Any careful examination of the passages involved 
 will prove not only that they are not inconsistent, but rather 
 
 * That this was the custom in Asia Minor is evident from }fart}inum 
 Polyc.^ c. 21, etc. Of. also (in general) Pliny, Nat. HiM. ii. 77, and Plutarch^ 
 Quaest Rom.^ Ixxxiii. 
 
 t Of. Townson's Discourses, Discourse 8 ; McClelland's N. T., vol. i., p. 737 
 sq. ; Westcott on John, p. 282 ; Lee on Inspiration, p. 352 ; where this sub- 
 ject is fully discussed. 
 
57 
 
 mutually supplementary accounts ;* but also that tliey actually 
 imply one another, and prove the truth of each otlier by a 
 series of striking undesigned coincidences.f And when it is 
 added that the choice of the material which each writer has 
 made can in each incident be shown to have arisen directly out 
 of the purpose of the writer, it may be seen what a load the 
 assertion of disharmony must carry. 
 
 * The events recorded by Luke are — 1. Aiinuiiciatioii to Zacliariali ; 2. 
 Annunciation to Mary (in the sixtli montli thereafter) ; 3. Mary's visit to 
 Elizabeth (extending to three months later) ; 4. Birth of John (after 3) ; 
 5. His circumcision (eight days after 4) ; 6. Journey of Joseph and Mary 
 to Bethlehem (" in those days ") ; 7. Birth of Jesus (while at Bethlehem); 
 8. Annunciation to the shepherds (the same day) ; 9. Visit of the shep- 
 herds (hastening) ; 10. Circumcision of Jesus (eight days after) ; 11. Pre- 
 sentation (thirty-three days later) ; 12. Return to Nazareth (when all 
 legal duties wel'e performed). The events recoided by Matthew are— A. 
 Mary is found with child (before she is taken to Jose])h's house) ; B. An- 
 nunciation to Joseph ; C. Mary is taken home by Josejih ; D. Visit of 
 the Magi (after Jesus' birth at Bethlehem) ; E. Flight into Egypt (after 
 their departure) ; F. Slaughter of the innocents (when Herod had dis- 
 covered that the wise men had gone) ; G. Death of Herod ; H. Return 
 from Egypt to Nazareth (after Herod's death). These events dovetail 
 beautifully into one another, as follows : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, A, B, C, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
 10, 11, D [12 (E, F, G, H)]. It is only necessary to assume that 12 in- 
 cludes E, F, G, and H compendiously, and all goes most smoothly. Other 
 arrangements are also possible — e.g. the first half may be varied to 1, 2, A, 
 B, C, 3, 4, 5, 6, or to 1, 2, A, 3, B, C, 4, 5, 6 ; and the second half to 9, 10, 
 D, 11 [12— (E, F, G, H)], or even to 9, 10, D, E, F, G, half H, 11, half H 
 — 12. In the face of so many possible liarmonizations it certainly cannot 
 be asserted that harmony is impossible. 
 
 t Thus the account in the one of the annunciation to Joseph, and that 
 in the other of that to Mary, which are often said to be irreconcilable 
 with one another, actually prove each other's truth. Both assume exactly 
 the same facts at their bases — viz. that Mary conceived a child su])er- 
 naturally, and remained a virgin while becoming a mothei'. Moreover, if 
 Luke's narrative be true, then something like what Matthew records must 
 have happened ; and if Matthew's be true, somethinglike what Lnke records 
 mast have happened. Two things needed explanation : why Mary was not 
 crazed at tinding herself so strangely with child, antl how J('se]3h, being a 
 just man, could have taken her, in that condition, to wife. Luke's narra- 
 tive explains the first, but leaves the other unexplained ; Matthew's ex- 
 plains the second, but leaves the first unex])laine<l. It is admitted th:<t 
 there was no collusion here. How does it hapi)en, then, that the two so 
 imply one another ] Again, Matthew does not mention wliere Jesus' 
 parents lived before his birth, but only states that after that birth they 
 intended to live in Bethlehem, and, after having been deterred from that, 
 chose Nazareth. Now, why this strange choice i Luke, and Luke alone, 
 supplies the reason : Nazareth was their old home. Still, again, that 
 Luke calls Mary Joseph's " betrothed" in ii. 5 is not only remarkable, but 
 totally inexplicable from Luke ; we can only understand it when we re- 
 vert to Matt. i. 25 and the preceding verses. These are but sami)les. 
 
58 
 
 The asserted coiitrii<Iictioii between Acts and Galatians is 
 already crumbling of its own weight. Thus Keim, certainly 
 no very " apologetic " critic, has shown very clearly that the 
 passage in Galatians has suffered much eis-egesis in order to 
 make out the disharmony,* and sober criticism will judge that 
 even he has done inadequate justice to the sul)ject. AVe can- 
 not enter into details in so broad a question : it will be 
 sufficient, however, to call attention to the fact that no dishar- 
 mony can be made out unless — (1) Violence be done to the 
 context in Galatians, where Paul professes to be giving an ex- 
 haustive account, not of his visits to Jerusalem, hvt of his 
 opportunities to learn from the apostles. Any visit undertaken 
 at such a time as to furnish no such opportunity (and Acts xii. 
 was such) ought, therefore, to have been omitted. (2) Con- 
 venient forgetfulness be exercised of the fact that while the 
 context shows that Paul uses "apostles" in the narrow sense 
 in Gal. i. 19, yet this is not true of Acts ix. 27 ; but, as Luke's 
 usage shows, the contrary may very well be true (Acts xiv. 4, 
 14). So that it is in no sense inconsistent for Paul to say 
 that he saw but one apostle, and Luke that he saw several 
 (3) Misunderstanding be fallen into as to the nature of the 
 "decree" of Acts xv. 20, and its binding force to churches not 
 yet formed and not parties to the compromise. (4) Misrepre- 
 sentation be ventured as to the testimony of Galatians as to 
 Paul's relations to the Twelve, which Paul represents to have 
 been most pleasant (Gal. ii. 3, 7-10), but which are made out 
 to have been unpleasant through misinterpretation of phrases 
 in Gal. ii. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, etc. (5) Incredible pressure of the de- 
 tailed language of both Galatians and Acts be indulged in. (6) 
 And, finally, a tacit denial be made of the possibility of truth 
 subsisting through differences in choice of incidents arising 
 from the diverse points of view of the two writers. In other 
 words, an unbiased comparison of the two accounts brings out 
 forcibly the fact that there is no disharmony betw^een them at 
 all. Taking these examples as samples (and they are certainly 
 fair samples), it is as clear as daylight that no single case has 
 as yet been adduced where disharmony is a necessary conclu- 
 sion. Therefore all charges from this side fall to the ground. 
 * In Aus der Urchrhtentimm (1878). 
 
59 
 
 COKRECT APPJ.ICATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 3. Another favourite charge against the exact truth of the 
 New Testament Scriptures is drawn from the use of the Old 
 Testament in the New, and. especially the phenomena of its 
 quotation. Here also, however, most of the objections urged 
 prove nothing but a radical lack of clear thinking on the part 
 of those who bring them. For instance, Dr. Davidson argues* 
 that the verbal variation wliich the New Testament writers 
 allow themselves in quoting the Old Testament is conclusive 
 against verbal inspiration, for ''the terms and phrases of the 
 Old Testament, if literally inspired, were the best that could 
 have been adopted," and therefore the New Testament writers 
 •" should have adhered to the ijjsissima verba of the Holy Spirit 
 (seeiug they were the best) as closely as the genius of the 
 Hebrew and Greek languages allowed." Here, however, a 
 false view of inspiration is presupposed, and also a false view 
 of the nature and laws of quotation. Inspiration does not 
 suppose that the words and phrases written under its influence 
 are the best possible to express the truth, but only that they 
 -are an adequate expression of the truth. Other words and 
 phrases might be equally adequate — might furnish a clearer, 
 more exact, and therefore better, expression, especially of those 
 truths which were subordinate or incidental for the original 
 purpose of the writing. Nor is quotation to be confounded with 
 translation. It does not, like it, profess to give as exact a re- 
 presentation of the original, in all its aspects and on cverij side, 
 as possible, but only to give a true account of its teaching in 
 -one of its bearings. . There is thus always an element of appli- 
 cation in quotation ; and it is therefore proper in quotation so 
 to alter the form of the original as to bring out clearly its bear- 
 inf^ on the one subject in hand, thus throwing the stress on the 
 »element in it for which it is cited. This would be improper in 
 a translation. Tlie laws which ought to govern quotation seem, 
 indeed, to have been very inadequately investigated by those 
 who plead the New Testament methods of quotation against 
 inspiration. We can pause now only to insist — (1) That 
 -quotation, being essentially different from translation, any 
 * Henneneutics, p. 513. 
 
