1 
 
 Henry Wellvjcod Konoreiff 
 
 iommuni est ions on the case 
 ' ProfeGscr Rober'tson Smith, 
 I the General Assembly of th 
 Free Church of Scotlp.nd, 
 held Rt G1fsp:ov7 in 1878. 
 
 'Mm^ 
 
 :;^:J^^ 
 
BX 9084 .M6 1879 
 
 Communications on the case 
 ot Professor Robertson 
 
COMMUNICATIONS 
 
 ON THE CASE OF 
 
 PROFESSOIl ROBERTSON SMITH, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 €m\m\l %sBmhb of tlj£ ^f rtc €IjurcI) of Stotliiuir, 
 
 HELD AT GLASGOW IN 1878. 
 BY 
 
 KEY. Sm HENEY VeLLWOOU MONCREIFF 
 AND OTHERS, 
 
 (liq>niilcdJroiii the Loiulun " Weekly Reoitw" of July awl Anyust, 1878) ; 
 ALSO, 
 
 AN ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION, 
 
 Br SIR HENRY MONCREIFF, _ {~~0p~ 
 
 (liepnnkdjrom the '■'Weekly Eevle'v;' of January, 187D)iT C E TOH 
 
 I HLC.SEPlBtfi I 
 
 WITH A \ rn vv .. I/O C I G :^ ^-r^^ 
 PREFACE BY THE REY. ^YAluT^B.WOOI^,^M.:Al::^^,^ 
 
 MINISTER AT ELIE, FIFE. 
 
 EDINBURGH : JOHN MACLAREN & SON ; 
 GLASGOW: DAVID BRYCE & SON; ABERDEEN: A. & R. NILNE. 
 
 1S79. 
 
LONDON 
 RANKEN AND CO., PRINTERS, DRUHY HOrS 
 BT. MAEY-LE-STRAND, W.C. 
 
 BV/554(b 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IT lias been thought desirable to publish in a more acces- 
 sible form the following Communications which have 
 appeared in the columns of the London Weekly Review. 
 Taken together, they have a bearing upon three questions ot 
 vital importance : — (I) The historical truth of tlie Book of 
 Deuteronomy ; (2) The true doctrine of Inspiration ; (3) 
 The duty of the Church to prevent such teaching in her 
 theological halls as she considers to be dangerous and 
 unsettling. On each one of these three questions the 
 Church must give forth no uncertain sound when it may 
 come before her for judgment in a competent shape. One 
 of the Communications, now reprinted, deals in a popular 
 manner with the second and third of these questions, and 
 calls attention to what the author regards as Professor 
 Smith's Theory of Inspiration. The other writers have 
 confined their statements to the first question, so far as 
 Professor Smith's writings are concerned, because they 
 regard it as the only one which, in the process now depending 
 in the Church Courts, has ceased to he " suh judice'' 
 
 They wrote for the purpose of explaining and defending 
 a decision of the General Assembly which had been assailed 
 in the columns of the public Press, and which they regarded 
 as a final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Free 
 Church. They have observed, indeed, that questions, re- 
 garding it are to be again pressed on the attention of the 
 General Assembly, but the grounds on which this procedure 
 is founded were not alleged at the time the deliverance was 
 
 a2 
 
adopted, nor do they find a place in the Reasons of Dissent 
 given in by those members of Assembly who were opposed 
 to it, and under no circumstances can it be admitted that 
 the judgment of the General Assembly can be aught else 
 than final. 
 
 Our reason for coming forward in defence of the 
 Assembly's judgment was our deep sense of the importance 
 of the question involved. It is not — although it has often 
 been so represented — a difference of opinion as to the 
 authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy which has to be 
 settled ; the great issue at stake is this : — 7s tJie Booh of 
 Deuteronomy Imtoricalhj true ? Did Moses speak the words 
 and do the things which he is there said to have done and 
 spoken? It has been said that the better course would have 
 Ijeen to refute Professor Smith, and prove him to be wrong. 
 With all deference, the burden lies on Professor Smith to 
 prove that he is rhjltt. And as to refutation, the very use of 
 having a Confession of Faith is that the Church may be 
 spared the necessity of entering in every case of alleged 
 departure from it on all the details which the question covers. 
 No doubt there will be refutation Avhen the full extent to 
 which these opinions go becomes known to the Church. In 
 the meantime, Principal Douglas's pamphlet is amply suffi- 
 cient. The truth is, as we believe, that if it had so happened 
 that Deuteronomy had stood in onler after Chronicles, and 
 had come down to us with an express tradition that it 
 belonged to the times of the later kings of Judah, our critics 
 would have found in the diction and matter of the Book 
 better reasons for holding that it could not have been written 
 later than the time of Moses than they now allege to support 
 their opinion that it belongs to a more recent date. 
 
