^■^'*«i^

H, Martin

m

Letters
to
Marous Dods

.^.,J*"X

'BS480
.M38
1890

ij

r^N/ ar vnt

^>

19.

AV^

BS480

.M38
1890

W^r^ IJh^-^r

A SEQUEL TO

" The Westminster Doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture."

Letters

TO

Marcus Dods, D.D.

BY THE LATE

HUGH MARTIN, D.D.

THIBD EDITION.

LONDON: J. NISBET & CO.
1890.

PRICE THREEPENCE.

Warfield Libran

A SEQUEL TO

7

" The Wesfminster Doctrine of the Inspiration of Sciiiyture.'"

LETTEES

OF Pff7%^,

'4'\

19 1920

MARCUS D O D S, D. D.

Y THE LATE

HUGH MAETIN, D. D.

THIRD EDITION.

LONDON: J. NISBET & CO.
18 9 0.

o

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Preface, ........ 3

Letter I. — The Apologetic Element, . . . .5

Letter II. — The Rationalising Element, . ■ . . 8

Letter III. — How do you make up your Canon 1 . .11

Letter IV. —An " Explosion ! " ..... 16

Letter V. — Divine Authorship — Anything or Nothing, . 19

I-etter VI. — "It pleased the Lord to commit the same wholly

to Writing," ....... 22

Letter VII. {Supplementary). ~Eise,vt&^ Years Ago, . . 2G

PREFACE.

For the sake of those who may have the First or Second Edition of
the " "Westminster Doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture," I think
it right to reproduce here what I have said in a Preface to the Third
Edition, published since the rising of the General Assembly : —

" I have very seriously considered whether I miglit not, in this
edition, suppress the Prefatory Note, and it would have given me
pleasure to find that to be my duty. But so long as the extract from
the College Committee's Special Eeport on Professor Smith's case, on
which my Prefatory Note is founded (page 9), abides among our
Church documents, without a word of disapprobation on the part of
the Assembly or the Church, I cannot possibly cease to bear resolute
witness against it. It is a very serious thing for any Committee of
this Church to take it upon them to tell us what is " the technical
ground in the Confession that must regulate ecclesiastical procedure,"
even though they should set it forth correctly. The Courts of the
Church will judge of that for themselves, on each occurrent case, as
providence may require. It is still more serious when they set it
forth incorrectly, and with such trenching on the perfection of our
confessional relation to the great doctrine of Inspiration as I have felt
it my duty to point out. There are names on that Committee for
which I have such regard, that I am entitled to the sympathy of my
brethren, instead of any breath of blame, for having undertaken the
imgrateful duty. It was more imperatively called for, than, perhaps
even yet, has become quite apparent.

" But I wish to put on record, and call particular attention to, the
fact that neither the Assembly nor the Church is in the least degree
committed to the extract which I have criticised. It has met with
no approval, and with even no defence. What took place at the
Assembly, in this regard, was as follows : — (I.) Dr Eainy intimated,
on Tuesday, 29tli May, that the Convener of the College Committee
had telegraphed to him to table the Special Eeport ; and that, in the
Convener's absence, he would do so without a word. (2.) Dr Wil-
son's motion, which founded itself on that Eeport, was content with
quoting from it so much as it needed and no more ; and the usual
phrase — " receive the Eeport and approve of the same " — was con-
spicuously absent. (.'>.) On iVIonday, 4th June, the Convener gave in

4 PREFACE.

the General Eeport, and stated that, as the Special Eeport had been
given in by Dr Eainy, he would make no allusion to it. (4.) In
moving the adoption of the General Eeport, Dr Elder was careful to
]ioint out that it did not include the Special Eeport, and made it very
plain that he was not moving the adoption or approval of it.

" All this is so far satisfactory, except, of course, that it is negative.
But as the extract abides where it was, without one tinge of positive
disapprobation attached to it, so must my Prefatory Note abide where
it was. The duty of writing and publishing it, at whatever risk of
any man's displeasure, was urgent, and was not discharged without
some gentleness as well as much consideration. I pondered long, for
instance, whether I would not put another name than Coleridge's on
page 8, to bring out the same distinction ; and I refrained from fear,
as the saying is, of putting mischief into people's heads. Alas, I
rather think now that the mischief is in some people's heads already.
I refer to the ' New Preface ' to Dr Marcus Dods's third edition of
liis Sermon on ' Eevelation and Inspiration,' where, patently, he
' cordially accepts,' and takes refuge behind, that very position which
] felt it to be my duty to demolish. Unfortunately it was astonish-
ingly ^iJ^ccZ (no man believes intemled) to protect such errors as his.
P)Ut it is now a ruin. And it is certain that it will not be rebuilt.
The best that can be said of it is, that it was an obiter dictum on the
part of the pen that may have written it ; and amidst the mass
of matter demanding their attention, passed with only too much
facility by the Committee, who have never asked any approval of it.
But as I am (almost simultaneous with these lines) sending off to
press, in the shape of ' Letters to Dr Dods,' a somewhat full and
detailed reply to that\ sorrowful document, the ' New Preface,' I need
not say more on the matter here. I content myself with saying that,
beyond the shadow of a doubt, the doctrine of the divine authorship,
inspiration, and authority of the Old and New Testaments is now
raised and imperilled in the Free Church of Scotland.

" H. M."

Montrose, \Ath June 1877.

LETTERS TO MARCUS DODS, D.D.

I.

The Apologetic Element,

Montrose, Wth June 1887.
My Deaii Sik, — I greatly regret that you have issued a thh'd and
unchanged edition of your sermon on " Eevelation and Inspiration,"
and that the " Xew Preface " cannot, in any respect, be considered as
having improved the situation.

You begin by complaining that justice has not been done to the
apologetic element in your discourse : " In the first place, I should
have expected intelligent readers to apprehend that the sermon was
written as an apologetic attempt." Now, waiving all about "intelli-
gent readers," I have a distinct recollection of recognising the apolo-
getic element in your pages ; but my criticism of your sermon being
incidental, and by no means the main object of my pamphlet, my
aim was to produce, not an exhaustive reply, but merely stricture
sufficient, in my view, to lead you to reconsider your position. Save
for this, I would certainly have set myself to bar you out from finding
shelter in the fifth section of the first chapter of the Confession — an
attempt which I see you repeat in reference to " Paul bringing light
to your spirit." And, undoubtedly, I would have done what you
now, not very wisely, I think, challenge me to do. How, then, is it
possible for me, in meeting your challenge on this point, to avoid
asking. What hinders you from conducting a sound and valid apolo-
getic in defence of Divine Eevelation without injuring Inspiration?
For that last is really what you have to reply to. Why have you
injured the doctrine of Inspiration ? Till you vanquish my arguments,
I am entitled to say (and, of course, I must say it now more strongly
than before), that I have proved that what you call inspiration was
"not something designed to secure the supreme divine authorship of
the writings concerned ; that, in fact, it may be defined as being just
everything except what would secure that result." * In short, yoM
have spirited out and rationalised away everything that the Church
Catholic, and not the Westminster Divines only, have counted
precious in their idea of Inspiration, leaving in it nothing distinctive,
and denying all that is supernatural.

* See " Westminster Doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture," page 17.