60 
 
 ainomit of deviation from the original, in form, is thoroughly 
 allowable, so long as the sense of the original is adhered to; 
 provided only tliat the qiioter is not professing to give the 
 exact form ; (2) That any adaptation of the original to the 
 purpose in hand is allowable, so long as it proceeds by a true 
 exegesis, and thus does not falsify the original ; (3) That any 
 neglect of the context of the original is allowable, so long as. 
 the purpose for which the quotation is adduced does not imply 
 the context, and no falsification of sense is involved. In other 
 words, brietly, quotation appeals to the sense, not the wording, 
 of a previous document, and appeals to it for a definite and 
 specific end ; any dealing with the original is therefore legiti- 
 mate which does not falsify its sense in the particular aspect 
 needed for the purpose in hand.* The only question which is- 
 relevant here, then, is. Do the New Testament writers so quote 
 the Old Testament as to falsify it ? 
 
 Many writers who have pleaded the phenomena of the iS^ew 
 Testament against verbal inspiration yet answer this question 
 in tlie negative. Thus, Mr. Warington admits that there are- 
 " no really inapposite quotations " — " the pertinency of the 
 quotations may be marred by their inaccurate citation, but 
 pertinent, notwithstanding, they always are. In a word, while 
 . . . the letter is often faulty, the spirit is always divinely 
 true." t This is simply to yield the only point in debate. 
 Others, however, of not such clearness of sight, do not scruple 
 to assert that the N'ew Testament writers do deal so loosely 
 with the Old Testament as to fall into actual falsification, and 
 this mainly in two particulars : they quote passages in a sense 
 different from that which they bore in the Old Testament, and 
 they assign passages to wrong sources. 
 
 As an example of those who make tlie first charge we may 
 
 * Still, fnrtlier : the amount of freedom with wliich a docmiient is dealt 
 with will be greater in direct proportion to the thorouohness with whieli 
 it ia understood. If a quoter feels doubtful as to his understanding of it, 
 he \^ill copy it word for word ; if he feels sure he understands it fully 
 and thoroughly, he will allow himself great freedom in his use of it ; and 
 if he is the author of the original document, still more. If he is conscious, 
 of haviufj^ su|)ernatural aid in understanding it, doubtless the amount of 
 freedom would be greatest of all. 
 
 t Lisp} rati on, p. 107. 
 
61 
 
 take Prof. Jovvett, who is never weary of repeating it. * lUit 
 wlien we ask for his proof, it is found to rest on four talse 
 assumptions, tacitly made : that difference in form means 
 difference in sense, that typology is a dream, that application 
 tlirough a true exegesis is illegitimate, and that all adoption of 
 language binds one to its original sense. Thus Prof. Jowett 
 lias difficulty in finding apposite examples, and those lie docs 
 tinally fix upon fail on examination.! Dr. Sanday, in his 
 
 * See St. Paul's Epp., etc., vol. i., p. 353 sq. : London, 1855. 
 
 + The following are his examples : Worn. ii. 24, " where the words are 
 taken from Isaiah, but the sense from Ezekiel." Possibly a true criti- 
 cism ; what is illegitimate in it ? Note, however, that this is probably 
 not a formal quotation, but an expression of Paul's own thought in Old 
 Testament words, and hence the "as it is written" succeeds (not precedes) 
 the quotation; this "as it is written " may therefore refer to Isaiah as 
 quoted, or to Isaiah and Ezekiel, or to Ezekiel alone, now remembered hy 
 the apostle. (C'om})are Beet with Philippi Meyer in toe.) Rom. ix. 33, 
 where only a composition of two passages takes place, which are rightly 
 " h;irmoui'zed," as Prof. J. admits, in Christ. 1 Cor. iii. 19, where the 
 words are altered from the Psalm to suit the context indeed, but also in 
 dii'ect agreement with their context in the Psalm, so that no alteration in 
 sen^e results. Rom. x. 11, which is called an "instance of the introduction 
 of a word [ttSj] on which the point of the argument turns,"' but which is 
 simply a case of true exegesis and application to the matter in hand. 
 The same ])assage, and without the Tras, had already been quoted in this 
 context (ix. 33) ; Paul noM' requotes it, calling attention to the force of 
 the unliuuted 6 ina-Tevojp by emphasizing its sense through an introduced 
 Tras, and confirming his interpretation immediately by an additional 
 Scripture (verse 13). Compare Luke xviii. 14, as given in Matt, xxiii. H, 
 as an example of like explanation. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, which is admitted to 
 be a case "of addition rather than alteration," and any objection to wliieh 
 must rest on a tacit denial of typology, which even Meyer admits to be 
 liistorically justifiable here. Rom. x. 6-9, presenting alterations which 
 " we should hesitate to attribute to the apostle but for other exaru])les, 
 which we have ab'eady quoted, of similar changes," but which, even ir con- 
 sidered as a quotation, is defensible enough ; then how much more so 
 when we note that it does not ])rofess to be a <]Uotation, and is prol)ably 
 nothing more than the expression of the apostle's thought in old ami 
 beloved words ! 1 Cor. xv. 45, "a remarkable instance of discre])ancy in 
 both words and meauiug from Gen. ii. 7." Quite true, and therefore 
 neither in words nor meaning taken from Gen. 7. Prof. J. has sim})Iy 
 neglected to note that the quotation extends only to i'd'craj'. (Cf. Meyer 
 in loc.) Rom. x. 13, where the charge of change of meaning rests only on 
 a misunderstanding of Mai. i 2, 3. Rom. iii. \() sq., "a cento of quota- 
 tions transferred by the apostle [from their original narrow reference] to 
 the world in general.'" As if Eccles. vii. 21, Ps. xiii. (xiv.) 12 were not 
 already as universal as anybody couM make them, and as if the choice of 
 passages throughout was not admirably adapted to Paul's ])urpose, wliich 
 was to prove that all men are sinners— yes, even the Jews. Rom. xii. 20, 
 which requires no remark. And finally six allegories, which are inn)ie- 
 diately admi(le<l not to be allegories in the onlv sense of the word wliich 
 
62 
 
 excellent classification of Kew Testament quotations as to 
 their form,* cites two passages only which can be plausibly 
 asserted to be cases of mistaken ascription — viz. Mark i. 2 
 and Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. The first of these ought not to 
 present any difhculty. The form of the sentence shows that 
 the actual words of the citation are parenthetical in essence : 
 Mark declares that John came preaching in accordance with a 
 prophecy of Isaiah, and then inserts, parenthetically, the words 
 referred to, adding also a parallel prophecy of Malachi. That 
 he gives more evidence than he promised ought surely to be 
 no objection ; it is enough that, having promised a prophecy 
 from Isaiah, he does gi^^e it. This is strengthened by the fact 
 that the prophecy quoted from Malachi is actually based on, 
 and largely drawn out of, Isaiah, so that Isaiah is actually 
 the ultimate source of both the prophecies given, and that 
 from ]\lalachi can be rightly looked upon as simply a further 
 explanation of what is essentially Isaiah's. The quotation in 
 Matt, xxvii. 9, 10, on the other hand, does present a difficulty, 
 and is, indeed, in whatever aspect it be looked upon, a very 
 puzzling case. It presents the extreme limit of paraphrase of 
 the original, and it is exceedingly difficult to assign all its 
 parts to their proper originals. It is plain, however, that 
 Zech. xi. 13 was strongly colouring the writer's thoughts when 
 he wrote it. Yet he ascribes it to Jeremiah. Here, it is said, 
 is a clear case of erroneous ascription. This judgment, how- 
 ever, takes no account of the exceeding difficulty of ascribing 
 the words actually quoted to Zechariah alone. There seem to 
 be but three ways in which the passage can be plausibly 
 understood, and no one of these implies an error on ]\Iatthew's 
 part. We may either (1) understand the words as a very free 
 paraphrase of Zech. xi. 13, and then appeal to the fact that in 
 the Talmudic arrangement J eremiah stood first in the " book 
 of the prophets," so that Jeremiah here stands as general title 
 fur the whole book — with Lightfoot, Scrivener, Cook, Schaff- 
 
 would be to their disadvantage — i.e. in the sense of an interpretation 
 which treated the literal sense of the words as unimportant, in which 
 sense of the word no allegory occurs in the New Testament. These 
 "allegories" are, some of them, simple illustrations, some typical hiter- 
 |>retations. 
 
 * Gospels in the Second Centun/^ pp. 16-25. 
 