 The judgment of the General Assembly involves this 
 proposition : that as the Book of Deuteronomy is professedly 
 historical, the assertion that it is not historically true is 
 inconsistent with the teaching of the Confession regarding 
 the inspiration and infallible truth of the books of Scripture. 
 To deny this proposition brings into doubt, as we believe^ the 
 
authenticity of ono and all of them; and, just as a former 
 •generation in ScotLmd maintained tlie purity of Grod's Word 
 by rejecting the claims of the Apocrypha, so we feel bound 
 to defend it against the charge that any portions of it are not 
 to be considered as true in the character in wliich they are 
 presented to us ; for it is vain to say that the author of 
 Deuteronomy, writing about the time of Jeremiah, was not 
 guilty of fraud, but merely availed himself of a well-under- 
 stood literary licence to give his work greater weight and 
 authority. On that supposition, the Church has been 
 deceived — as far back as history and tradition go this 
 deception has been in full force. If ever there was a 
 generation that took Deuteronomy for what, on this hypo- 
 thesis, it really was, let the fact be proved. But here proof 
 utterly fails, nor, indeed, has ever been attempted. 
 
 Again, the same principles and facts which are relied on 
 to establish the late origin of Deuteronomy may be applied, 
 and on the Continent have been applied, to other portions of 
 the Pentateuch with the same result. The Aaronic priest- 
 hood may be and has been declared to be an institution of 
 no earlier date than the return from the Captivity ; and, 
 indeed, the wdiole basis in the Old Testament on which 
 Christianity rests may by this destructive criticism be utterly 
 swept away. The only defence against such desolation is the 
 proposition on which the General Assembly has planted its 
 foot — namely, that when an inspired book claims on the face 
 of it to be historical it must be held to be Jiistory which is 
 infallihly true. Admit the contrary theory and the Bible — 
 all of it — ceases to be God's Word, in the sense, at least, in 
 which that term has been understood in Scotland. 
 
 It is most important to bear in mind that the question 
 before the General Assembly was not, as some have thought, 
 whether Deuteronomy is declared hy the Confession of taith 
 to be a historical book. This proposition was not affirmed on 
 the one side, and on the other the motion submitted by 
 Principal Rainy -went far beyond the denial of it, for in 
 dismissing the appeal and affirming the deliverance appealed 
 
from, it would have virtually declared that any one is at 
 liberty, within the Free Church, to teach that Deuteronomy, 
 or any other hook of the Bible, is not historical, but is written 
 as if it were history, in order to give greater weight to the 
 sentiments of the author. 
 
 Many persons supported that motion, not because they 
 agreed with Professor Smith's ^dews, but because they 
 desired to maintain the utmost liberty of critical inquiry 
 Now, how far is this liberty to extend ? If we permit one of 
 our Professors to teach that Deuteronomy was written about 
 the time of the Prophet Jeremiah by an author who wished 
 to secure greater attention to his work by putting it forth in 
 the name of Moses, and that in doing so he was only availing 
 himself of a well-understood liberty which deceived no one ; 
 if this teaching be allowed in our schools of theology, can Ave 
 refuse to permit any one of our Professors who may take the 
 fancy, to teach that the Gospel according to John was not 
 written before the middle of the second half of the second 
 century; that it was written by an author whose object Avas to 
 unite the tAvo hostile parties into Avhich the primitive Church 
 had diverged ; and that in putting his thoughts into the 
 mouth of the beloved disciple and of his Master the author 
 Avas only acting in conformity Avith literary precedents and 
 the ideas of the epoch ? Those Avho are acquainted Avith the 
 controversies of the day know that all this has been main- 
 tained Avith regard to the fourth Gospel ; but if the door is 
 to be opened for such teaching Avithin the Free Church Ave 
 feel that all security is gone for the maintenance of even the 
 fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. 
 
 Walter AVood. 
 
 N.B. — The attention of readers is called to the circum- 
 stance that Avhile eight of the Communications appeared in 
 July and August, 1878, an additional one is included in this 
 republication, on the vital importance of the question as to 
 Deuteronomy, by Sir Henry Moncreiff, which was published 
 by the Review in January, 1879. 
 
J nhC, SEP 18h 
 
 \thsoloc 
 COMMUNICATIONS 
 
 ON THE CASE OF 
 
 PROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 FREE CHUKCH ASSEMBLY OF 1878. 
 
 THE FIRST PARTICULAR OF THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE 
 CHARGE AGAINST PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 By Sir Henry Moncreiff. 
 