6 LETTER I.

And can you possibly mean to say that you have done this in the
service of apologetic ? Can you assert, maintain, and defend the
supernatural in revelation, only at the expense of surrendering the
supernatural in the record of revelation ? Can you not teach geometry
without staining the honours due to quaternions? Can you not
expound plain algebra without laying lance in rest against the differ-
ential calculus, or hunting Bishop Berkeley's imaginary " ghosts of
departed quantities"? These are fair analogies. For, what is there
in the superadded and cumulative glory of the fact that the record is
divine, to hamper you in your apologetic in behalf of the truth that
the revelation is divine ? No honest mind will refuse you liberty to
disentangle the two things. For myself, I had rather assisted you.
I had not entirely overlooked this topic. I had said : *' Inspiration
presupposes revelation, and is concerned with the recording of it, or
with (in the language of the Confession) the committing of it to
writing; and the argument concerning inspiration presupposes that
the argument on the evidences of Divine Eevelation — the old phrase
for what is now called apologetics — has been led and closed " (page
11). If this is not clear enough, take the excellent statement of our
brother, Mr Stevenson Smith : * "In arguing about Inspiration, we
do not deal with infidels, but with believers in the Word of God.
What, therefore, the Holy Scriptures say about their own Inspiration
we must receive as the truth of God, otherwise we disallow them
as a Divine Eevelation." And you are not yourself without the per-
ception of this old-fashioned truth, if you would only wield it con-
sistently, instead of being off and on with it in alternate sentences.
For instance, you say : " The Revelation first lays hold of him (the
rational sceptic), and afterwards he constructs his theory of Inspira-
tion." I would say. Makes up his mind concerning the doctrine of
Inspiration ; for I know of no theory. But let that pass. Again you
say : " My main object was to indicate that, so far as the historical
contents of Scripture are concerned, revelation stands firm, although
there should prove to be no such thing as Inspiration ; " a legitimate
enough aim or object, not only in reference to "the historical contents
of Scripture," but to the entire Scripture, on the understanding that you
mean that the argument for revelation stands firm, prior to any
attempt to prove that there is such a thing as inspiration. But, then,
when you go on to say in your next sentence : " It will not be dis-
puted Ijy any ordinarily informed person, that a large amount of the
current scepticism f is due to the mixing up of these two things," that

* See his admirable pamphlet, "A Study of Scripture Inspiration. By Rev.
Stevenxon Smith, Free Church, Sanquhar." Edin. : Maclaren & Macniven.

t There are sceptics and sceptics. There is the honest and sorrowful sceptic, who
is to be treated on the principle of the Apostolic command, " Let not that which is
lame be turned out of the way, but let it rather be healed." And there is the dis-
honest and bitter-hearted scejjtie, who is to be treated on the principle of the Lord's
own injunction, "Cast not your pearls before swine." I do not know that I have
ever read anything better on the point than the following : " There are many cases

THE APOLOGETIC ELEMENT. 7

is another matter. Waiving once more, all about "ordinarily in-
formed people," I really am not aware that a large amount of current
scepticism is due to this cause, for I do not know that this cause is
to any serious extent in operation. If it is, I cannot imagine who
the parties are that are mixing up revelation and inspiration. It
may possibly be some of those impoverished retrogressionists (demon-
strably so) who, to the scandal of all modest minds, are calling them-
selves "advanced thinkers." It cannot possibly be any wise and
faithful vindicator of the Westminster Confession. Indeed, the
Church of Christ, generally, has been accustomed to tell the sceptic
that the doctrine of inspiration is a revealed truth, which we believe
on the testimony of God ; and until he come to acknowledge the
reality and credibility of a divine revelation, and of the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments, as the genuine and authentic record
thereof, we never dream of requiring him to form any judgment upon
the subject. It is a topic on which we do not trouble him : and it is
a topic on which — why should he trouble us ? I think you do allow
yourself, most unnecessarily, and with no possible advantage, either
in the meantime or in the end, to be troubled on this topic by
sceptics, when you admit that a large amount of their scepticism is
due to the mixing up of these two things. And even if it be true,
disentangle the two things. Withdraw the topic of inspiration out
of his reach, and leave him, in the meantime, face to face with revela-
tion only. And surely you can do that, without injuring inspiration,
and without throwing out sinister hints that inspiration is very likely
to injure him. vSurely that is the proper'course to follow. But instead
of that, you seem to me as if you would say to the sceptic : " Ah !
poor fellow ; you are greatly to be pitied. There is that * staggering '
ogre of inspiration ready to seize you as soon as you get within the
gates of revelation. I really don't wonder though you stay out in the
cold in preference." Exactly, for all the world, as if, in order to get
him in at the door, you would throw inspiration out at the window !
Changing the figure, I shall take the liberty of hinting to you a more
excellent way. When a sceptic pules to you about " his scepticism
being due to the mixing up of these two things ; " look him in the
face, and " teU that fox," that it cannot possibly be Inspiration, poor
lamb ! that is muddling the water. For there never was a clearer
case of the fable.

AVhen you say that "if revelation is to be conserved, it must not
be bound up and made to stand with a special theory of inspiration,"
I reply that the Westminster Confession gives no special theory of
inspiration, and, indeed, no theory at all. It asserts its conviction

to be found, in which uncertainty as to fundamental truths is to those who are per-
plexed by it a matter of deepest seriousness and concern. But there are other cases
ia which the profession of scepticism has very much the character of a pastime ;
those who indulge in it seem to have no higher object in view than their own amuse-
ment and the perplexity of others ; this is a course of conduct which cannot be too
btrongly reprobated." — Free General Assembly's Reports, xx. p. 4.

8 LETTER II.

evidently that inspiration lias resulted in the divine authorship of the
record of revelation : and how that could be adverse to " revelation
being conserved " is inconceivable. Eeally you seem hard to please.
You are interested in revelation being "conserved." These divines
say that, exactly " for the better preserving of it, the Lord committed
it wholly to writing." And yet you are no better pleased than
before ! You add, " My aim was to show that of these two distinct
things, Revelation [is by far the more important ; " — a very pre-
sumptuous attempt, I must say ; and directly in the face of that same
Westminster Confession (yours and mine), which, after affirming the
divine authorship, goes on to say, " which maketh the Holy Scripture
to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will
unto His people being now ceased." So that of the two things which
you thus contrast, that which by implication you count " by far the
less important," is by these divines counted the very crown, and
completion, and permanent replacement of what you count " by far
the more important." How can you possibly count that by far the
more important, which, without the other, must, at the mercy of
human tradition, have passed away as a summer brook ? Certain
it is that that divineness of the record which you call " not indispens-
able," the Confession calls "most necessary."

All this is in regard of the historical writings. But then you
proceed to say that even " in the case of the prophetical and apostoli-
cal writings, the revelation of truth to the mind of the writers was
the matter of prime importance." Yes ; to the prophetical and
apostolic writers ; for their own soul's instruction and salvation. But
as concerns " the prophetical and apostolic writings " (and it is of
them you speak) ; as concerns the bearings of the writings, and their
value to the Church in all ages ; the statement seems sheer infatua-
tion. And, in short, I do not think that paragraphs, which begin
with statements like that, and end with the expression of your desire
to imitate Paul in " allowing the inspired state of the human mind
to fall back into a secondary place " ought to detain me any longer
in replying to them. — I am, &c.

11.

The Rationalising Element.

My Dear Sir, — Since, to my mind, "tliis point of view" does
not improve matters in the very least, but rather requires an apolo-
getic for itself, instead of being able to render any, I fail of course to
see how you can justly appeal to it against those who take exception
to your statement, " I do not believe what Paul says, because I first
believe him to be inspired; but T believe liim to be inspired because lie

THE RATIONALISING ELEMENT. 9

brings light to my spirit, which can come only from God." (Pref. p. 5.)
You, however, " reading the sermon from this point of view, do not see
liow any one can justly take exception to that statement." But it is
just because we have read the sermon, that we take exception to this
sentence, in consecution to many more. Had it stood alone ; and
more particularly, could we have considered it as indicating nothing
but a commonplace little bit of natural history of the state of
mind of a sceptic passing from darkness to light ; I venture to say
nobody would have ever troubled you about it. But, my dear Sir,
the very serious thing is, that even when you do " beheve Paul to be
inspired, because he brings light to your spirit which could come only
from God," the inspiration which you are thus led to attribute to him
is something wholly different from what the Catholic Church, and
in particular the Westminster Divines, have ever regarded as that
divine inspiration which secures the divine authorship and authority
of the Word of God. In the face of this, it is mere trifling to tell us,
what it needs no ghost surely to tell, — namely, that " no rational sceptic
first comes to believe in inspiration, and from that belief passes on to
belief in God," and that "no man believes in inspiration until he believes
in Christ as able to give the Spirit." I am thrown back, therefore, even
on the first half of your sentence, in which you say, " I do not believe
what Paul says because I first believe him to be inspired," and I am
compelled to ask : Is the Inspiration which in the end you attribute
to him, such that you can say, " I do believe what Paul says (though
not because 1 first believe him to be inspired, yet) when now at last
I believe him to be inspired " ? Can you say that ? Dare you say
that, with what I am now to quote from your next page ? "I accept
him," you say, " as authoritative because his claim is consistent. I
may not be able at once to accept all he teaches. I cannot accept
it merely because it conies to me with authority." Can you not ?
Why can you not? He has brought light to your spirit. You
" believe he has received a revelation, because to you it is a revela-
tion." And because of this revelation and this light to your spirit,
you believe him to be authoritative and inspired. But you cannot
imagine this to be supernatural inspiration and divine authority, and
then say you cannot accept it merely because it comes to you under
the hand and authorship of the Holy Ghost, and on the authority
of the Divine Being ! You cannot possibly make a wild and daring
statement like that! What then follows, but that whereas you " do not
believe what Paul says, because you first believe him to be inspired,"
neither do you believe what he says because you even in the end
believe him to be inspired, your view of Paul's inspiration being such
that it does not bring you into contact with the living God, as the
Supreme Author of what you read in his Epistles, for then his divine
authority would gloriously overpower you ; and so you do not count
these Epistles part of what it is right and warrantable to say, " It
pleased the Lord to commit wholly to writing."