03 
 
 liiddle, etc. ; or (2) take the reference in v. 9 as intended for 
 Jer. xviii., xix. — apart from which passage, indeed, the quota- 
 tion following cannot be understood — and suppose the quota- 
 tion itself to be deflected to the words of Zechariah, so that 
 the passage becomes analogous to Mark i. 2, and is meant to 
 call attention to both Jeremiah and Zechariah — with (in 
 general) Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Thru2:)p, Fairbairn, etc. ; or 
 (3) we may, with Lange, find the originals of tlie words in 
 four passages in Genesis, Zechariah and Jeremiah, the key to 
 the whole being Jer. xxxii. 6-8. Whichever of these views 
 may be accepted is of no moment so far as the present question 
 is concerned; each alike is consistent with the evangelist's truth, 
 and therefore with his inspiration. 
 
 With these examples we must close. It is only necessary 
 to add the caution that the passages dealt with are supposed 
 by Mr. Jowett and Dr. Sanday to be the most striking and 
 difficult ones that could be put to the apologist out of the twa 
 hundred and seventy-eight quotations which the ISTew Testament 
 makes from the Old. It is surely not presumptuous, then, to 
 assert that Mr. Warington's wisdom is apparent, and that it is 
 true that the New Testament quotations always preserve the 
 sense of the Old Testament passages. 
 
 And with this, this paper must close. It has been possible, 
 of course, to examine only samples of critical objection. But 
 those that have been examined are samples, and have been 
 selected wholly in the interests of the objection. These laid, 
 therefore, and all are laid. The legitimate proofs of the 
 doctrine, resting primarily on the claims of the sacred writers, 
 having not been rebutted by valid objections, that doctrine 
 stands doubly proved. Gnosis gives place to epignosis, faith 
 to rational conviction, and we rest in the joyful and unshaken 
 certainty tliat we possess a Bible written by the hands of men 
 indeed, but also graven witli the finger of God. 
 
61 
 
 THE WESTMINSTEK DOCTEINE OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 ( With Gspecii.d reference to some quotatious hy Dr, Brigcjs.) 
 BY Prof. BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, D.D., 
 
 PkOFE.SSOR of THEOLO(iY IX PRINCETON SEMINARY. 
 
 [Reprinted by permUsion from the Xeir York ''Independent,'' December bth, 
 
 1889.] 
 
 '' Controversialists in general," says the late Principal Oun- 
 ninghani, in one of his essays, "have shown an intense and 
 irresistible desire to prove that their peculiar opinions were 
 .supported by the Fathers, or by the Ileforniers, or by the 
 ureat divines of their own church ; and have often exhibited a 
 i»-reat want botli of wisdom and candour in the efforts they 
 have made to effect this object." We have earnestly sought 
 to avoid this danger, and to assume a purely historical ponit of 
 view in our study of the teaching of the British theologians of 
 the Westminster age as to the extent and effect of inspiration. 
 They are certainly entitled to have their opinions accurately 
 represented ; and we, on the other hand, would be unwilling to 
 be understood as endorsing their wdiole teaching. Neverthe- 
 less, they appear to us very distinctly to teach both tlie verbal 
 inspiration of the Scriptures and the inerrancy of the original 
 iiulographs, and we have, therefore, felt it incumbent upon us 
 to examine the evidence to the contrary which has been pre- 
 sented by Dr. C. A. Ihiggs in his recent book entitled 
 ' Whither ? " 
 
 Dr. l>riggs devotes two sections to tlie subject of the present 
 paper (pp. 64-68 and 68-7o). In the former he presents 
 a catena of six quotations under the caption : " We sliall give 
 the opini(jns of a few Presbyterians of the seventeenth century 
 on this subject, in (n-der to show how far modern divines have 
 .departed from the Westminster doctrine of the I^)ible." It is 
 
65 
 
 perhaps not perfectly certain to what immediate antecedent the 
 words " this subject " here refer. But in any event the catena 
 of citations is meant to show that the Scriptures, in the estima- 
 tion of the Westminster men, are not inspired in their " verbal 
 expression." In the second section, two quotations are given 
 to illustrate the statement that " the Westminster divines did 
 not teach the inerrancy of the original autographs." 
 
 We take up the catena on verbal inspiration first ; and (on 
 the principle of ex peck Herculem) we begin with the last 
 quotation. It is from John Ball's Catechism and reads as 
 follows : — 
 
 " The testimonie of the Spirit doth not teach or assure 
 us of the Letters, syllables, or severall words of holy Scrip- 
 ture, which are onely as a vessell, to carry and convey that 
 heavenly light unto us, but it doth scale in our hearts the 
 saving truth contained in those sacred writings into what 
 language soever they be translated." 
 
 Now, on the assumption that the sole conclusive evidence that 
 the Scriptures are the Word of God, is the Witness of the 
 Holy Spirit in the heart, such a passage as this might seem 
 to assert that only the matter of Scripture is inspired. But 
 though this may be Dr. Briggs' point of view, it is not 
 John ] jail's. The very object of the passage quoted, is rather 
 to guard against this overworking of the testimony of the 
 Spirit : it is one of six rules which are given professedly 
 " to prevent mistaking " in the use of this evidence. The 
 immediately succeeding rule warns us that " the Spirit doth 
 not lead them in whom it dwelleth, absolutely and at once 
 into all truth, but into all truth necessary to salvation, and 
 by degrees"; and one of the previous ones warns us not to 
 forget that it is " private, not publique ; testifying only to him 
 that is endued therewith." Trail's object, thus, is not to 
 suggest that the Scriptures are not verbally inspired; hut to 
 deny that this caii he proved by ''the testimonie of the Spirit." By 
 other forms of testimony, however (he teaches), it can be proved ; 
 and resting upon them as giving a " certainty of the mind," he 
 unhesitatingly teaches verbal inspiration. Let us hear his 
 statement of it : — ' • • 
 
(i6 
 
 " Q. What call you the Word of God ^ 
 A, The holy Scripture hnmediately inspired, which 
 is contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament. 
 Q. What is it to be immediately inspired ? 
 A. To be immediately inspired is to be as it were 
 breathed, and to come from the Fatlier by the Holy 
 Ghost without all means. 
 
 Q. Were the Scriptures thus inspired { 
 A. Thus the holy Scriptures in the Originals were 
 inspired both for matter and words." 
 Examination of the other quotations, given in this catena, 
 would lead us to similar results. In the first of them, for 
 example, quoted from Lyford, the writer is not speaking of 
 inspiration at all, but is arguing the widely different question 
 whether the Word of God, that is, as he defines it (p. 46), " the 
 mind and will of God," is so competently conveyed in transla- 
 tions that the unlearned may have in them a divine foundation 
 for faith. But though he holds that " Divine Truth in English 
 is as truly the Word of God, as the same Scripture delivered in 
 the Originall Hebrew or Greek," he feels bound to add : " yet 
 with this ditference, that the same is perfectly, immediately and 
 most absolutely in the Originall Hebrew and (Ireek, in other 
 Translations, as the vessels wherein it is presented to us, and 
 as far forth as they do agree with the Originalls." The ditfer- 
 ence between the originals and the translations arises from the 
 fact that " the Translators were not assisted inniiediately by the 
 Holy G-host," while " such extraordinary assistance is needful 
 to one that shall indite any part of Scripture" (p. 50). With 
 all his tendency to defend the value of translations, therefore, 
 he does not assimilate the inspiration of the originals to the 
 divine element common to the two. 
 
 This enhancement of translations is carried perhaps a step 
 higher by another of Dr. Briggs' witnesses, Kichard Capel. The 
 quotation which is made from him is somewhat spoiled in its 
 effect on the reader by the omission of the italicizing which in- 
 dicated the words that Capel was borrowing from his opponent. 
 For Capel is here not calmly stating his own view, but 
 controverting another's. He is inveighing against the careless- 
 ness of the welfare of human souls, which is shown by those 
 
67 
 
 who dwell upou the uncertainties of copies and the fallibilities 
 of sci'ibes and translators, as if the saving Word of God does 
 not persist through all these dangers. It is this mode of pro- 
 cedure which he says " lets in Atheisme like a flood " ; the 
 passage quoted by Dr. Briggs being a positing of difficulties 
 which he at once sets himself " to help " by laying down a 
 series of contrary propositions. Accordingly he had said at an 
 earlier point (p. .38) : — 
 
 " I cannot but confesse that it sometimes makes my 
 heart ake, when I seriously consider what is said, That 
 vjc cannot assicre owrsdvcs thai the Hebrew in the Old 
 Testament and the Greek in the Neiu, are the right Hehrev: 
 ami Greek, any further than our masters and tutors, 
 and the general consent of all the learned in the luorld 
 do so say, no one dissenting, .... all infallibility 
 in matters of this nature having long since left the world. 
 And to the like purpose is that observation, 
 That the two tables vjritten immediately by Moses and 
 the Prophets, and the Greek copies immediately penned 
 by the Apostolical men are all lost, or not to be made use 
 ^of except by a very few. Ami that we have none in 
 Hebreiu or Greek, but what are tr an scribed. Now trans- 
 cribers arc ordinary men, suhjcct to mistake, may faile, 
 having no erring spirit to hold their hands in writing. 
 