 THE keenness of partisanship which has characterised 
 much of the anonymous writing in favour of Professor 
 Smith is conspicuous in its hiding from the public and the 
 Churcli the thoroughl}^ impartial and judicial spirit which 
 pervaded the whole action of the very parties whom it fiercely 
 attacks, in all the questions which arose previously to the 
 consideration of the particular charge about Deuteronomy. 
 Simply because I made up my mind conscientiously that 
 Professor Smith's theory regarding that book could not be 
 reconciled with our Confessional doctrine, the indignation of 
 certain parties at my reaching that conclusion has made them 
 shut their eyes to the fact that, in no less than four questions 
 that arose previously to the question of Deuteronomy, I either 
 moved in his favour or supported motions in his favour, and 
 that everything I said on those questions and upon prelimi- 
 nary points tended in the direction for which he pleaded. 
 The only one of these questions, however, of sufficient conse- 
 quence to be dwelt upon is that which relates to the first 
 
particulr.r of tlie first ciiargc — I racan the allegation tliat liis 
 .statements were opposed to tlic Confessional doctrine by- 
 denying tliat the, Aaronic FrieHihood teas instituted in tJte 
 n-ilderness. 
 
 The judgment of the Assembly- upon the allegation was 
 in Professor Smith's favour. It found this part of the Libel 
 irrelevant, and sustained the decision by the Presbytery of 
 Aberdeen to that effect. I was myself the person to propose 
 the judgment, and I was strongly supported in doing so by 
 some of the very parties who afterwards joined me in the 
 adverse sentence about Deuteronomy. Thus, up to the time 
 when that adverse sentence was moved and seconded, not one 
 step taken by us had the slightest appearance of undue bias 
 or personal hostility. On the contrary, we did what we 
 could to maintain a position of judicial impartiality. The 
 fact that we did so will be manifest to those who may study 
 the authentic report of our proceedings which will appear 
 within the next fortnight.* And that fact may lead some 
 people to a fairer estimate of what followed than their imagi- 
 nations have yet allowed them to form. 
 
 At the same time, I confess that I committed in the 
 matter an error of an opposite kind to that which is imputed 
 to me in the subsequent judgment. I am accused of making 
 a too complicated motion on the charge about Deuteronomy. 
 I rather think that I made a too simple one on that about the 
 Aaronic Priesthood. 
 
 Let me remind your readers that the relevancy of a 
 charge in a Libel consists of two things. Eirst, the thing 
 charged must be opposed to our Confession or the Word of 
 God. But, secondly, it must be clear that the statements of 
 the accused party amount to the thing charged. Though it 
 be certain that the thing charged is opposed to our Confes- 
 sion, the charge is not relevant unless the quoted statements 
 amount to what is charged. 
 
 Now it was exclusively on the ground that the statements 
 quoted from Professor Smithes writings did not aniotmt to a 
 denial of the institution of the Aaronic Priesthood in the 
 zoilderness, that I moved against the relevancy of the charge. 
 I said distinctly that I should have held it relevant if such 
 
 * See Free Church Bb.e-Book for 1878, pp. 47- 79. 
 
3 
 
 denial had been expressed in tliosc stntoments. No membei' 
 of Assembly indicated any difference of opinion on that ques- 
 tion. Consequently the Assembly did not find that any 
 view opposed to the conviction which God's peo[)le have 
 gathered from the Divine Word, throuohout many genera- 
 tions as to the divine institution of the Aaronic Priesthood in 
 the wilderness, can be tolerated in our Church. 
 
 Some -writers for the public press have, I find, interpreted 
 the Assembly's decision as if it had given such a liberty. I 
 regret, therefore, that the judgment did not contain in itself 
 distinct evidence of the only ground on which it proceeded. 
 The charge ought to have been found irrelevant expressly on 
 the ground that the statements quoted in the minor proposi- 
 tion did not amount to the error charged in the major. In 
 this way the Assembly would not have been misunderstood as 
 sanctioning or allowing an error which I am persuaded it 
 would repudiate. 
 
 Some of our friends may thus see that there may be good 
 reasons for making a motion apparently more complicated 
 than necessary, when there is no good cause for supposing 
 that it is made so in order to secure a larger number of 
 votes. I propose, in my next Communication, to enter upon 
 an explanation of what took place in relation to the charge 
 about Deuteronomy. 
 
11. 
 
 INTENTION AND EFFECT OF THE ASSEMBLY'S JUDG- 
 MENT ON THE SECOND PARTICULAR OF THE FIRST 
 ALTERNATIVE CHARGE AGAINST PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 By Sir Henry ;Moncreiff. 
 