10 LETTER II.

Is not that a demonstration? But really it needed not. The
demonstration was clear and plentiful enough already, that your view
of inspiration is something so very low as not to enforce the obliga-
tion of unconditional acceptance of that to which it imparts its
authority.

Hence you have nothing to complain of, if any one has said you
" should in consistency accept as inspired every one who brings light
to your spirit." I am not aware of having insisted to that effect
myself ; but I do not admit that you are right in calling it a " childish
deduction." I can see no difficulty whatever in your admitting that
any man who brings light to your spirit is inspired — considering what
a very poor thing after all the inspiration which you traffic in, is.
And, most certainly, your cause will not be improved by cutting it
off, and tying it on, time about, to the external evidences, and burying
it in the intervals in a semi-quaker inward experience and light of
your own.

I really did not think you could have penned such a sentence as
this : " I can only accept in doctrine that which fits in with my
previously received ideas and my stage of mature growth." The
sinfulness of rejecting in Scripture what does not agree with our
preconceived — or "previously received" — ideas, is such a common-
place among evangelical divines, and the full-blown Eationalism
which it implies is so patent, that I am almost compelled to seek
something different from the obvious meaning of your words. Is it
possible, I have thought, that you can be tacitly dealing with
Augustine's beautiful expression, Credo ut intdligam, " I believe that
I may understand ; " and that in all this it is not the credo that you
are meaning when you speak of "accepting" doctrine, but the in-
telligam ; not the faith, but the spiritual appreciation ? Is that it ?
No doubt there is a great and sore work of " assimilating " — (you use
that word once, over and above "accepting") — the glorious riches of
revelation to the beginnings of holy, gracious acquirement which,
through the tender mercy of our God, we may have been enabled to
make. And the fitting in of one divine truth after another into an
inward embodiment, in the soul, of the mind of Christ, till that soul
becomes an epistle of Christ, known and read of all men — this,
certainly, is not to be achieved by the mere utterance of authority, as
the dead may be raised at the crack of doom. If something like this
has been running in your mind in pages 6 and 7, then say so. Speak,
for I desire to justify you ; though even tlien I shall wonder at the
confusion of thought by which you are vexing both yourself and your
friends. But, surely, even then you will not say that the only reason
why you " accept the doctrine of the Trinity " is, that you " find in it
the root which the facts of redemption require " ? Surely you will
not deliberately declare that, even after receiving scripture writers as
coming to you with " authority," and " bringing light to your spirit,"
you could not, apart from the leading facts of redemption, " accept

HOW DO YOU MAKE UP YOUR CANON ? 11

the doctrine of the Trinity on whatsoever authority announced"?
What ! not even though one rose from the dead ? Blessed be God, it
is usually in connection with the facts of redemption that the persons
of the Sacred Three, and their infinitely gracious and distinct personal
interpositions, are revealed. Is that any reason why you should say,
that revealed in other implications, you could not believe the revela-
tion on whatsoever autliority — not even the authority of these three
Divine Persons themselves ? The question is not, whether this would
be " at your own risk." It is, what would be your duty ? your duty
as a reasonable being, when God hath spoken. And pardon me when
I say, that in the strange sentences I have criticised, you have gone
very far out of your duty indeed ; your aberration springing from an
attempt, — as I believe, and from which I would still implore you to
resile — an attempt, in plain terms, to rationalise the doctrine of
inspiration. — I am, &c.

III.

Hoio do you maJcc up your Canon ?-

My Dear Sir, — But you are not done with your defence of the
sentence ; " I do not believe what Paul says, because I first believe
him to be inspired ; but I believe him to be inspired, because he
brings light to my spirit, which can only have proceeded from God."
You. are " curious to know how those who object to this statement
make up their canon."

Make up our canon ! You surely don't think we do it once a
week, like merchants with their ledgers ? And you don't think that
we have, each of us, a canon to himself? Even the disorderly
Corinthians were not so bad as that. Every one of them " had a
psalm, had a doctrine, had a tongue, had a revelation, had an inter-
pretation." But a canon? No. In that case they would have
required more than ever the apostolic injunction, " Let all things be
done unto edifying." Seriously, it was by way of obtemperiug that
command that I devoted two pages of my pamphlet to the topic of
the canon, saying all that I thought necessary in order to quiet dis-
tressed Christian souls. Eor I abhor to see God's humble, honest
children tormented with hints — hints sinister and hints dexterous —
to the effect that, if they had only enough of critical learning and
antiquarian church history, they would find a good many things to
make them rather anxious about the grounds of their faith ! I am
no despiser of learning. But I have a sense of bounding joyousness
in telling my Church that there is not one believing child of God
within her borders, from end to end, that need sleep one moment less
of the sleep God giveth to his beloved, because of any risk to the ark
of God from questions of criticism, or questions about the canon.

12 LETTER III.

Make up our canon, indeed ! I thank God that that has not been
left to us individually to do — not left even to this whole generation
to do. God has committed that task to His Church. And we are
not, merely because the Church has been caricatured by Eome, to be
frayed away from saying, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church."
No; nor have we any doubt about her dutifulness concerning " the
oracles of God," or about God's providence and grace in enabling her
to discriminate, recognise, and set her seal to canonical Scripture.
The canon has been made up already, and the golden cord which
binds its parts into an unapproachable unity is divine authorship,
secured by divine inspiration, and therefore securing divine authority
(Westminster Confession, i., 3, 4).

That golden cord you have broken. And can you wonder if I am
curious to know how you make up your canon ?

The canon ! Had I not proved * that your views of inspiration
are such as to deprive you of all right so much as to speak about the
canon ? At least until you reply to my argument, am I not entitled
to say so? Why have you not met my proof that "it would be
perfectly hopeless, on such a scheme (as yours), to define the words
" canonical " and " apocryphal ; " and impossible to secure a fixed and
honourable application of them : If inspiration is not a thing of
thorough distinctiveness, but of measure and degree, in which others
besides the writers of the Scripture have shared, then there is and
can be no sure enclosure, railing in certain books as canonical, and
barring out others as apocryphal ? " With the inspiration expounded
in your Sermon, and still defended in your New Preface, you are
helpless in the grasp of that little argument — that short and easy
method with a rationaliser of inspiration.

Canonicity follows divine inspiration : " The books commonly
called apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the
CANON of Scripture" (Conf. i., 3, first clause). Moreover: authority
follows inspiration and canonicity — divine authority, of course.
Hence, the books commonly called apocrypha " are of no authority
in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use
of, than any other human writings " (Conf i., 3, second clause). Still
further : authority rests on authorship, divine authority on divine
authorship : " The authority of the Holy Scripture dependeth wholly
upon God, the author of it " (Conf. i., 4). And thus in the close of
its fourth section, that remarkable chapter of the Confession, with its
simple and unsophisticated recognition and affirmation of God as the
" author " of Holy Scripture, returns upon and reduplicates upon its
initial statement of that same beautiful doctrine, namely, that " it
pleased the Lord to commit the same wholly to writing." Thus, in
every point of view, it is obvious that divine aiUlwrship is that one
unapproachably glorious consideration which constitutes the unity in
which true canonicity consists — that one golden cord which binds the

* See " Westminster Doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture," pp. 16-18.