 " These be terrible blasts, and do little else when they 
 meet with a weak head and heart, but open the doore to 
 Atheisme and quite to fling oft" the bridle, which only can 
 hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety : this 
 is to till the conceits of men with evil thoughts against 
 the Purity of the Originalls : And if the Fountains run not 
 clear, the Translation cannot be clectn.'" 
 Capel's purpose, in a word, is not to depreciate the infalli- 
 bility of the autographs, but to vindicate the general purity of 
 the transmission in copies and translations. The originals were 
 " the dictates of the Spirit," and their writers, being " indued 
 with the infallible Spirit," " might not erre " (cf. RemainSy pp. 
 12, 08, 43, 55). His tendency was not to lower the autographs 
 towards the level of the translation .s, but to elevate the trans- 
 lations, so far as may be, towards the originals, e.g. claimin^^ 
 
68 
 
 for tliein a kind of secondary (providential) inspiration. 
 Accordingly, although he would confess that the transmitters^ 
 of Scripture had " no unerring spirit to hold their hands 
 in writing," he yet asserted that God so assisted them " that 
 for the main they should not erre," and '' so held the hands 
 and directed the pens of the Translators, that the translations 
 might well be called the Word of God" (p. ol). No student 
 of the history of doctrine need be told tliat the affinities of 
 this view are with the highest, even the most mechanical 
 theory of inspiration (cf. Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, 
 vol. ii., pp. 182 sfj.). 
 
 Samuel Eutherford, the first writer whom Dr. Briggs quotes 
 to prove that " The Westminster divines did not teach the 
 inerrancy of the original autographs," is an even more extreme 
 representative of the same type of thought that Capel stands 
 for. If the reader will read the long passage quoted from him 
 in " Whither ? " with an eye to the italics which mark the 
 phraseology borrowed from John Goodwin whom Rutherford is 
 here refuting, he will not fail to catch a hint of Rutherford's 
 high doctrine. Rutherford here, in a w^ord, is almost bitterly 
 attacking Goodwin's assertions of the fallibility of the trans- 
 mission of Scripture ; over against which he posits an " un- 
 erring and indeclinable providence " (p. 370) presiding over it. 
 So far is he from suggesting that the autographs are not 
 inerrant that he is almost ready to assert that all the copies and 
 translations are inerrant too. He evidently feels himself to be 
 making a great concession, and to be almost straining the truth, 
 when he admits that there may be " errours of number, 
 genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture as written " [i.e. 
 in the manuscript form] " or printed." Though Crod has used 
 means which, considered in themselves, are fallible in trans- 
 mitting the Scriptures, yet he has not left the transmission to 
 their fallibility, but has added an unerring providence, keeping, 
 them from slipping. He urges that Goodwin's argument 
 " makes as much against Christ and his Apostles as against us," 
 for they too had but copies of the Old Testament, the scribes- 
 and translators of which were " then no more than now, 
 immiediately inspired Prophets,'' and were consequently liable to 
 errors ; so that " if ye remove an unerring providence, who« 
 
69 
 
 doubts but men might adde or subtract and so vitiate the 
 fountaine sense ? and omit points, change consonants, which in 
 Hebrew and Greek both might quite alter the sense ? " Yet 
 both Christ and the apostles appeal to the Scriptures freely, 
 with such phrases as " as iJavid saith " and the like, stak- 
 ing their trustworthiness on the true transmission. Nor will 
 he allow the argument that it is the inerrancy of the quoters, 
 not of the text quoted, which is our safeguard in such cases. 
 This, he says, presumes " that Christ and his apostles might 
 and did finde errours and misprintings even in written " 
 [i.e. manuscript] " Scripture, which might reduce the Church in 
 after ages to an invincible ignorance in matters of faith, 
 and yet they gave no notice to the Church thereof." To Ptuther- 
 ford, therefore, the whole Scriptures were spoken by the Holy 
 Ghost (pp. 353-354), were all written by God (p. 373), are a 
 more sure word than an immediate oracle from heaven (p. 193), 
 and were written under an influence which secured them from 
 error and mistake (pp. 366, 369, etc.). 
 
 It is an interesting indication of the universality of high 
 views of inspiration that John Goodwin, Eutherford's adversary 
 in this treatise, himself held them. So far as the points 
 w^e are here interested in are concerned, indeed, the dispute 
 was little more than a logomachy, since Piutherford and his 
 friends were constrained to admit (though sometimes grudg- 
 ingly) that the providential preservation of Scripture is not so 
 perfect but that some errors have found their way into the 
 copies, and that the translations are only in a derived sense the 
 Word of God, and only so far forth as they truly represent the 
 originals ; while Goodwin w^as ready to allow that God's 
 providence is active in preserving the manuscript transmission 
 substantially pure, and tliat the truth of God is adequately con- 
 veyed in any good translation. In Goodwin's reply to his 
 assailants it is made abundantly apparent that he too believed 
 in the inerrancy of the autographs, his objection to calling 
 copies and translations the Word of God, in every sense, turn- 
 ing just on this, — that no one extant copy or translation is 
 errorlessly the Word of God (see The Divine Authority/ of the 
 Scriptures, pp. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13). 
 
 But what about Eichard Baxter ? Dr. Briggs tells us that 
 
70 
 
 he " was the leading rresbyteriau of his time/' and that " he 
 knew what he was about in his warning " which is quoted as 
 Dr. Brioiis' final proof tliat "the Westminster divines did not 
 
 Oo -I- 
 
 teach the inerrancy of the original autographs." But the 
 passage that is quoted has again really nothing to do with the 
 inerrancy of the autographs. It is only one of Baxter's 
 frequently repeated statements of his sound apologetical 
 ]K)sition as to the relative value of different portions of 
 Scripture and the relative importance of the sense and letter, 
 it is partly on account of his firm grasp and clear expression 
 and defence of this apologetical position, that we think of 
 liaxter as one of tlie wisest and soundest writers on the- 
 subject of Scripture in his day. Despite the fact that he has 
 ])een frequently misunderstood and mis([Uoted, he did not 
 doubt the verl>al inspiration and autographic inerrancy of 
 tlie vScriptures. It is one thing to refuse to make the verbal 
 inspiration of the Scriptures the ground of all religion, and 
 another thing to deny its reality. Baxter's chief works are 
 accessible to all in Duncan's London edition of 1830, so that 
 we may content ourselves here with tlie adduction of a passage 
 or two in which he clearl}- asserts Ids belief in the inerrancy 
 of tlie autographs of Scripture. 
 
 " All that the holy writers have recorded is true (and 
 no falsehood in the Scripture, but what is from tlie error 
 of scribes and translators)" — A^ol. xv. p. 65. 
 
 " "No error or contradiction is in it, but what is in some 
 copies, by the failure of preservers, transcribers, printers 
 and translators." — Vol. xxi. p. 542. 
 
 " If Scripture be so certainly true, then those passages 
 in it that seem to men contradictory, must needs be 
 true: for they do liut seem so and are not so indeed." — 
 YoL XX. p. 27. 
 
 "These that aftirm that it was but the doctrine of 
 ( Christianity, that was sealed by the Holy Ghost, and in 
 which they were infallible, but that their writings were 
 in circumstantials and by-passages, and method and words, 
 and other modal respects, imperfect and fallible, as other 
 men'f* (in a less degree), though they lieinously and danger- 
 
71 
 
 oiisly err, yet do not destroy or hazard the Christian religion 
 by it." — Vol. XX. p. 95. 
 
 " Though the Apostles were directed by the Holy Ghost 
 in speaking and writing the doctrines of Christ, so that we 
 know they performed their part without errors, yet the 
 delivering down of this speech and writing to us, is a human 
 work, to be performed with the assistance of ordinary pro- 
 vidence." — Vol. XX. p. 115. 
 
 " All the credit of the Gospel and Christian religion 
 doth not lie in the perfect freedom of the Scriptures 
 from all error ; but yet we doubt not to prove this their 
 perfection against all the cavils of infidels, though we 
 can prove the truth of religion without it." — Vol. xx. 
 p. 118. 
 Let these serve as samples. 
 