 THIS judgment was moved by myself, and seconded by 
 Dr. William Wilson, of Dmidee. It was carefully 
 constructed by myself, and shown to some parties as what 
 I might move in case of not hearing anything from 
 Professor Smith or his friends at the bar to alter my convic- 
 tion. But I intimated my determination to listen to him 
 attentively, and to give all due weight to what he said. 
 I carried out this determination fully and literally. I sat near 
 hira, and heard his Avhole pleading. No consultation with 
 any party affected the terms of my motion. It was all my 
 own. I did consult with parties who, I knew, were inclined 
 to the same view, for the purpose of securing a right place 
 and due prominence for this part of the case. But not one 
 sentence of the judgment was contrived with the object of 
 gaining a larger number of votes than might otherwise have 
 been obtained. The very unworthy imputation has been 
 made, that it was framed in order that the feeling against 
 loose views of inspiration might be more readily enlisted on 
 its side. The persons entertaining this conception do not 
 adequately consider the responsibility of a judicial decision 
 Having a strong sense of that responsibility, .and having 
 striven to act under it, I am disposed to repudiate most 
 indignantly the idea of any such calculation having influenced 
 what I proposed and carried. 
 
 There is another thing which the same persons have over- 
 looked. They have failed to notice the considerable number 
 of members who did not vote at all. They have failed to see 
 
that the objections taken to tlie terms of my motion, and the 
 powerful manner in whicli these were pressed by Principal 
 Rainy, along with the earnest support given to his view by 
 other speakers of weight and influence, had the effect of 
 startling the minds of many wlio agreed with me in substance, 
 and would have concurred in a simpler motion ; so that, 
 under the immediate excitement, they did not follow me in 
 the division, and lost the opportunity of expressing their 
 opinion. I have abundant evidence that, had it not been for a 
 difficulty about the wording, the judgment would have been car- 
 ried by a majority at least twice as large as it actually obtained; 
 and that, upon reflection, much regret is felt by some of the 
 parties that they did not act more decisively. The number 
 voting for it was 301, the votes against it being 278. The 
 friends of Professor Smith represent this result as a moral 
 victory for them. 1 rather think that it was a moral victory 
 for us and a moral defeat for them that our motion was 
 carried at all, under the disadvantages I have spoken of and 
 in opposition to the strong and extraordinary influences which 
 were brought to bear against it. I am persuaded that these 
 influences will not prevail to the same extent again, and that 
 the predominant feeling in our Church is decidedly in favour 
 of the conclusion at which the Assembly arrived. 
 
 Before directing the attention of your readers to the terms 
 of the motion carried, I think it well, for the sake of distinct- 
 ness, to enumerate the erroneous representations that have 
 been made regarding it. They are the following : — 
 
 1. It was constructed in an irregular manner /or the pur- 
 pose of carrying more votes than a simpler motion would 
 have done. I have already met this statement in a manner 
 that must satisfy every honourable mind. 
 
 2. It did carry more votes than a simpler one would 
 have done. I have already shown the groundlessness of this 
 imagination by adducing good reasons for an entirely opposite 
 conviction. 
 
 3. It proceeded on the sense ascribed to a declaration of 
 Professor Smith in his defence, on which he had no notice to 
 plead either from the bar or the House, on wliich he did 
 not plead, and on which it did not appear that he had been 
 dealt with for explanation or otherwise in any Court, and was 
 therefore incompetent as a judicial sentence. 
 
4. It, had l)Gcn argued for from tlie same material-^ (upon 
 which Professor Smith had not been heard), ami was thus all 
 the more incompetent. 
 
 5. In order to establish its conclusion, it made assumptions 
 •vvitli respect to the Professor's views wdiicli were repudiated 
 by him, 
 
 6. It assumed that a statement by Professor Smith in his 
 defence could communicate a new responsibility to his theory 
 of Deuteronomy. 
 
 7. It condemned him, not only for his theory of Deutero- 
 nomy, but for his separate declarations on the subject of 
 Inspiration. 
 
 8. In my speecli for the motion I imputed to Professor 
 Smith the opinion that only parts of Scripture are inspired, in 
 direct opposition to some explicit statements of his printed 
 defence, and I founded my conclusion partly upon this 
 imputation. 
 
 9. In my reply, while taking notice of a letter addressed 
 to me by him, and quoting some passages from his defence, I 
 declined to quote others that were fitted to vindicate liim 
 from the imputation of holding parts of Scripture not to be 
 inspired. 
 
 10. The full explanations given by' the Professor when 
 pleading at the bar on the ^/uVc? particular of the^^V^^ charge 
 were such as to overthrow the ground of the judgment in the 
 previous case, and had the effect of practically reversing that 
 judgment by a majority in his favour. 
 
