COMMEMORATION MEETING IN GLASGOW.—A LETTER OF DISSENT, AND CORRESPONDENCE.
THE following letter, dissenting from the arrangements of the National Bible Society in choosing Principal G. A. Smith, of Aberdeen, as one of the chief speakers at the above meeting, explains itself. A copy was sent to the Glasgow Herald, which published the substance of the same. Rev. Neil Cameron sent a letter of a similar kind to Mr. Slowan, of the National Bible Society, but as Mr. Cameron did not keep a copy, we regret we cannot reproduce it. It is possible that others of the speakers who were at this meeting have views as unsound as those of Principal Smith, but the present writer was not definitely acquainted with them.
LETTER OF DISSENT.
248 KENMURE STREET,
POLLOKSHIELDS, 8th March, 1911.
WILLIAM J. SLOWAN, Esq., Western Secretary,
National Bible Society of Scotland.
DEAR SIR,—I have to thank you for your letter of 1st instant, expressing the desire of the Directors that the Moderator of the Southern Presbytery of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and myself, as Clerk, should arrange to be present in our representative capacity at the forthcoming Commemoration Meeting of the Tercentenary of the Authorised English Bible.
On consultation with the Moderator (Rev. Neil Cameron) yesterday, I found that he had already written you on the subject. In replying for myself, I regret to say that while I am in the fullest sympathy with the object of the meeting, I also am unable, on conscientious grounds, either officially or personally, to associate myself with the platform of it.
I consider that the National Bible Society has been very ill-advised in choosing as one of its chief speakers on the present occasion, Principal G. A. Smith, of Aberdeen University. It is my solemn conviction that no theological teacher in Scotland to-day has done more than he to lessen respect for the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God, and so to advance the cause of infidelity. I believe that his books, which are strongly on the lines of what is known as “higher critical interpretation,” have done immense harm to pulpit and pew, the evil results of which eternity alone will fully reveal. It appears to me to be of very little account what men may say in praise of any particular version of the Bible, when they are not truly loyal to the Bible itself as the unerring Word of God. On this account I feel bound, as a matter of principle, to refuse to accede to your request, and thus to enter my dissent from the arrangements of the National Bible Society on the present occasion.—I am, Dear Sir, yours faithfully,
JAMES S. SINCLAIR.
CORRESPONDENCE.
The following letter was sent to the Glasgow Herald in reply to one by a Mr. W. Martin, the contents of which are practically embodied in it:—
Principal George Adam Smith and the Bible.
248 KENMURE STREET,
PULLOKSHIELDS, 20th March, 1911.
Sir,—It was not with a view to start a controversy on the subject of Principal G. A. Smith and the Bible that I forwarded you a copy of my letter to Mr. W. J. Slowan, of the National Bible Society, but simply to explain to all whom it might concern the reason why the Free Presbyterian Church was not to be represented along with other Churches on the platform of the commemoration meeting of the Tercentenary of the Authorised English Bible, said reason being the inappropriate presence of Principal Smith, who is known as one of the leading “Higher Critics” in the modern Church. It may be permitted me, nevertheless, to make a brief reply to the letter of Mr. William Martin, who enters the lists in your columns of Friday.
Mr. Martin calls attention to one of my statements—namely, that it was my “solemn conviction that no theological teacher in Scotland to-day had done more (than Dr. Smith) to lessen respect for the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God, and so to advance the cause of infidelity”—and over against this he sets a passage from Dr. Smith’s book, “Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament.” The substance of the passage is that while extremely unbridled criticism “without loyalty to Christ” has been responsible for shaking “the belief of some in the fundamentals of religion,” etc., yet that “the dogma of a verbal inspiration, the dogma of the equal divinity of all parts of Scripture, the refusal to see any development from the ethnic (heathen) religions to the religion of Israel, or any development within the religion of Israel itself—all these have had a disastrous influence upon the religious thought and action of our time,” and “that those who have been led into unbelief by modern criticism are not for one moment to be compared in number with those who have fallen from faith over the edge of the opposite extreme.”
Now, taking the last sentence first, I make bold to say that the statement is wholly unwarrantable. If we go back fifty years we find that the doctrine of verbal inspiration held a supreme place in Scotland. Whatever the Churches disagreed about they were almost to a man agreed in accepting the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as the Word of God. Never were the pews better filled or the people more loyal to their respective denominations. Many of the opinions that are quite popular in the Churches of the present day could only be found outside among small coteries of declared infidels. I believe that an impartial examination of the trend of thought during the last half century would prove to a demonstration that the falling from faith to which Dr. Smith refers has been almost exclusively contemporaneous with and resulting from the advance of modern Biblical criticism. The microbe of unbelief found its way across the German Ocean into the Presbyterian Colleges of Scotland; there it has grown and multiplied, and thence it has speedily spread to pulpits and pews throughout the land. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in Old and New Testaments made their appearance which had no existence before, and the people who were informed of these discoveries, began to turn their back upon the “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” They said to themselves and to one another, “If our ministers don’t believe the Bible is true, how are they to expect us to believe it so?” It was not the notoriously sceptical critics of whom they knew nothing except by distant report, nor was it the defenders of the old faith in an infallible Bible that led them over the precipice, but it was their new theological guides who, while professing loyalty to Christ, instilled doubts into their minds, contrary to the Word of Christ, concerning the divine authorship and historical truthfulness of the Holy Scriptures. As long as they felt that the Church was resting upon an impregnable rock they were attached and loyal, but no sooner did they begin to think that the foundation was sinking sand than they lost confidence in her, and either relying upon their own efforts to secure some more stable place of rest or giving all up in despair they plunged into the waves of infidelity and ungodliness. This I consider to be a correct account of the origin and progress of many of the down-grade religious tendencies to be found in our country to-day.
Touching upon the other part I have noted of Mr. Martin’s quotation from Dr. Smith, I must be very brief and general, as I have no desire to encroach unduly upon your valuable space. Dr. Smith sets aside “the dogma of a verbal inspiration” as an evil influence. Now, let it be remembered that all the witnesses of highest authority entirely differ from him. The incomparable Book itself, in its prophets and apostles—the Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Head of the Church—the glorious army of the reformers and martyrs—the preachers of the Gospel most highly honoured in the conversion of sinners in all ages—the holiest saints that have ever adorned the doctrine of God, their Saviour, in the world—all unite with one voice in bearing testimony on behalf of “the dogma of a verbal inspiration.” Are the testimonies of all these witnesses a delusion and a snare, or are they impregnable truth? Let the wise determine. May I concentrate attention on the testimony of Him who is Lord of all? Did He not make it unmistakably plain in the days of His flesh that “It is written” was the supreme and infallible court of appeal? See His temptation in the wilderness. Did he not seal the literal inspiration of the Scriptures with His most precious blood? “That the Scripture might be fulfilled” is the note of every step from Gethsemane to Calvary, and the subject of His discourse after His resurrection. Are we to believe Mr. Martin and Principal Smith, or are we to believe Christ?—I am, etc.,
JAMES S. SINCLAIR.