 Probably no one man has a better right to be quoted as an 
 exponent of the doctrine of the Westminster divines as a bod}', 
 on this subject, than " the Patriarch of Dorchester," John 
 White. He was chosen by them at the outset of their labours 
 to serve as one of the two assessors, whose activity was expected 
 to supplement the little public capacity of Twisse. His book — 
 Directions for fhc Profitable Reading of the Script ii res (1647) — 
 was introduced to the world by one of the leading Westminster 
 divines, Dr. Thomas Goodwin, in a glowing eulogy. And P>axter 
 (A'ol. xxii. p, 335) names it among the works on the divine 
 authority of the Scriptures which he especially recommends to 
 the English reader. It is therefore a truly representative 
 book. And we cannot do better than bring this paper to a 
 close by adducing White's general statement as a fair repre- 
 sentation of the prevalent view of his time. He founds his 
 remarks on 2 Pet. i. 20, 21, and writes as follows: — 
 
 " The Apostle . . . describes the kinde of assistance 
 of the Holy Ghost in the delivery of the Scriptures, two 
 ways. First by way of negation, that they were neither 
 of private interpretation, nor came by the wil of man. 
 Secondly, he describes the same assistance afKrmatively. 
 testifying that they spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy' Ghost. 
 
72 
 
 " In the former of these, wherein he expresseth their 
 manner of delivering the Scriptures by way of negation, 
 the Apostle excludes the working of the naturall faculties 
 of man's mind altogether : First, the understanding, 
 when he denies that the Scripture is of any private 
 interpretation, or rather of men's own explication, that is, 
 it was not expressed by the understanding of man, or 
 delivered according to man's judgment, or by his wis- 
 dome. So that not only the matter or substance of the 
 truths revealed, but the very forms of expression were 
 not of man's devising, as they are in Preaching, where 
 the matter which men preach is not, or ought not to be 
 the Minister's own, that preacheth, but is the word of 
 truth, 2 Tim. 2, 15, but the tearms, phrases and expres- 
 sions are his own. Secondly, he saith that it came not 
 by the wil of man, who neither made his own choice 
 of the matters to be handled, nor of the forms and 
 manner of delivery. So that both the understanding 
 and the wil of man, as farre as they were merely 
 naturall, had nothing to doe in this holy work, save 
 onely to understand, and approve that which was dictated 
 by God himselfe, unto those that wrote it from his mouth, 
 or the suggesting of his Spirit. 
 
 " Again, the work of the Holy Ghost in the delivery 
 of the Scriptures is sec down affirmatively, when the Pen- 
 men of those sacred writings are described to speak as 
 they were moved by the Holy Ghost, a phrase which 
 must be warily understood. For we may not conceive 
 that they were moved in writing these Scriptures, as the 
 pen is moved by the hand that guides it, without under- 
 standing what they did : For they not only understood, 
 but willingly consented to what they wa^ote, and were not 
 like those that pronounced the Devil's oracles, rapt and 
 carried out of themselves by a kinde of extasie, wherein 
 the Devill made use of their tongues and mouths to pro- 
 nounce that which themselves understood not. But the 
 Apostle's meaning is, that the Spirit of God moved them in 
 this work of writing the Scriptures, not according to 
 nature but above nature shining into their understand- 
 
ings clearly and fully by a heavenly and supernatural 
 light, and carrying and moving their wils thereby with a 
 delight and holy enhancing of that truth revealed, and 
 with a like desire to publish and make known the secrets 
 and counsels of God, revealed unto them, unto the 
 Cliurch. 
 
 " Yea beyond all this, the Holy Ghost not only sug- 
 gested unto them the substance of that doctrine which 
 they were to deliver and leave upon record unto the 
 Church (for so far he usually assists faithful ministers in 
 dispensing of the Word in the course of their Gospel 
 ministry), but besides, has supplied unto them the very 
 phrases, method and whole order of tliose things that are 
 written in the Scriptures, whereas he leaves ministers in 
 preaching the Word to the choice of their own phrases 
 and expressions, wherein, as also in some particulars 
 which tliey deliver, they may be mistaken, although in 
 the main fundamentals which they lay before their 
 hearers, and in the general course of the w^ork of their 
 ministry they do not grossly erre. Thus then the Holy 
 Ghost, not only assisted holy men in penning the Scrip- 
 tures, but in a sort took the work out of their hands, 
 making use of nothing in the men, but of their under- 
 standings to receive, and comprehend, their wils to con- 
 sent unto, and their hands to write down that which they 
 delivered. When we say that the Holy Ghost framed the 
 very phrase and style wherein the Scriptures were 
 written, we mean not that he altered the phrase and 
 manner of speaking, wherewith custome and education 
 had acquainted those that wrote the Scriptures, but rather 
 speaks liis own words, as it were in the sounds of their 
 voice, or cliooseth out of their words and phrases such as 
 were fit for his own purpose. Thus upon instruments, 
 men play what lesson tliey please, but the instrument 
 renders the sound of it more harsli or pleasant according 
 to the nature of itself. Thus amongst the Pen-men of 
 Scriptures, we finde that some write in a rude and more 
 unpolished style, as Amos; some in a 'more elegant 
 phrase, as /sv/?/. Some discover art and learning in their 
 
74 
 
 writings, as S. Paul ; others write in a more vulgar way, 
 as S. Jamca. And yet with all, the Spirit of God drew 
 their natural style to a higher pitch, in divine expres- 
 sions, fitted to the subject on hand" (Pp. 59-62). 
 
 It is almost pathetic to observe Wliite's efforts to mitigate 
 the effects of his mechanical conception of the mode of inspira- 
 tion, in the matter of the style of the authors. Others made 
 similar efforts and sometimes with more success. But the 
 time had not yet come when the true synergism of inspiration, 
 Ijy which w^e may see tliat every word of Scripture is truly 
 divine tind yet e^'ery word is as truly human, had become the 
 connuon property of all. In this, too, therefore, White is a fair 
 exponent of his day. and reminds us anew that so far from 
 denying verbal inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture, the 
 tendency to error of the times was in the opposite direction ; 
 and in the strenuousness of its assertion of the fact of an 
 inspiration which extended to the expression and secured 
 infallibility, it was ever in danger of conceiving its mode in 
 a mechanical way. That this was the ruling attitude of the 
 middle of the seventeenth century among the Continental 
 theologians, whether lieformed or Lutheran, everybody knows. 
 It is clear, from what we have seen, that the English Puritans 
 and Scotch Presbyterians were not an isolated body cut off 
 from the currents of thought of their day: but were in harmony 
 with the best theologizing and highest conceptions of their 
 (Continental brethren. 
 Princeton, N. J. 
 
75 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 In The Presbyterian and Reformed Review for xVpril (New York) the 
 
 following appears as a critique on the recently-issued pamphlets of 
 
 Dr. Blaikie, Dr. Watts, and Mr. Howie on the Dods and Bruce 
 
 cases : — " Quite a little literature on inspiration bids fair to grow 
 
 up in Scotland out of the manifesto issued by those who were 
 
 dissatisfied by the disposition made of the cases of Drs. Dods and 
 
 Bruce at the last Free Church Assembly. It is ominous of much 
 
 that men of undoubted reverence for the Bible like Dr. Blaikie 
 
 ea<yerly take up the cudgels for a loose doctrine of inspiration — how 
 
 loose Dr. Blaikie does not seem to understand himself, as he rings the 
 
 changes on ' infallibly ' and ' verbally ' correct on the one hand and 
 
 ' substantially accurate ' on tlie other, and yet seeks to disprove the 
 
 former by adducing substantial and ' material ' errors (p. 8) ; and 
 
 arrays the phenomena of Scripture against its assertions, as if these 
 
 assertions were not just the chief phenomenon of importance in the 
 
 case and as if the next most outstanding phenomenon was hot the use 
 
 of the Old Testament by the writers of the New, the significance 
 
 of which even his co-Free-Churchman, Mr. Stuart, in his Principles of 
 
 Christianity, might have taught him. Dr. Blaikie is mistaken in 
 
 supposing that the loose view that he represents is inductively 
 
 established, while a priori reasoning is the support of those who hold 
 
 to plenary insjiiration ; the diflference in procedure is precisely as it is 
 
 stated by Dr. Watts, in his crushing reply : ' While the principle of 
 
 your theory is a mere inference from apparent discrepancies not yet 
 
 explained, the principle of the theory you oppose is the formally 
 
 expressed utterance of prophets and apostles and of Christ Himself 
 
 (p. aO). Thf^ whole issue really turns on the ' methodology : ' shall 
 
76 
 
 we begin with the Scripture doctrine of inspiration and then consider 
 whether this doctrine is supported or negatived l>y the phenomena, or 
 shall we begin with the ' difficulties ' of Scripture and then seek to 
 minimize the Scripture doctrine to tit our ability or inability to 
 explain the 'difficulties.' If the former path is taken we shall 
 certainly end in a doctrine of ' verbal,' or, as it is less ambiguously 
 called, ' plenary ' inspiration ; for on any fair exegesis this is indubi- 
 tably the doctrine of the Bible writers and none of the phenomena 
 negative it. If the latter is taken, we may land in the fogs. All 
 this and more is pointed out, however, by Dr. Watts and Mr. Howie 
 in their rejoinders. We can take time to speak here only of the 
 singularly temperate strength and well guarded language of Mr. 
 Howie's repl}^ badly requited as it is by Dr. Blaikie's angry and 
 unjust postcript." 
 