 Now I assert with confidence, and am prepared to prove, 
 with respect to the eight representations which stand last in 
 the above enumeration, that every one of them is unjust, 
 unreasouable, and without foundation in fact. I have already 
 committed myself elsewhere to the opinion that such of them 
 as are included in the Reasons of Dissent, signed by Principal 
 llainy and others, belong to one of the most unjust and 
 unreasonable documents that was ever presented to a Church 
 Court or to the public. I have reason to believe that this 
 opinion is largely shared by others who usually agree with 
 Priucipal Rainy in ecclesiastical action. In common with 
 them, I entertain the warmest feelings of respect and regard 
 for him, and 1 greatly admire the Christian spirit and temper 
 which he displays, even when annoyed by such a difference 
 
of view from his own as that whicJi the present emergency 
 has broui^ht out on the part of those who enjoy his friendship 
 and confidence. But, in common with them also, I am pain- 
 fully constrained to protest against the course which he was 
 unhappily induced to follow about the judgment in the matter 
 of Deuteronomy. Faithfulness to my view of what concerns 
 truth and reason, and ot what is needful for our Church, 
 obliges me to use no weaker language, in speaking of the 
 Keasons of Dissent, than that which I have employed. 
 
 The judgment of the Assembly was in the following 
 terms : — 
 
 " The General Assembl}- sustain the dissent and complaint 
 against the judgment of the Presbytery in relation to the 
 Second Particular, as applied to the First Charge, and reverse 
 the judgment of the Presbytery so far as to find that part of 
 the libel relevant, to the effect that the statements quoted in 
 the minor proposition as those of Professor Smith regarding 
 the Bock of Deuteronomy, amount to what is expressed in 
 the said particular, and are opposed, in their legitimate results, 
 to the supposition of the book being a thoroughly inspired 
 historical record, according to the teaching of the West- 
 minster Confession, icJtile his dcelaratio)is on the ■■subject of 
 Inspiration are the reverse of satisfactory, and do not indicate 
 his reception of the hook in that character^ 
 
 I have printed the latter clause in italics in order that 
 your readers may more easily distinguish it from what goes 
 before it. If they look accuratel}^ at the distinction they will 
 see that the preceding part alone contains the deliverance on 
 the relevancy of the libel, and that if the latter clause can be 
 vindicated at all, the vindication must rest on the ground 
 that the Assembly, in deciding against Professor Smith, were 
 called upon to take some notice of his defence, just as a civil 
 court accompanies its deliverance on the direct merits of a 
 case by the statement that it " repels the defences." That 
 statement by a civil court does not involve any judgment on 
 the merits of what the defences contain beyond the bearing 
 which the party pleads that they have upon the main 
 question before the court ; and the latter clause of my 
 motion cannot be reasonably interpreted as declaring any 
 judgment upon the Professor's declarations regarding Inspi- 
 ration, beyond finding that they furnish no satisfactoiy 
 
8 
 
 objection to the judgment on the relevancy, which the 
 previous sentences contain. Let me endeavour to show your 
 readers that tliose previous sentences are complete in them- 
 selves in their bearing on the relevancy, that they require 
 no aid from the latter clause, and that it was neither 
 intended nor fitted to give them any aid. 
 
 I am far from maintaining, in opposition to the view of 
 some concurring friends, that the construction of my motion 
 might not have been much better. But I hope to make it 
 apparent that much more may be said for its construction 
 than appears at first sight. Apart from the latter clause, it 
 was minutely criticised in the discussion by Professor Smith's 
 supporters, and sometimes, I think, in a very captious and 
 puerile manner. It was objected that it sustained the dissent 
 and complaint, and reversed the judgment of the Presbytery 
 only so FAR as to find, &c., as if that expression meant that, 
 in some respect, the Presbytery's judgment might stand. 
 This objection proceeds from ignorance of an old principle in 
 our ecclesiastical procedure, that the Superior Court must 
 avoid committing itself unduly to an approval of the action 
 and language of the party whose sentence or whose complaint 
 it sustains, and may wisely consider it best to express its de- 
 termination in its own language rather than in that either of 
 an inferior court or of dissentients. In this case it was 
 desirable for the Assembly not to be held as adopting the 
 terms either of the motion made by the dissentients in the 
 Presbytery or of the reason for their dissent. The case was 
 of such large and public importance as to justify a special 
 expression of the view taken by the Assembly. The words ,so 
 far cannot possibly leave anything to the Presbytery which 
 the extended deliverance has not left to them. 
 