HOW DO YOU MAKE UP YOUR CANON ? 13

various documents (written by different men, known and unknown,
written in different ages, different languages, different countries) into
one — a "one" which the Church calls the "canon," and whose unity
the Westminster Divines recognise (little wonder), the moment they
have affirmed divine authorship. For having said, " It pleased the
Lord to commit the same wholly to writing ; " their very next utter-
ance is this, — "which maketh the Holy Sceiptube to be most
necessary."

This golden cord, I repeat, you have broken. Doing that, you have
lost all right to the Church's canon. You have a canon of your own
to make up. And " I am curious to know how you make up your
canon " !

Certainly it will not be by taking up the books of Scripture, one by
one, and committing them upon the fortunes of an experiment to see
whether they will " bring light to your spirit such as can come only
from God." That bears too close a resemblance to Mr Tyndal's pro-
posal about prayer, and savours too much of tempting the Holy One
of Israel. Besides : since Satan transforms himself into an angel of
light, and since it is your duty to try the spirits whether they be of
God, what objective test have you in the meantime, whereby to detect
false light and verify " such light as can come only from God " ? Such
a test you need, and simply must have, else you are into quakerism at
once : and I need not say, that test you can have none, save just those
canonical Scriptures, whose canonicity you have in the meantime
flung away. So that you will probably find ere-long that you are very
exactly in the circumstances of the unreasonable old gentleman, who,
having lost his spectacles, insisted that he required to liavc them, in
order to find them !

But you expatiate on this subject of the canon through a whole page
notwithstanding. You speak of " subjective considerations," hinting
somewhat obscurely at the self-evidencing power of Scripture, as if
that were identical with what you propound in the proposition, " I
believe Paul to be inspired, because he brings light to my spirit, which
can only proceed from God." But by that proposition you mean your-
belief that Ite was under a certain gracious influence which you call
" inspiration," and of which we have your unretracted description in
3'our Sermon. Whereas the self-evidencing power of Scripture is that
intrinsic glory which proves it to be of divine authorship — the very
doctrine which you never affirm and practically deny. You then in-
troduce to our notice, and in your own defence, " Calvin, Luther, and
(Ecolampadius," with a flourish about their " boldness and firmness of
hand " as being fitted to " be very astounding to this generation." But
however relentless it may seem, I am compelled to ask. What right
have you to refer to Calvin, Luther, and (Ecolampadius, in relation to
the canon of Holy Scripture ? — you, who have lost all right to refer
even to the canon, and parted company with the lieformers most
fatally as to what even canonicity implies ? With them, as with the

l-t LETTER III.

Westminster Confession, canonicity was identified with divine author-
ship. The claim of any document to scriptural canonicity, in their
view, signified its claim to rank among those writings of which God is
the author. For the word has the same unsophisticated application
here as in the cases of mere human literature. If the canonicity of
"the Tempest" is undoubted, that just means that the authorship is
undoubted : the play is certainly Shakespearean. Even so, scriptural
canonicity is just divine authorship : and until you admit that, you
have no right so much as to name, on this theme, the names of the
Reformers. They would have repelled with indignation the inspira-
tion which your sermon describes, and which you bring forward their
honoured names to defend. They held, in the plain and unsophisti-
cated meaning of the term, that the Lord God is an " author,"* and
that the Holy Scripture is his published works — that the Bible is
divine — the divine record of a divine revelation. When asked to state
the strongest proof that Scripture is divine (not that Scripture has
divine things in it, but is divine), they answered. Scripture itself.
Divine light and glory shine in it, and he that is born again
of the word and Spirit of God hears the voice of the spirit in the
word which is His own : " he that is of God, heareth God's words ; "
he that is of the light seeth the light. The sphere of this light
(self-revealing, self-evidencing, of course) was in their view just
the sphere of Holy Scripture, considered as a gloriously unapproach-
able unit — its unity, amidst multifarious diversity, consisting in this,
that every page of it claimed God for its author. And when men
said, — How can that be, seeing that evidently various human authors
contributed to write the book ? their answer was, — The authorship is
still one and divine ; because, through the instrumentality of human
authorship, " all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." That was
what Calvin, Luther, and QEcolampadius believed concerning inspira-
tion. And were they " looking up " in these days of " advanced
thought," and told that they had been called in to witness to the cor-
rectness of your views of that great doctrine, their characteristic dis-
tinctions of disposition would doubtless become manifest — not to speak
of their " boldness and firmness of hand " — in a manner that would be
" very astounding " to you ! They would not leave much for me to
say, either about your Sermon or your New Preface to it.

The Eeformers held a doctrine of inspiration which enabled them
to consider the whole Bible as " the Eevelation of Jesus Christ which
God gave unto Him." Apart from this, their Lord's prophetic office
would have been to them an uncompleted, uncrowned, unsuccessful
effort — a broken pillar — a miserable ruin. But counting the whole
Scripture to be one, they never hesitated to apply to it in its entirety,
the awful words which occur in that closing book, whose title (just
quoted) so strikingly expresses the verity concerning the whole
Scripture: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
* Weabminster Confession, i. 4.

HOW DO YOU MAKE UP YOUR CANON ? 15

unto him the plagues that are written in this book ; and if any man
shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God
shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy
city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Rev.
xxii. 18, 19). 'Tis the last utterance of Emmanuel, save one — the
promise, " Surely I come quickly." Consider it, if you will, as having
application solely to the closing book, more technically called " the
Eevelation of John." Had it been " the lievelation of John " merely,
can you imagine overawing comminations like these pronounced over
everything like tampering with it ? But the solution is easy if " the
Eevelation of John " is " the Eevelation of Jesus Christ." The whole
problem of inspiration is in a nutshell there. The two authorships,
supreme and subordinate, are there ; and inspiration harmonises them.
Jesus Christ writes his own Eevelation by inspiring John to write
the Eevelation of John : — John, by inspiration, writes the Eevelation
of Jesus Christ. 'Tis the same throughout the Scripture generally ;
and the fact of divine authorship affords most justly, in reason's
esteem, the same terrific guarantee of protection to it all.

Before passing from this, let me entreat you not to think that, in
making light of the argumentative value of your expression, " I believe
Paul to be inspired because he brings light to my spirit, which can
come only from God," I disesteem any " outstanding fact of mental
experience," — far less that I disparage the fifth section of the first
chapter of the Westminster Confession, towards which your appeal to
experimental light seems to point. I will yield to none in my
admiration of that magnificent sentence — casket, as it is, of so many
dazzling jewels of blessed propositions, whereamong one knows not
how to select the most beautiful or brilliant, and dreads to mar the
setting which these cunning artificers — as if Bezaleel's and Aholiab's
gifts and spirit had come upon them — have given to the beauteous
whole. Hence, as, were I alluding to Milton's description of his
blindness, I would do nothing short of reverently quoting in full, so
must it be here and now : —

" We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church
to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture ; and the
heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty
of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which
is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only
way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellences,
and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth
abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God ; yet, notwithstand-
ing, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and
divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit,
bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." (West.
Conf. i. 5.)