 Referring to " that recent attempt to hide an essentially rationalistic 
 attitude towards Holy Scripture under the name of the testiino7iium 
 Sjnritus sancti, of which Dr. Briggs is the best known American 
 exponent," The Presbyterian and Reformed Review further says : 
 " The essential difference between this destructive modern theory and 
 the Protestant doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus sancti, is that 
 the latter conceives of the Spirit as acting by quickening our apprehen- 
 sion of the strength of the various evidences, thus producing a convic- 
 tion which is rational in its form and divine in its strength and source ; 
 while the modern theory begins by discrediting the evidences and is 
 thus shut up to conceiving of the testimony of the Spirit either as a 
 special revelation or a blind conviction, framed apart from or prior to 
 or even against the evidences. This brings this definition of the 
 testimony of the Spirit into analogy with that definition of faith 
 which makes it the power to believe to be true what we clearly see to 
 be false. Thus it separates science and faith and must ultimately 
 reduce one or the other to an ' innocuous desuetude.' " 
 
 In keeping with what is stated by Dr. Warfield in the above 
 critique about " methodology " I add the following extract from the 
 writings of the late Principal Cunningham : — '' Dr. Chalmers' doctrine 
 of inspiration is just that which has been the general doctrine of the 
 universal Church in all ages — that, namely, of the imfallibility of the 
 sacred record without including any definite deliverance upon the 
 more minute and perj)lexing questions that have been raised about 
 the nature and the mode of inspiration ; and to call this doctrine 
 'crude and unintelligible' is a simple absurdity, or rather it is mere 
 
unmeaning abuse. As to its being 'inadmissible/ this of course 
 depends upon the evidence which can be adduced for and against it^ 
 and on the consideration of that we cannot at present enter. We 
 believe it can be, and has often been, proved, that the Scriptures 
 virtually assert their own inspiration and infallibility, and that we 
 may reasonably receive this upon their testimony without being 
 justly chargeable with the fallacy of reasoning in a circle; and, 
 moreover, that the objections adduced against this doctrine are quite 
 insufficient to neutralize the direct positive evidence on which it rests. 
 Some of the objections, no doubt, are possessed of considerable 
 plausibility, though not as we think can be shown, of any real 
 weight. Indeed we have always been disposed to regard the subject 
 of the evidence of inspiration as affording a good test of the soundness 
 of men's understandings, as fitted, speaking generally, to mark ofif 
 men into two classes, the higher class consisting of those who take a 
 firm grasp of the direct, proper, primary evidence, who keep objections 
 and difficulties in their proper place as objections and difficulties, and 
 estimate them in their relation to the evidence at their true worth 
 and value; and the lower class, consisting of those who are more 
 easily perplexed and upset by objections and difficulties, and who are 
 less competent to take a sound, comprehensive, and discriminating. 
 \ iew of the evidence as a whole." 
 
 SCOTLAND AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 We noticed some time ago the signs of approaching battle in the Free 
 Church of Scotland. These begin to thicken. We had first of all a 
 " Statement by minsters and other office bearers," taking the gravest 
 exception to the recent decisions of the General Assembly in regard 
 to Drs. Dods and Bruce. The very issue of that document was 
 significant. Scotchmen are not much given to vapouring ; and to 
 those, who know the deep loyalty of Free Churchmen to the Decisions 
 of their Church Courts, the publication of the Statement must have 
 seemed like the premonitory crack that heralds the avalanche. The 
 intervention of Professor Blaikie has not allayed the apprehensions 
 of one party nor crushed the rising ho])es of the other. It has merely 
 
78 
 
 given occasion to Mr. Howie to carry, in his masterly reply, the war 
 into the enemy's camp. 
 
 One cannot but marvel why the Courts of the Free Church should 
 be made the battle-field of this great controversy. What a fate for 
 the Church of Chalmers and of Guthrie, of Candlish and of Cunning- 
 ham, of the Bonars and, we may add, of M'Cheyiie, who would have 
 found in it a home in which his soul would have delighted ! It is 
 quite possible that, in a way. the fact may find an explanation. The 
 students of the Free Church may have sought the schools of Germany 
 in larger numbers than those of other denominations. But it would 
 still have to be explained why they should have brought home a taint 
 with them which others found it impossible to carry. We must look 
 beyond these things to the Divine purpose. God has not forsaken a 
 Church which in the past has served Him so well, and which still 
 loves Him fervently. No ! He has further work for it to do, and 
 He must prepare it for service. He will lead it away from depend- 
 ence upon the word of man's wisdom, and kindle once more the fires 
 of evangelical ardour. He will break the yoke of this Christian 
 Habbinism, and stay the ossification which is changing Christ-like zeal 
 and freedom into dull formality and bloodless respectability. 
 
 That, we believe, is one purpose of this " day of rebuke " ; and 
 we are no less convinced that there is another. The battle with 
 rationalism must be joined somewhere ; and the Divine wisdom has 
 suffered unbelief to seize the high places of a Church that is zealous 
 for the truth, that has well-detined beliefs, and a perfectly defensible 
 position. The Free Church is not alone in this terrible experience. 
 There are other churches in a similar position ; but, with the excep- 
 ception of a groan here and there, there is no sign that the change is 
 deplored or even marked. So far as they are concerned, the dry rot 
 of rationalism would be permitted to eat into the fabric of faith till 
 the whole should fall in shapeless ruin. It may be true, as they some- 
 times say, that they could do little, were they even to try. But it is 
 painfully evident that they have no mind to try. The Free Church, 
 however, is made of sterner stufl'. Their loyalty to God is still a fact, 
 and, we might almost add, a passion. Descendants of men who sacri- 
 ficed good name and fortune, and freedom and life for the truth which 
 <Tod has committed to us, they are not likely to be intimidated by a 
 little temporary unpopularity, or to be annihilated by the sneers of 
 so-called learning. There is no church in the land where men can be.. 
 found with clearer and deeper conviction, and with more absolute 
 
79 
 
 fidelity. Place this fact by the side of the other of which we have 
 spoken — that the Free Church Creed is a living thing, and not a 
 shibboleth, and that the position of orthodoxy is clearly defined, and 
 easily defensible — and you can understand why this should be the 
 chosen battle-field of the time, it will be the Waterloo of rational- 
 ism. The French sjnrit has overpowered the German host, but in 
 vain will it pour its rain of lire upon these serried ranks. It will 
 spend its strength and meet its doom, and haply, as of old, the 
 scattered Germans may rally again and join in the pursuit, and chase 
 the discredited thing back to its native home — the bosom of the men 
 who are too great and too wise to need God. 
 