 It is quite apparent that this deliverance completely 
 exhausts the whole question of relevancy raised by the libel 
 on the subject of Deuteronomy, and it is easy to be satisfied 
 that it does not change or go beyond the charge in the libel 
 to the slightest extent. Let me again remind your readers 
 that there are two points in a question of relevancy, namely, 
 the opposition of the thing charged to the Confession or to 
 the Word of God, and the fact of the quotations from the 
 Professor's writings amounting to the thing charged. If the 
 judgment had simply found the charge relevant, it would 
 
9 
 
 really have settled both these points. But its having done so 
 would not have been clear to every inquirer. I am not sure 
 that the meaning would have been clear to all our ministers 
 and elders. For I find that some of them imagine erroneously 
 that the question of relevancy only involves the point of the 
 thing charged being opposed to the Standards, and that the 
 question of the correspondence of the quotations to it belongs, 
 not to relevancy, but to probation. Such a view would leave 
 it open to the Presbytery of Aberdeen to take up now the 
 whole question of what the extracts in the libel mean, whereas 
 the only question remaining for them by way of probation is 
 whether the extracts are true extracts from writings by Pro- 
 fessor Smith, and truly represent his opinions. The terms of 
 the Assembly's judgment were intended and are fitted to 
 make it manifest that the second particular of the first charge 
 is found relevant in all respects, and to explain clearly to the 
 Church and the public wherein the relevancy consists. As 
 matter of convenience, it deals first with the second point of 
 relevancy — that is, with the correspondence of the alleged 
 statements of Professor Smith to the thing charged in the 
 libel. The thing charged is " The publishing and promulga- 
 ting of the opinion that the Book of Inspired Scripture called 
 Deuteronomy does not possess the character of an historical 
 record, but was made to assume it by a writer of a much later 
 age, who therein, in the name of God, presented in dramatic 
 form instructions and laws as proceeding from the mouth of 
 Moses, though these never were and never could have been 
 uttered by him." Our judgment finds this particular of the 
 libel " relevant, to the effect," first of all, " that the state- 
 ments quoted amount to what is expressed in the said 
 particular." That is exactly what is asserted on this point 
 in the libel. Our judgment finds the particular relevant to 
 the effect, secondly, " that these statements are opposed, in 
 their legitimate results, to the supposition of the book being a 
 thoroughly inspired historical record, according to the teaching 
 of the Westminster Confession." If the libel does not mean 
 this conclusion, I do not know what it means. It expressly 
 assumes that the book is professedly historical and thus 
 infallibly true as history. It says that the opinion referred 
 to is " opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, 
 infallible truth, and Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, 
 
10 
 
 as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in tlie Confession 
 of Faith." How could the opinion that the book is not an 
 historical record be opposed to the doctrine of the Confession 
 on inspiration, except by holding that the Confession requires 
 us to believe in it as a thoroughly inspired historical record? 
 
 Thus my motion not only found the libel thoroughly 
 relevant on the subject of Deuteronomy, but exhibited clearly 
 what the relevancy involved, and what the' view of the 
 Assembly was on the solemn subject to which it referred. I 
 do not believe that the Church will suffer the judgment on 
 that subject to be trifled Avith. The personal character and 
 ability of Professor Smith are undeniable. No one of those 
 who voted against him desires to lose his services. But the 
 character of the Free Church is of still greater importance. 
 
 In my uext Communication I hope to meet more directly 
 the allegations against my motion and my own action in the 
 case. 
 
11 
 
 III. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION ON DEUTERONOMY. 
 By Sir Henry Moncreiff. 
 
 THE first of the Eeasons of Dissent by Principal Eainy 
 and others is as follows : — 
 
 ** Because the Judgment is incompetent as a judicial sentence, in 
 respect that it proceeds on the sense ascribed to a declaration of Pro- 
 fessor Smith in his defence, on which he had no notice to plead either 
 from the bar or the House, on which he did not plead, and on which it 
 does not appear that he has been dealt with for explanation or other- 
 wise in any court, and in respect that the Judgment was argued for 
 from the same materials, and that Professor Smith was not heard 
 thereon." 
 
 If there were the slightest ground, either in the Judgment 
 itself or in the argument for it, to support the allegations in 
 point of fact made by this Reason, I should myself be one of 
 the foremost to concur in it. I do not hold Principal Rainy 
 responsible for all the representations which have since 
 sprung out of it. He lias nothing to do with them. But he 
 has laid the foundation for them, and I am compelled to 
 expose the injustice and unreasonableness of the foundation, 
 in order that confidence may be withheld from the structure 
 that has been raised upon it. 
 