Grieved am I to say that your right to appeal to this most power-
ful and most eloquent utterance is, in the meantime, in abeyance, as

IG

LETTER IV.

well as your riglit to speak of Calvin, Luther, and (Ecolampadius ;
and for the same reason, namely, because you have burst the golden
cord of canoncity. This most precious section of our Confession
recognises the canon, by recognising the true canonicity, that,
namely, which rests on divine authorship, and which communicates
to the Scriptures their divine unity. Hence at once it speaks of " the
holy scripture." Moreover, it speaks of this " scripture " abundantly
" evidencing itself to be the word of God : " — unity again ; " the
word of God : " not a miscellany containing words of God ; but itself
"the word of God." And it is of "the infallible truth and divine
authority " of this " word of God," throughout and throughout (and not
of the infallible truth and divine authority of parts of it here and
there), that " the inward work of the Holy , Ghost " gives " full
persuasion and assurance." Poor inference yours, from Paul bringing
light to your spirit ; to wit, that he was inspired ! Glorious inference
from the fact that the Holy Ghost gives divine light anywhere within
the sphere of this unity called " the scripture ; " to wit, that it, the
scripture, is a sphere of divine light all round and round, and from
circumference to centre, — that it is what we may hold our face up to
the heavens to tell the angels we have found it, — and what we may
bend our lips to the little ears we love to tell it has been to us, —
" God's Book, my darling ! " For it is a proposition simple enough for
the child to begin intelligently to apprehend, and, at the same time,
too glorious for principalities and powers in heavenly places to exhaust.
— I am, &c.

IV.

An " Explosion ! "

My Dear Sir, — The remainder of your Preface need not now
detain us very long. Your " cordial acceptance of the statement of
the Confession, that all the books that compose our Bible are given
by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life," is no voucher
for your views on inspiration. It implies nothing more than that you
consider the Bible to be composed of the books mentioned in the Con-
fession of Faith, — that is to say, that your canon, however you " make
it up," is identical with that of the Confession. This is all that you
can be admitted as ." cordially accepting : " little thanks to you ! Your
cordial acceptance of the phrase, " given by inspiration of God," as
applicable to the whole Bible, or to " all scripture," vouches nothing
for your doctrine of Inspiration, because it is simply a Scripture pro-
position in Scripture terms ; and your acceptance of it no more proves
that you hold the real doctrine, than a Socinian's acceptance of the
whole Bible proves his belief in the Godhead of our Lord Jesus. And
as I believe, and tried to show (as yet without an answer), that you
" evacuated the term Inspiration " in your Sermon, you will excuse

" AN EXPLOSION !" 17

me from accepting your challenge to investigate whether you evacuate
it again by " distinctly denying " a certain sentence from Dr A. A.
Hodge. I can quite see how that sentence might be understood in a
sense that should contradict certain distinctions I thought it necessary
to make among the multifarious contents of Scripture in their varying
measures of relation to the phrase "the word of God." I refer more
particularly to pages 20 to 22 of my little tractate. And I admit that
I see no great felicity in distinguishing between the "verbal expression"
and the " matter " of this Divine Book, more than in the case of any
book. But let that pass. You are under no bondage to Dr A. A.
Hodge ; and the judgment of concurrence, or " distinct denial," which
you may form in reference to what you quote from him, has no material
bearing on the question whether or no you " evacuate the term Inspira-
tion," You must, therefore, let me put my pen through all that you
say concerning Dr A. A. Hodge. The only other fraction of what you
" cordially accept," is the statement that all the books of our Bible are
given " to be the rule of faith and life." But you do not really accept
that. It is a mere obiter dictum when you say you do. For the real
state of the case comes out in your last sentence : " I believe the Scrip-
tures contain an infallible rule," &c. ; not " are " but " contain." The
" to be " is gone, you see. And here, most certainly, if ever, is that
saying true, — " To be, or not to be, that's the question."

May I point out to you the extraordinary nature of your penulti-
mate sentence, as condensing all that you contend for into two nega-
tives ! " All that I contend for is an inspiration which does not preclude
the necessity of acquiring information by the ordinary means, and
which does not involve infallibility, as defined by Dr Hodge." You
cannot mean that that is all you contend for and teach concerning
inspiration. And if not, what do you mean ? What sort of inglorious
termination of our collision of intellect were this ? — supposing it had
been to terminate here, to which you see I could not consent. After
reading my tractate, you say that all you contend for is summed up
in these two gaunt negations : Where does the Westminster Confes-
sion require you to believe that inspiration precluded the necessity of
the inspired writers obtaining information by the ordinary means ?
Why, I won't confirm that, any more than you : and I won't be bound
to express myself in Dr Hodge's language, any more than you. Yet
you actually count that " the knot of the whole matter ! "

No. That is not the knot of the whole matter. That would not
have evoked shrieks of delight from the secular press. That would
not have awakened anxiety and sorrow in the hearts of kind and tender
friends, more numerous, perhaps, than you are aware of That would
not have made sceptical young men clap their hands at the release
from the divine authority of the holy scripture, which they have under-
stood that Dr Marcus Dods is announcing as the latest discovery
among young Free Church critics and scholars of " advanced thought."
No ! there is a great deal more in it ! There is what you call an

18 LETTER IV.

" explosion " in it ; and though not an explosion of what you think,
yet the noise of it has been quite loud enough, and the danger, I fear,
not imaginary. The knot of the whole matter is that you affirm
in Holy Scriptures, " errors," — " inaccuracies," — the absence of " strict
accuracy," — " Paul occasionally wrong in a date," — indications of " im-
perfect information," and indications of " lapse of memory." These,
you tell us, are "trifling ; " " so trifling as in no appreciable degree to
damage the historicity or trustworthiness of scripture." It is still
a historical and trustworthy record of divine revelation. But a
divine record of a divine revelation ? Ah ! that's another matter.
" Trifling," in the sense of being powerless to destroy the record, they
are sufficient to destroy its character as a divine record ! Is not that
your meaning when you say, " trifling " in the one point of view, " but
sufficient entirely to explode the averment of literal infallibility " ?
Why did you put in the attenuating word in italics — " literal " ? You
were afraid, were you not ? to announce your " explosion " of infalli-
bility, pure and simple. It would have l3een too shocking. And so
you put in the word " literal." But it meant nothing : no ! nothing
at all. How do I know that 1 Because you have most distinctly told
us, that it meant nothing. Your next utterance is this : " What is
infallibility, but incapacity to err ? " And the answer could be of no
use to your argument, if " literal " had really meant anything. If
" literal " had meant anything, your question would have been,
" What is literal infallibility ? " Don't you see ?

So that it is the " explosion " of the infallibility of Holy Scripture
that you announce ! And that on the averment of unspecified " in-
accuracies " ! Precisely as if you ran into all our churches on the
Lord's day and cried " Fire " ! without saying where ; but on being
questioned, admitted that it was " trifling," a7id had produced an " ex-
plosion " ! An explosion of the infallibility of God's Word !

An explosion, I repeat, which you accomplish by means of " un-
specified inaccuracies," — unspecified ! And that is a gTeat aggravation
of your offence.

But do not misunderstand me. Not in deference to the allega-
tion even of s^occified inaccuracies will I consent, nor will the Free
Church of Scotland consent, to put in abeyance for one moment
the doctrine, nor what is due to the doctrine, of the Divine Author-
ship of Holy Scripture. We assert and maintain it to be a revealed
doctrine (and fact) which we believe on the testimony of God
that cannot lie. That we have for it the testimony of God that
cannot lie, we are at all times prepared to prove by a prodigious
confluence of evidence. Seventeen pages in my former pamphlet,
" indicating the line of proof," present, in themselves alone, abundantly
sufficient demonstration of it; and yet they are but the scantlings
and the first fruits of what a faithful labourer in this field may reap.
Call this great truth a doctrine, or a fact (and it is both), it sitteth
in the centre of a circle of divine liuht ; and the attestations of its

DIVINE AUTHORSHIP ANYTHING OR NOTHING. 19

right to sit there are as numerous as the radii that may be seen
pouring down upon it from all points in the circumference. We will
not shift it from its centre and derange everything — in other words,
we will not alter the true status questionis, — to please you. Or,
change the figure. 'Tis a perfectly impregnable citadel, this glorious
truth : and I refuse, either inside of it, or outside of it, to discuss the
status questionis which you substantially propose. A very simple
dilemma, that I am now to give you, will justify my refusal.

You are either, with me, inside this citadel, or you are outside.
If you are outside, I will not come out to discuss your alleged errors
and inaccuracies, even though you specify them ; for, on the supposi-
tion that this doctrine is not admitted to be true, what, in the name
of human reason, would there be to discuss ? — the fact, forsooth, that
there are errors and inaccuracies in a document of mere human
authorship ! That's a little too absurd. Take, now, the other horn.
If you are inside this impregnable position, surely I may well ask, not
in the name of human reason only, but of God's sacred fear, How dare
you discuss your errors and inaccuracies in the language you have em-
ployed, and with the effect of such " explosion " as you have announced?
Or, put the dilemma about the discussion you invite, and I refuse,
more briefly ; thus. This doctrine of divine authorship is either true
or false. If true ; hovj dare you ? If false ; what matters it ?