 We have frequently said that Mr. Bradlaugh will now have 
 abundant leisure to attend to his Parliamentary duties. The same 
 view is expounded in a recent issue of the Edinburgh Evenhig News. 
 " The National Rpformer for years," it says, " combated vigorously 
 the idea of infallibility, and made capital out of the mistakes and im- 
 moralities of the Bible. Mr. Bradlaugh now finds his views so ably 
 aired in the Church of England and the Free Church of Scotland, 
 that his occupation is gone." That this is really the case is apparent, 
 even from Professor Blaikie's letter. He occasionally writes as if the 
 question were one as to tlieories of inspiration, rather than as to the 
 product of inspiration — as to how the Bible came into existence, and 
 not as to what the Bible is. But the bulk of his pamphlet shows 
 clearly that the quarrel of himself and his party is not with theories 
 of inspiration, but with the estimation in which the Bible is ordinarily 
 held. This Free Church Professor teaches his students, and contends 
 before the British public, that there are " verbal and substantial dis- 
 crepancies" in the Scripture ; that is, that in difierent accounts of the 
 same incident, there are not only variations in statement, but also 
 distinct and undeniable contradictions, so that there is falsehood in 
 one account, if not in all. Has Mr. Bradlaugh ever said anything 
 worse than that ? and, if he could make such words good, would he 
 require to do more to leave us, like himself, without hope and without 
 God in the world ? That we are not misrepresenting the Professor 
 will be only too plain from the following statements which meet us 
 on page after page of his pamj>hlet. Addressing Dr. Bonar, he says, 
 '* You say it cannot be conceived that there was any inaccuracy in 
 the original Scriptures. I appeal to the facts of the case in opposi- 
 tion to your view." He has thrown away the notion that the Bible 
 as originally given was " absolutely free from error," because it 
 
80 
 
 involves him in " inextricable difficulties." Here is a description of 
 Scripture whicli, if it lack in elegance, clearly enough foreshadows the 
 proposed new Free Church reconstruction of the Old Testament : 
 " bits of history and biography, poetry and song, didactic teaching 
 and symbolic vision, had all been shot, as it were, into one capacious 
 reservoir." ITe contends that the words of the Confession of Faith, 
 " God, the Author of Holy Scripture," must not be pressed. It is 
 " unwarrantable " to claim " that God is an author to precisely the 
 same effect as man." If these words mean anything, they mean that 
 the Bible is not a communication from God in as real a sense as a 
 "Letter to the Rev. A. Bonar, D.D.," is a communication from Dr. 
 Blaikie. We are also informed that it is a delicate task " to reconcile 
 Old Testament morality in some points with the inspiration of Scrip- 
 ture." If this is true, the case must be very bad indeed ; for, with 
 Dr. Blaikie, the term " Inspiration " seems elastic enough to cover a 
 great deal. 
 
 Such are the views which this Professor of the Free CUuirch now 
 confesses he has been communicating to his students for the last 12 or 
 15 years. He also aired them, he says, before a clerical society. He 
 does not say that he ever preached them to the people. But to the 
 people of Scotland this cause must now go. If they profess them- 
 selves as 'willing to surrender the Scripture as Dr. Blaikie and his 
 colleagues we shall be surprised. But even if they did, the duty ot 
 faithful men would be only rendered the more imperative. Those to 
 whom, in the Free Church, the cause of truth is committed, would 
 not even then be ashamed of the testimony of the Lord and of His 
 •ipostles. Let them be of good courage. He who brought them out 
 of Egypt will also deliver from the Philistine. — " The King's Own" 
 Feb., 1891. 
 
81 
 
 Letters to Professor Drummond. 
 
 I. 
 
 4 Bruce Road, Pollokshields, 
 
 Mfli December, 1800. 
 
 Dear Professor Drummond, 
 
 Herewith I send copy of the Second Edition of my Reply 
 to Dr. Blaikie. At pages 77, 8, you will see references to your corre- 
 spondence with me. As you have not yet corrected the Herald's 
 report of your Inaugural Address, and as I have ascertained that your 
 MSS. were in the hands of the reporter of that journal, I do not feel at 
 liberty at present to go beyond what I there state. I am more than 
 ever persuaded that you will not do justice to yourself, to the Church 
 of which you are a professor, or to the cause of Foreign Missions and 
 of Divine truth, unless you either correct that report or publish your 
 address as delivered. I may add that the unfavourable impression at 
 first produced on my mind by reading that address as given in the 
 Herald, instead of being altered, has rather been confirmed by your 
 Christmas booklet, Pax Vohiscuin, While I appreciate its fine 
 writing, I am saddened by its lamentably defective and misleading 
 views of Divine truth. Although your theme specially demanded 
 such references, I am grieved to find that, from beginning to end, 
 there does not appear to be a single express reference to the guilt of 
 sin as a cause of unrest, to the need of pardon, to the imputation of 
 Christ's righteousness, to the atonement of Christ, to the work of the 
 Holy Spirit in regeneration, or to His operations in the hearts of 
 believers. If you had prayerfully studied in its connection the " Pax 
 Vobiscum " spoken by the risen Lord to His disciples, I can scarcely 
 conceive it possible that you would have so missed a great oppor- 
 tunity of helping those who are " seeking rest and finding none " by 
 f^ivinc', as you do, such an inadequate view of the nature and grounds 
 of a sinner's peace, and by perverting so thoroughly the grand words 
 of Jesus Christ—" I will give you rest." 
 
 Any heathen moralist might have written your booklet. The 
 homao-e you give to Christ seems a mere mockery, inasmuch as you 
 represent Him as doing nothing more, in the way of giving peace and 
 rest, than might have been done by Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato. 
 
82 
 
 Perhaps you will again tell me that in all this I misunderstand 
 and misrepresent your meaning, and that, although the above doc- 
 trines are not expressed, they are implied, and form part of your 
 creed. 
 
 If you can say so much, it will be to me, as a brother presbyter, a 
 great relief. But even in that case my answer must be that you 
 have woefully failed in your duty as a Christian teacher, when, 
 addressing so many readers on a subject plainly requiring it, you 
 make no express reference to these vitally important truths. ^ 
 
 You must surely feel that there must be something radically w^rong 
 in your way of putting matters when even the British Weekly (gene- 
 rally characterized by a friendly tone towards the school to which you 
 belong) has felt it to be incumbent to remonstrate with you as to the 
 teaching of this, your latest, production. I write in sorrow, but in 
 faithfulness, and in the hope that I shall have from you some satis- 
 factory explanation in regard to the points of which your co-presbyters 
 have reason to complain. As this is a matter of public importance, 
 affects the Church as a whole, and involves the vindication of 
 Divine truth, T may feel it to be my duty either to publish this letter, 
 or to bring the matter before the Presbytery. In these circumstances, 
 I hope you may consent to the publication of any reply you may see 
 fit to send. — With kind regards, I am, yours very truly, 
 
 Robert Howie. 
 
 II. 
 
 4 Bruce Eoad, Pollokshields, 
 '2bth December, 1890. 
 
 Dear Professor Drummond, 
 
 Thanks for yours of the 22nd instant. As mine of the 17th 
 instant related to your pul^lished utterances, I am surprised that in- 
 stead of consenting to the publication of your reply you have again 
 marked it " j^rivate." You cannot now say, as you did before, that 
 you adopt this course, because you will thus " least expose " me '•' to 
 shame," for you know that I asked you to consent to the publication 
 of your reply. You moreover seem strangel}' forgetful of the fact 
 that others beside myself need to be satisfied about your published 
 
83 
 
 views. You say you are at a loss to understand why in the second 
 edition of my pamphlet I have not withdrawn " the Appendix itself," 
 which you repudiated in yours of the 28th ultimo. If I had done so, 
 your repudiation (which T publish) would have been meaningless. 
 Its references would not have been understood by my readers. But 
 that is not all. In that repudiation you charge me with putting 
 words into your mouth which you never spoke. As all the words I 
 attribute to you in the Appendix were taken from the Herald's report 
 of your Inaugural Address, I could not show the utter groundlessness 
 of your charge as made against myself, except by allowing the Appen- 
 dix to stand in its original form so that readers might compare its 
 quotations with the report of the Herald. And this I was the more 
 entitled to do, not only because I have also published your repudia- 
 tion, but also because, although specially asked to do so, you have 
 not yet corrected the Herald's report. If you either correct it, or 
 tell me in what respect it is incorrect, I will be able to say to what 
 extent my comments on your address should be modified, but other- 
 wise, I have no alternative but to adhere to them. You say : — 
 " The Herald Reporter did not get my MSS. He got four or five 
 pages (out of some 30) near the middle as he wished specially to have 
 this passage." I assume that to that extent the report quoted is 
 correct. If in other respects it is incorrect, you ought surely long 
 ere this, and for the sake of every interest concerned, to have made 
 the necessary correction. You say further : — " As to Pax Vohis- 
 cum, to quote your own letter, ' you will again tell me that in all 
 this I misunderstand your etc' This is precisely the state of the 
 case. It is mere affectation to say that it is not obvious all through 
 this address that it is spoken to Christiajis, and that it is on the sub- 
 ject of ' Christian experiences' Apart from that, you cannot surely 
 have read the words (page 50) ' were Rest my subject, there are other 
 things I should wish to say about it, and other hinds of Rest o/* which 
 I should like to speak. But that is 7wt my subject. My subject is 
 etc' " 
 
 I am most anxious not to misunderstand you. Will you there- 
 fore kindly say whether your words (" This is precisely the state of 
 the case ") apply to the whole sentence in my letter, or only to the 
 part quoted by you 1 The sentence in full is as follows : — " Perhaps 
 you will again tell me that in all this I misunderstand and misrepre- 
 sent your meaning, and that, although the above doctrines are not ex- 
 pressed, they are implied, an ^ form part of your creed." 
 