 The Judgment does not ascribe any sense to any declara- 
 tions of Professor Smith in his defence. Much less does it 
 found or proceed upon any such sense. And it was not 
 argued for on the ground of materials furnished by the 
 defence. Such materials were alluded to only for the purpose 
 of getting quit of them, and preventing their interference 
 with the wholly independent argument upon which the Judg- 
 ment is based. Let me present to your readers a brief sum 
 mary of that argument, and thereby exhibit the certainty of 
 it's requiring no aid from any illegitimate source. 
 
12 
 
 The charge in the libel is that the opinion of Professor 
 Smith on the subject of Deuteronomy is opposed to the 
 doctrine of its immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and 
 divine authority, as set forth in the Scriptures and in the 
 Confession. To make out this charge, it is necessary to 
 prove, first, that the statements of Professor Smith, quoted 
 in the libel, represent the book as not being a thoroughly 
 Idstorical record; and, secondly, that, while it is professedly 
 historical, the Confession of Faith requires us to receive it, 
 and to hold its infallible truth in that character. It is not 
 necessary to prove that Professor Smith denies its thorough 
 inspiration, or to assume that he holds it to be inspired in 
 any particular sense. If it be clear that the statements 
 quoted indicate that it is not thoroughly historical, and that, 
 it being professedly historical, the Confession requires us to 
 believe in its infallible truth, then those statements are not 
 consistent with the supposition of its being a thoroughly 
 inspired historical record according to the Confession. This 
 argument, if its particulars be made good, is complete in 
 itself, and needs no assistance from any view that may be 
 taken of Professor Smith's declarations in his defence on the 
 subject of inspiration. But this was precisely my argument 
 in support of the Judgment. 
 
 I assumed, first ^of all, the statements quoted in the libel 
 as proving the opinion promulgated by the Professor to be 
 that the Book of Deuteronomy was either in whole or in part 
 not strictly historical, but a representation in dramatic form 
 through the use of what he maintained to be a legitimate 
 literary method. I argued, secondly, that the Book was, on 
 the face of it, a professedly historical record throughout, and 
 that God had presented it to us as such. I explained that 
 this was a matter that did not admit of demonstration, but 
 that the moral evidence for it upon a careful survey of the 
 contents was conclusive. I argued, thirdly, that a true inter- 
 pretation of the several parts of the Confession on the subject 
 of the Scriptures made it assert the infallible truth of the 
 Book in its historical character. I maintained that the asser- 
 tion of its infallible truth must signify its infallible truth in 
 the character in which it professedly comes to us. Conse- 
 quently the opinion exhibited in the quoted statements 
 appeared to me and to the Assembly opposed to the Confes- 
 
13 
 
 sional doctrine of its inspiration. This conclusion was 
 enough to justify the judgment, and it did not involve any 
 deliverance upon tiie views of inspiration maintained by Pro- 
 fessor Smith. It simply meant that we did not see how his 
 pubhshed opinion about Deuteronomy could be logically 
 reconciled with the Confessional doctrine. I think that my 
 argument was strictly logical, and that it introduced no 
 extraneous element whatever. 
 
 If this be indeed the case, how then, it may be asked, 
 came Principal Ptainy to utter the following sentences ? 
 
 Passing from a course of reasoning about the connection 
 of the historical character of Deuteronomy with the Confes- 
 sion, he said : — 
 
 " But much more than that, for that was quite a subordinate point. 
 The other point was with regard to the way in which the question of 
 inspiration was brought into this finding, and so hrovgU into the whole 
 argument of Sir Henry's speed. . . Surely, to make out their count, 
 they must show that Professor Smith denied or virtually opposed the 
 doctrine of the Confession in the extracts given under this count. It 
 would not do for their purpose on this coiint to say that he denied it 
 sometchere else. They must show that he denied or questioned the 
 doctrine of inspiration under this count in the theory here represented 
 and not somewhere else. And now observe what it was necessary to do 
 in order to make out the argument. On this count that explanation of 
 Professor Smith's jcas brought in which was in the defences, and it was 
 made use of in this iray ;— It was made use of to suggest that Professor 
 Smith's theory of Deuteronomy need not be held up to be consistent 
 with inspiration because his theory of inspiration, as explained, did not 
 suggest that his view of Deuteronomy would be consistent with inspira- 
 tion . . . the argument must proceed precisely as if Professor Smith 
 had never said a word about that Subject of inspiration.'' 
 
 I have already sliown, I think, that my argument was 
 altogether independent of anything said by Professor Smith 
 about inspiration, except in the e.rtrarts under tlm count in the 
 libel. How, then, came Principal Eainy to misunderstand 
 and misinterpret my argument so entirely ? I have every 
 reason to believe that it was thoroughly apprehended in the 
 view I have given of it by many intelligent and scholarly 
 members who voted with me. How did my excellent friend, 
 the Principal, fall into so egregious and injurious a mistake ? 
 It is still more surprising that, in his Eeasons of Dissent and 
 in his speech, he should dwell on the point of Professor Smith 
 not having been heard or dealt with about his special view 
 
 b2 
 
14 
 
 on inspiration, when I had just before, at the conclusion of 
 my speech, expressed myself in the following words : — 
 
 " They were not now entitled to try Professor Smith on the question 
 of inspiration. It would be quite wrong to libel a man for one thing 
 and to find him guilty of another." 
 