Oh ! most hopeful discussion ! when the very announcement of the
thing to be discussed places the disputants in such relation towards each
other as that pair of little alternative queries reveals ! Allow me, please,
to have some respect for the understanding which God hath given me.
And here I count myself released from further argument, for I hold
it proved that you have denied the divine authorship of the Holy Scrip-
ture. With that, its authority is also sacrificed. For "the autliority
of the holy scripture dependeth wholly upon God the author thereof "
(Conf i. 4). Of course also Inspiration, in the shape of anything
particular, is gone ; for nothing specific, needing to be called inspira-
tion, or by any other name, can find place, when it is no longer
indispensable in order to reconcile the two facts of subordinate
Imman authorship and supreme divine authorship. Of course, also
still farther, the canon is gone ; and Dr Andrew Thomson's Apocryphal
Controversy was a great absurdity, or (more exactly) a gross paralogism ;
for it is on account of " being of divine inspiration " that any document
forms " part of the canon of scripture " (Conf. i. 3). — I am, &c.

Y.

Divine A^ithorship — Anything or Nothing.

My Dear Sir, — Possibly, however, you may attempt to excuse
yourself by the allegation that " divine authorship " is a very vague
phrase, and that you are in no way bound to it. Pardon me : the

20 LETTER V.

affirmation of it is distinctly in the Confession (i. 4), though no doubt
only incidentally, yet none the less ineradicably there ; — " God, the
author thereof : " while it is a directly and immediately affirmed pro-
position in the first section, in those striking words I have so often
quoted, as I shall yet again have to insist unquailingly. Still it has
been said, " divine authorship is a term you may make anything
or nothing of." To which I answer ; Not at least without such
remonstrance as shall make the Free Church of Scotland ring from
end to end. As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, no man shall
make " anything or nothing " — ducks and drakes — of " divine author-
ship," any more than of " divine moral government," if by the grace
of God I can help it. But 1 am nothing. Fifty spears as good as
yours or mine shall flash to the sunlight at the strange suggestion,
and vow their deathless fealty. Taste mine, till they come.

The terms, " divine authorship," and " divine moral government,"
beyond a doubt, deserve exactly the honour due to the propositions —
" God is an Author " and " God is a Moral Governor." Now I can
understand a man denying either of these propositions ; but I cannot
understand a Christian man disparaging either of them. But if it
must be so, choose which of these propositions you will begin upon, to
" make anything or nothing " of it. And if you are wise, take the
one that is not relevant to this discussion ; for, in the face of your
assembled Christian countrymen, you will find it far easier to escape
with a sophistication of the proposition, " God is a Moral Governor,"
than of the proposition, " God is an Author." The majority of them
may have vague ideas of the former ; but they have very exact con-
ceptions of the latter. Oh ! they are very good reasoners indeed, the
truly pious of the Scottish peasantry. What do we mean when we
say, God is an Author ? What do we mean when we say, Marcus
Dods is an author ? Do you think we know what we mean concerning
Marcus Dods, and do not know what we mean concerning God ? We
know very well what we mean ; and you know very well what it is
that we mean. Marcus Dods is a father, and should not his children
honour him ? Marcus Dods is a master, and should not his servants
obey him ? Marcus Dods is an author, and should not his readers be
tliankful to him when he instructs them ? We know very well what
we mean in saying tliese things. Then let all flesh be silent before
the Lord, for he is raised up out of his holy habitation. " Thus saith
the Lord, A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master : if I
then be a father, where is mine honour ? and if I be a master, where
is my fear ? " Thus saith the Lord of hosts unto you, 0 ye priests !
Perha])S we cannot argue with scholars like you : but we think Him-
self will not be displeased, if we think we hear Him also saying, If I
be an author, where is the unconditional faith and obedience of my
readers .-' And in all these we understand very well what the Lord
saith ; and you see we cannot let you make anything or nothing of
divine authorship, any more than of divine fatherhood and divine moral
<Toverument.

DIVINE AUTHORSHIP ANYTHING OR NOTHING. ^1

"Will that do ? That, sulostantially, is the answer of Scotland's
piety — the piety which has so greatly sharpened Scotland's intellect.

Who, that has any reputation, either as a theologian or a litterateur,
will risk it on the audacious allegation that the Westminster Confession
has left its doctrine of " divine authorship " vague, or in such a state as
" that you may make anything or nothing of it ; " when he reads in it (i.
4), that " the aidliority of the Holy Scripture dependeth wholly upon
God the author thereof" ? I am not at present insisting on the truth
of that proposition. I am calling attention to the light which it casts
on the kind of authorship it ascribes to God, and the clear and crystal-
line exactitude of definition in which it presents the same, rendering
the imputation of vagueness impossible to an intelligent and honest
mind when asked to look at it. For, very obviously it means this —
That, exactly as I have Dr Dods' authority for it, that the doctrine of
holy scripture's infallibility is " exploded," he being the author of that
statement ; so have I God's authority for it, that " Grace reigns," and
that " God's Word is very pure, even as silver seven times purified,
therefore do his servants love it " — God being, in the same simplicity,
expressness and fulness of meaning, the author of these statements, as
I)r Dods is of that in which (as I believe) he ignorautly and uninten-
tionally but very directly contradicts his Maker !

Oh ! my dear sir, can you not join with your pious countrymen in
giving due honour to the proposition, " God is the Author of the
Scriptures," and then set to the study of the proof of it ? Surely you
have been unkind to me (to put the matter on no higher ground), in
that you have not even touched my "line of proof" (pp. 22-31). But
that is nothing, if even now things could come right — as why should
they not? Let your difficulties about "inaccuracies," about "lapses
of memory," and all that sort of thing, alone ; and study, unprejudiced,
the proof that is proffered for the divine authorship of the word of
God. Then, if convinced, deal with your difficulties as all wise men
do with difficulties in reference to what they have believed on its own
sufficient evidence, especially (as in this case) when the evidence is the
testimony of God. What hinders you, even yet, taking the course
■which 1 do affectionately counsel you thus to take ? It would gladden
many hearts. And what sweet reasonableness, yourself being judge,
there will be in the result when you reach it ! The divine
record of a divine revelation ; God's own record of God's own
revelation ! What could be more reasonable ? Take up such a
commonplace thing as a volume of Minutes of Presbytery. What is
it ? A record of the Presbytery's transactions ? Yes. But more
than that : it is the Presbytery's record of the Presbytery's transac-
tions. No doubt the clerk writes the minutes, but not one of them
can be founded on till the Presbytery has sanctioned it, and made it
their own. Who would potter about the fact that the Presbytery did
not write it, but the clerk wrote it ? The Presbytery makes its own
record. And, more than that : the making of its record forms part of

22 LETTER VI.

its transactions, and is even recorded as forming part of its transac-
tions ; and the book is the Presbytery's record of the Presbytery's
transactions. Is not the tertium comparationis perfect ? "Would it be
anything for you, in one view, to wonder at, if you were finding a
ph^ce in your heart and your faith for the doctrine that the Old and
New Testaments are God's record of God's revelation? Would you
think it a hard thing to have to believe that God can take as much care
at least of His transactions as a Presbytery can take of theirs ? And
do you not see that just as their recording of their transactions forms
part of their transactions, so God's committing His revelation wholly
to writing is itself revelation — the continuation and crown of revela-
tion ; even as a man's shining face, " the human face divine," is at
once the crown of the temple of his body, and the seat and mirror of
his mind ? Even so, a divine scripture — a scripture of divine author-
ship— is it not to us as the face of the divine mind, whereon the divine
Spirit flitting, and sometimes tarrying in His sovereign love (2 Cor.
iii. 18), causes us to see behind the Face into the Heart (Is. Iv. 8), and
really answers our petition ; " God be merciful unto us, and bless us,
and cause His face to shine upon us " (Ps. Ixxvi. 1 ).