84 
 
 As you include " etc." in the marks of quotation you use, the fair 
 interpretation seems to be that your affirmation (" This is precisely 
 the state of the case ") is intended by you to apply to the whole sen- 
 tence. But as your language is also capable of another meaning, and 
 may be intended to apply only to the words you actually quote, 1 hope 
 you will not regard me as too exacting when, with the view of prevent- 
 ing further misunderstanding, I ask you specially whether the doctrines 
 referred to in mine of the 17th instant (viz., "the guilt of sin as 
 a cause of unrest," " the need of pardon," " the imputation of 
 Christ's righteousness," " the atonement of Christ," " the work 
 of the Holy Spirit in regeneration," and " His operations in the 
 hearts of believers ") are intended to be " implied " in your booklet 
 though not expressed, and whether they '• form part of your creed." 
 I put these questions the rather because I do not regard what you say 
 about your address being spoken to " Christians," and " on the subject 
 of Christian experie?ices" as any justitication whatever of the omission 
 by you of express reference to these important doctrines when treat- 
 ing of Christian rest or peace. I know of no genuine " Christian 
 experience " of rest or peace which does not involve these doctrines, 
 and hence the prominence given to them in Apostolic epistles which 
 were addressed to " Christians," and which treat of " Christian ex- 
 periences." This I say, apart from the fact that the great promise of 
 Christ (" I will give you rest ") of which you treat is one addressed 
 not to Christians but to the Christless, as a promise to be realized 
 when they come to Him. The manner in which you seek to explain 
 away that precious promise appears to me to manifest either strange 
 confusion of thought, or sadly defective theology. 
 
 Being most unwilling to find you holding erroneous views, I will 
 gladly accept any explanation of your real meaning with which you 
 may favour me. But you need not wonder that your booklet has 
 given grave oftence to many of your brethren, containing, as it does, 
 such statements as the following : — " Eest, apparently, was a favour 
 to be bestowed ; men had but to come to Him ; He would give it to 
 every applicant. But the next sentence takes that all back. . . . 
 When Christ said He would give men rest. He meant simply that 
 He would put them in the way of it. By no act of conveyance would, 
 or could, He make over His own rest to them. He could give His 
 receipt for it. That was all. But He would not make it for them ; for 
 one thing, it was not in His plan to make it for them ; for another 
 thing, men were not so planned that it could be made for them ; and 
 
S5 
 
 for yet another thing, it was a thousand times better that they should 
 make it for themselves. . . . Wounded vanity, then, disappointed 
 hopes, unsatisfied selfishness — these are the old, vulgar, universal 
 sources of man's unrest. . . . The ceaseless chagrin of a self-centred 
 life can be removed at once by Iccirning Meekness, and Lowliness of 
 heart. . . . Christ's invitation to the weary and heavy-laden is a call 
 to begin life over again upon a new principle — upon His own prin- 
 ciple. ' Watch My way of doing things,' He says. * Follow Me. 
 Take life as I take it. Be meek and lowly, and you will find rest.' " 
 
 If, notwithstanding these and similar statements in your booklet, 
 which seem to be capable of only one interpretation, you also hold 
 that the sense of guilt is the leading cause of the unrest of men j that 
 (to use the words of the British Weekly) " the Christian pain is the 
 agony of a wounded conscience, the desire to obtain release from the 
 days of old, the longing for reconciliation with God " ; that " there 
 are other sorrows that appeal not vainly to the heart of Christ : 
 agonies of pain and loss and care " ; that " the sufferers creep to His 
 side for shelter, and find it in the cleft of the wound " j that " they 
 are hidden in His Peace as in a fortress-home " : that Christ gives 
 the Holy Ghost, one of whose fruits is " peace " ; if you hold all this, 
 and had it in your view, when (at p. 50) you refer to " other things" 
 you "should wish to say about it" [Kest], and to " other kinds of 
 Rest of which " you " should like to speak," I will be truly glad if 
 our correspondence shall elicit from you such an explanation, and 
 shall furnish you with an ojoportunity of so far remedying the obvious 
 defects of your booklet. 
 
 But if this is to be accomplished, I humbly submit that as so many 
 ethers have attached to it the same meaning as I have done, you 
 should either consent to the publication of our correspondence, or, of 
 your own accord, publish such a statement as will remove existing 
 misconceptions. 
 
 Meanwhile, reserving, as before, my right to publish my side of the 
 correspondence, and with kind regards, — I am, yours very truly, 
 
 Robert Howie. 
 
86 
 III. 
 
 4 Bruce Road, Pollokshields, 
 bth January, 1891. 
 Dear Professsor Drummond, 
 
 I am in receipt of yours of the 31st ultimo. Although I 
 })ut plain questions, so as to obtain answers which might prevent 
 misunderstanding on my part as to your views, I regret that, of the 
 several doctrines which I specified, you refer only to that of " sin," 
 substituting, however, the word *^ sense" for "guilt," when referring 
 to it. I regret further that you make no reference whatever to the 
 objectionable passages I quoted from your booklet. Notwithstanding 
 my desire to " think no evil " our correspondence has thus only 
 confirmed the unfavourable impression I had formed as to your 
 views on the vital points in question. It still remains with me to 
 consider what may be my duty as your co-presbyter. Having just 
 heard from one of your students that you mean forthwith to publish 
 your Inaugural Address, I shall delay taking action in the hope that 
 this information may prove to be correct, and that the address when 
 published in full may tend to modify the unfavourable impression 
 which the Herald report of it has produced, and which has been 
 confirmed by Pax Vobiscuin and by your letters to myself. With 
 the compliments of the season and kind regards. — I am, yours very 
 truly, 
 
 Robert Howie. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I HAVE just seen the pamphlet of Rev. William Grant, M.A., on 
 " The Defence of Scripture on Scientific Lines with reference to the 
 Manifesto on the Dods and Bruce Cases." I would have taken no 
 notice of it, but for the fact that its author misrepresents (doubtless 
 unintentionally) the " method of defence " of Scripture adopted by 
 those who are responsible for the Manifesto. He tries to make it 
 appear — although he gives no proof whatever of his averments — that 
 they adopt what he describes as the " traditional " or " scholastic " 
 method, which " starts with the product of inspiration, the infallible 
 record, as its basis, or premiss," as against the " scientific " method 
 which " starts with the product of revelation, the infallible substance, 
 or truth of Scripture, as its basis." 
 
87 
 
 The pamphlet is written in such a style that it is somewhat difficult 
 to know, even after all the explanations of its author, what precisely 
 is intended by the contrast here drawn. If, however, Mr. Grant 
 means to assert that in defending Scripture those responsible for the 
 Manifesto begin by assuming the infallibility of the record as the pro- 
 duct of inspiration, and thence deduce the reality, infallibility, and 
 Divine authority of the revelation, I have no hesitation in saying 
 that he misrepresents the " method of defence " of Scripture adopted 
 by his brethren. The order we follow in dealing with Sceptics is well 
 stated by Drs. Hodge and Warfield under the heading of " Presuppos- 
 itions " (p. 29). We do not begin with the evidence which 
 immediately establishes inspiration, far less do we assume the 
 infallibility of the record, but we first establish theism, then the 
 historical credibility of the Scriptures, and then the Divine origin of 
 Christianity, and thus the infallibility and authority of the revelation 
 of God's will which the Scriptures contain. Having done all this, we 
 are in a position to present, in convincing form, the evidence in favour 
 of the inspiration and consequent infallibility of the record, based on 
 the statements of Biblical writers, and of Christ and His Apostles. 
 " Reasoning then from this infallible foundation" (to use the words 
 of Mr. Grant) " there follows from infallible truth by logical deduc- 
 tion, infallible objective statements, and also infallible text, . . . 
 From the express declarations of Scripture as to the inspiration of the 
 ' written Word,' ' the Scriptures,' and from the example of Christ and 
 His Apostles making an argument depend upon a particular form of 
 a word, there is evidence of a verbal inspiration, or of an inspiration 
 of the written Word itself, to secure that the moral and spiritual 
 truth of Scripture is infallibly transmitted. If this were not so, in- 
 spiration as distinct from revelation, would be a mere name without 
 effect." 
 
 PRINTED BY ROBKRT MACLEHOSE, UNIVKBSITY PRESS, GLASGOW, 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 ^^m^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^i^^< 
 
 
 
 J^IjCSSW'^^' 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r • 
 
 p. 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 1 ^ \.u., 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED INU.S.A. 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 
 I 
 
I 
 
BW5546.D6H88c,2 
 Westminster doctrine anent Holy 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00038 6500