Terribly deep cuts the great falsehood, that the Scripture is not, in
the plain unsophisticated meaning of the term, of divine authorship.
If you cannot part company with that great falsehood, its ravages will
soon be seen upon you. And my soul shall weep for you in secret
places : indeed, it has done that already. — I am, &c.

VI.

"It ]}leased the Lord to commit the same wholly to writing.'"

My Deae Sir, — I have been blamed for the emphasis I put upon
tlie Confession's initial statement, by saying, " It pleased the Lord
[Himself] to commit the same wholly to writing." In the third
edition I have removed the bracketted word, being anxious to avoid
stumbling any man unnecessarily. But the argument that sustained
the blame was groundless ; being to the effect that the Westminster
divines did not say "the Lord [Himself], because that would have
brought God as close to the record as to the revelation, and that they
believed would be a mistake." Nevertheless it is the thing which they
have done. They have brought God as close to the record as to the
revelation. They have done so in two ways. First, They use exactly
the same phraseology in the one case as in the other ; " it pleased the
Lord to reveal Himself ; " and, " it pleased the Lord to commit the
same wholly to writing." It pleased the Lord to give the revelation,
and it pleased the Lord to give the record. It did not please the Lord
to permit a naturalistic revelation of Himself to take place : that is all

IT PLEASED THE LORD TO DO IT HIMSELF. 23

that the anti-supranaturalistic school admits concerning the revelation ;
It pleased the Lord Himself to give the revelation. And because you
believe in a supernatural revelation, you will not blame me if T say,
God Hiviself vevealed Himself. In like manner, it did not please the
Lord to permit a naturalistic record of His revelation to arise, exer-
cising merely a providential superintendence over it : that is all that
the anti-supranaturalistic school admits concerning the record ; It
pleased the Lord Himself to give the record. And if you l^elieved in
a supernatural record, as you do in a supernatural revelation, you
would give me the same right to say, " God Himself gave the record,"
as you give me to say, " God Himself gave the revelation." Certainly
the Westminster Divines give me that right ; for, by their very lan-
guage, they bring God as near to the record as to the revelation. But,
sccundly, they have another way, still more unanswerably demon-
strable, of doing the same thing. They make the record itself, as I
have had occasion already to show, a part of the revelation, the crown
and immortality, and presently subsisting glory of it, ■ — saying, " The
holy scripture is most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing
His will unto his people being now ceased." Could they do that, and
not bring God as close to the record as to the revelation ? If there is
any difference, indeed, I unhesitatingly decide in favour of the record.
God dwelleth in His Word unto perpetuity. And thereby it comes to
pass that we sing no dead history, but perpetual, present, living,
glorious fact, when in terms borrowed from Immanuel's land, we sing
— true at Urumclog, and true now to spiritual worshippers, whereso-
ever the Father hath such to worship Him, —

111 Judah's land God is well known,

His name in Israel 's great ;
In Salem is his tabernacle,

In Sion is his seat.

Give us a divine scripture, and let the gracious Lord give us His
divine Spirit as He has promised (Prov. i. 23), and we have the God
of Israel at least as close to the record of revelation as ever He was to
the revelation itself while it was in its actual historical transpirancy.
There are those in Scotland who would die of sorrow if they could no
longer believe this, and who will therefore die with gladness for the
truth of it.

I have been asked why I cling so closely to the phrase " divine
authorship," and why I make so much of the initial proposition on
the subject, "It pleased the Lord to commit the same wholly to
writing."

I shall give a short series of answers to these two questions (which
are substantially one), and though I cannot now develop the lines of
thought they open up, I would earnestly commend the whole subject
to my younger brethren, as a gloriously recompensing one to study,
bursting with life on every side of it, along every edge and at every

24 LETTER VI.

corner of it. I have been pledging " fifty spears," and from among
the yonnger ministry I expect a goodly number of them, of fresher
lancewood and more sparkling points than our somewhat battered
weapons ! But to my reasons. They are these, and such like : —

I. Because no logical mind can hesitate for a moment between the
value of the phrases, " divine authorship," and " divine inspiration."
The former is the root thought ; the latter comes in as an explanation,
rendered necessary by the fact that there is a certain implication of
human authorship in the matter. Besides : " divine inspiration " is
a Scriptural expression (2 Tim. iii. 16) occurring only once (aira^
Xeyojueuov) : " divine authorship," is the result of an enormous induc-
tion of Scriptural expression, propositions, and even lines of thought.

II. Because my experience, in making use of it, as the ruling
notion on this theme, has been both very profitable and very
pleasant.

III. Because I have a keen sense of the beauty of the pro-
position : — " It pleased the Lord to commit his revelation of himself
and his declaration of his will wholly to writing." And a thing of
beauty is a joy for ever.

IV. Because I consider it the best (perhaps the best possible), —
whether for purposes of statement, — or of exposition, — or of demonstra-
tion,— or of detection, — or of defence.

V. Because I am persuaded no enemy of the great Catholic doctrine
of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture will dare to look at it, or touch
it — except in the way of trying to rationalise it avmy. And we will
no more tolerate that, in our Church, in reference to the divine record,
than we will in reference to the divine revelation. For, only in a
divine record can a divine revelation be crowned and glorified, and
made to live for ever.

VI. Because, were I shut up to the use of one proposition — like the
Westminster Divines before they have got opportunity for a second
— I would say, " It pleased the Lord to commit the same wholly to
writing."

VII. Because (and this carries on the last thought) it is in consecu-
tion to this beautiful proposition, that all other propositions, relevant,
can be best brought on. I must tarry here for a little to illustrate —
taking the illustration from the Confession itself. (1.) The divine-
ness of the record, exactly as of the revelation, is first affirmed. (2.)
Such a characteristic as " divine authorship " is seen to be so intensely
unifying a principle, as may well make documents written on different
continents, in different millenniums — anywhere in space, anywhen in
time — one. Hence, immediately they are called "the holy scripture."
(3.) Well may this make them indispensable: it "makeththe holy
scripture most necessary." (4.) Having distinguished between the
revelation and the record, exactly at the right point, for purposes of
apologetic, these wonderfully fine and advanced thinkers, at the right
point, again conjoin them for purposes of spiritual life and piety ; and

IT PLEASED THE LORD TO DO IT HIMSELF. 25

tlie record appears now as itself a divine revelation, " those former
ways of God's revealing his will unto his j)eople being now ceased." *
(5.) But where and what are the documents entitled to this "name
of Holy Scripture, or the Word of Crod written " ? They are " all the
books of the Old and New Testaments." (6.) But human authorship
is perfectly obvious there. How account for that, when you have
attirmed divine authorship ? They themselves account for that, and
reconcile the apparent contradiction. They were "all given by in-
spiration of God." (7.) It must have been for some great end ? Yes ;
"to be (not merely to contain, but to be) the rule of faith and life."t
(8) The ideas of canonicity and apocryphism now come into view,
their contrasted relations to " divine inspiration " being obvious ; and
an " apocrypha controversy " is justified as being magnificently full of
meaning, repelling a daring claim to divine authorship on the part of
that which having no divine inspiration is of authorship exclusively
human,»and therefore of " no autliority in the church of God." % (9.)
For, on what can authority rest, when it is the authority of docu-
ments, scriptures, writings, but on the authorship thereof? And how,
in respect of su.ch documents, scriptures, writings, can you have
divine authority, if they own not divine authorship ? Therefore " the
authority of holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and
obeyed, dependeth wholly on God the author thereof." § Am I not
justified in calling that beautiful initial proposition the root-tliought ?
And is it not a fertile root ? Do not break off these branches from it,
and present them as a handful of dead twigs. Growing here, on their
own living root, they form in their completeness the really essential
and fundamental truth, which it is vital, on this doctrine, to maintain.
And no man, who has the root of this in him, will have any difficulty
about the branches. He will delight in this rich fertility, as he would
in his own vine or fig-tree. — But I must go on with my reasons for
clinging to this proposition. I cling to it, —

VIII. Because the call for the reception of it seems to me to
make the least possible demand, or strain, on a mind affected towards
the truth concerned as yours at present is.

IX. And, finally, Because it is on this scheme of thought that
such residuary difficulties as gather round the words " accuracy " and
" infallibility " (which it is ridiculous to suppose could ever explode a
truth that rests on the testimony of God, and yet may be difficulties
for all that), can be best considered, expiscated, mitigated, and finally
rendered comparatively easy of endurance to reverential and believing
minds ; — their total abolition, especially to unbelieving minds, being
hopeless, and the attempt at it neither dutiful nor wise. " For the
ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them ; but the
transgressors shall fall therein."

*Couf. L,l. tConf. L,2. : Conf. L, 3.

§Conf. I., 4.

26 LETTER VII.

I implore you, my dear Sir, to reconsider your position : and do
not say that I have given you no reasons for complying with my
entreaty. I have dealt respectfully witli your understanding, serving
you to the utmost of my power with the earnest exercise of my own.
The brethren, I think, will acknowledge that I have shown a greater
desire to gain you, than a victory over you. May the Lord give
light, and cause the light to triumpli. — I am, ray dear Dr Dods, yours
in kind regard, HUGH MAETIN.

Montrose, I5th June 1877.

VII.

Eleven Years Ago.

My Dear Sie, — I must resume my pen, it seems. In the spring
of 1866, you wrote and delivered, in Glasgow, a Lecture on Scrijitiire
■in relation to Theological Science and Creeds. I am disposed to think
that the Lecture must have been a good one, and loyal, in the main,
to the Westminster Confession ; for in a review of it now before me,
— the fairness and average competency of which I have no reason to
doubt, — I find your reviewer declaring it to be " worthy of the most
careful perusal," " concurring in by far the larger portion of its state-
ments and reasonings," and speaking with peculiar pleasure (as the
manner of anonymous reviewers is, when, poor fellows, they can get
a chance) of the statements and reasonings "being very much in
harmony with some remarks " he had recently been making some-
where himself !

I am sorry that I have not your Lecture before me — for I have
for some time been writing at a distance from my books. But, very
strangely, the very day after I sent the preceding letters to the
printer, the volume containing your reviewer's kind and discriminat-
ing estimate of it was sent me by post ; and from it I can gather
what must have been, eleven years ago, giving you a good deal of
anxiety. You were then greatly distressed — if I judge rightly — in
contemplating the havoc which Broad Church theories were making
of two of the greatest doctrines of Holy Scripture, after that of the
Incarnation of the Eternal Word, — the doctrines, namely, of the
Atonement and of Inspiration. And not believing the Westminster
Confession perfect, — and not finding in it such clauses as seemed to
you sufficient to face down, condemn, and cast out those modern
views which rationalise away all Scriptural doctrine on the propitia-
tory sacrifice of Christ, and the divine authorship of the Word of
God, — you expressed an earnest desire to have the Confession modified,
not in the interests, certainly, of modern thought (impudently so

ELEVEN YEA.RS AGO. 27

called), but of ancient and well-attested truth most firmly believed
among us.

I find, however, that your reviewer, giving you credit for good
and loyal intention, demurs to the wisdom of your suggestion,
and to the necessity of any such change as you suggest. I tind him
saying : —

"Especially in reference to the doctrine of the Sacrifice of
Christ, we liave no idea that any one of the Broad School evasions
of that doctrine demands the slightest change in the Westminster
Standards, in order to confront and condemn and exclude them. No
language which the lips or pens of men could use could more ex-
pressly and powerfully set forth the substitutionary, jpropitiatory,
exjnatory nature and design of Christ's death, than Chap, viii, and
Chap. ix. Sect. 3, of the Confession— not to speak of the questions on
the Priestly Office in the Catechisms. And that all the Broad School
varieties of doctrine anent the sufferings and death of Christ are most
expressly and most completely met and excluded by these views of it
in our Standards, Broad School men show that they themselves sec, just
by the miserable caricatures of these views, and the intemperate rage
against them, in which they are constantly indulging. The Scriptural
doctrine of Christ's death is, that it is a ^propitiatory sacrifice. Broad
Church evasions of this are constantly altering their form. They
make it self-denial, self-sacrifice, self-surrender, sympathy, and so
forth. But they all embody a real Socinianism. That doctrine (of
Socinianism) in all its essence is completely met and excluded by the
venerable documents we speak of And that they should be tampered
with and changed in any measure, in order to take notice of the
futile evasions and denials of the Broad School, is what, as at present
advised, we are far from being prepared to admit."

Thus your friendly reviewer gave you very little countenance in
your proposal to alter the Confession's utterances on the Atonement,
accounting them to be impregnable ramparts against all those miser-
able substitutes for the doctrine of the Cross, which are continually
changing their futile forms, because of the continual proof of their
futility. He considered them abundantly well shut out by the West-
minster Confession as it stands. And I find him of the same mind
when he turns to consider your zeal for the doctrine of Inspiration.
Concerning it, I find him saying : —

" The other doctrine which Mr (now Dr) Dods indicates as likely to
warrant, by its modern history, a modification of statement in the West-
minster Confession, is that of Inspiration. We freely admit that the
Eeformers did not subject, and were not in circumstances calling on them
to subject, this topic to the same kind of express and full discussion
which they devoted to other vital questions. But we do not admit
that the Westminster Standards are so deficient in respect of clear
utterance on this topic as seems to be supposed. No doubt the
Shorter Catechism affirms that ' the Word of God is contained in the

28 LETTER VII.

Scriptures;' and this affirmation, tahcn hy itself, does not exclude
certain views with which we have no sympathy. But the Larger
Catechism expressly affirms that ' the holy scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments are the Word of Clod,' and then goes on to show
' how it doth appear that they are so.' And the Confession affirms,
in its first sentence, that ' it pleased the Lord to commit ' His revela-
tion 'wholly to writing;' not to leave men to write something in
which His revelation would be found to form a part ; but Himself
' to commit the same wholly to writing.' And then it goes on to
identify the ' writing ' of which God is thus affirmed to bo the u-ritcr,
with ' the holy scripture,' which is thus rendered ' most necessary,' —
God Himself being thus both the Eevealer and the Writer,

" We have no idea that we entertain any illiberal or narrow views
in reference to the doctrine of Inspiration. But we feel very deeply
convinced that if the Scriptures are admitted to be God's writings ; if
He is the Writer, the real Author — (perfect scope being left inside
this fact for all that can be desired in respect of the individuality and
free intellectual and emotional action of the minds of those whom He
wielded as instruments in the composition of His divine volume), —
all is secured which the real doctrine of Inspiration demands. And
all this we find in the expressions made use of in our Standards.
Hence, on this point, also, we are at issue with Mr (Dr) Dods, in
respect that we do not in the least desiderate anything in the West-
minster Confession to enable us to confront or exclude modern error
on this most important topic."

Is not all this most remarkable ? For I suppose you have recog-
nised the identity of your reviewer of 1866 with your critic of 1877.
It was fortunate for me that my memory was refreshed just in time,
for otherwise I might have been charged with plagiarism? Even
now I can hardly call it plagiarism from myself ; for it had wholly
escaped my recollection. But who could possibly have imagined that
your zeal for our confessional relation to the doctrine of Inspiration
could have led you, eleven years ago, to demand precautions which
a brother thought unnecessary then, and finds unnecessary now, even
when you yourself have gone over to the foe ? Who could have fore-
seen that it would be in refutation of you, that I would, eleven years
afterwards, have to prove " that we do not in the least desiderate any-
thing in our Confession to enable us to confront and exclude modern
error on this most important topic," — the divine authorship, inspira-
tion, authority and infallibility of the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments ? — I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,

HUGH MAETIN.
Montrose, QXith J%me 1877.

TURNBUI.L AND Sl'KARS, PRINTEP.S, i;i>IKIiri!CU.

Date Due

,

i

^

i

PAMPHLET BINDER

^^^^ Syracuse, N. Y
Sfockion, Colif,

iliiiiii

BS480.IVI381890
Letters to Marcus Dods.

Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library

1 1012 00052 2674

4!8ik*^"''^.,