 The Principal takes no notice of these words. Upon his 
 view of my speech he would not have known what to say to 
 them. But surely he ought to have asked himself how they 
 could be reconciled with that view before he committed 
 himself or others to it. Was it just or reasonable, in the 
 face of my own language, to assume that a special sense put 
 upon declarations in the defence was essential not only to my 
 motion, but to my loltole argument 2 Your readers will easily 
 see that such a representation by Principal Kainy Avas fitted 
 to startle and impress a number of earnest minds, and that if 
 it had no good foundation it was specially unjust and 
 unreasonable. The words that I have quoted from the close 
 of my own speech prove that it was in some respects the 
 reverse of the reality. No one was more opjjosed than I was 
 myself to the idea of condemning the Professor on account of 
 his declarations in his defence. And, knowing as I do how 
 well my argument was appreciated by those who carefully 
 followed it, I am constrained to conclude that Principal 
 Eainy and others did not attend to it wath that accuracy of 
 regard to the relation of its several parts which the nature of 
 the case demanded. 
 
 On that supposition I can see two misleading influences 
 which may have operated upon them. One of these influences 
 is the conception that the charge in the libel is equivalent to 
 a charge against the Professor of personally and directly 
 or consciously denying the doctrine of Inspiration. By his 
 language the Principal seems to sanction that conception. 
 It accords with the strong desire of the Professor and his 
 friends to shut the Church into a corner in which she must 
 either convict him of an offence requiring immediate depo- 
 sition or refrain from censuring his opinions. I hope the 
 Church will not allow herself to get into that position. But 
 I think that the line taken by Dr. Eainy is unintentionally 
 calculated to draw her into it. Of course, if the charge in the 
 libel means that the Professor personally and directly or con- 
 sciously denies the doctrine of Inspiration, then I can see how 
 
15 
 
 Principal Eainy should consider it essential to my argument 
 in support of the libel that I should make out the view 
 of Inspiration taken by the person libelled to be unsound. 
 He does not observe, however, that I do not regard the libel 
 as having to do with the Professor's personal belief in Inspira- 
 tion, and that I think it reasonable to hold that his opinion as 
 to Deuteronomy is proved by fair logical inference to be 
 opposed to the Confessional doctrine, Avhile not fastening 
 the inference upon him personally, and while not accusing 
 him of personally and directly or consciously denying that 
 doctrine. Consequently, no particular sense ascribed to his 
 declarations is at all essential to my argument, which -would 
 remain the same though he were to avow his adherence to 
 the very strictest theory of Inspiration. What we aim at is 
 not to punish Professor Smith, but to condemn his theory 
 as one that must not be taught in our halls or promulgated 
 by our professors ; whatever may be the consequences to him 
 personally. So far as I can see, the object of keen partisans 
 against us is to defeat this aim. Their success would, I 
 believe, be a great disaster for the cause of the Free Church 
 of Scotland and for the interests of sacred truth. 
 
 The other misleading influence must have been derived 
 from the fact that a somewhat lengthened portion of my 
 speech was occupied witli the consideration 'of an interpreta- 
 tion put by'Professor Smith in his defence upon the fifth 
 section of the first chapter of the Confession of Faith. It 
 was essential to the integrity of my argument that I should 
 establish the truth of the interpretation which I myself put 
 upon that section. I had to do this not only against the 
 Professor's interpretation, but against any similar interpreta- 
 tion by any other party. Those who rightly followed my 
 argument knew that in the part of my speech referred to, I 
 was arguing, not against Professor Smith's views of Inspira- 
 tion as unsound, but for an interpretation of the Confession 
 which would make it assert the inflxllible truth of Deutero- 
 nomy as throughout an historical record. That was the 
 only question then before me. 
 
 But will any man, having any adequate apprehension of 
 judicial matters, deny that when an opposite interpretation 
 had not only been inserted elaborately in a printed defence, 
 but had been circulated for weeks previously to the meeting 
 
16 
 
 of Assembly among tlio members, I was not called upon, in 
 proposing a judgm.ent, to take notice of that interpretation and 
 to argue for its erroneousness ? In doing so I certainly 
 pointed out what I thought legitimate consequences from it, 
 though I was far from suggesting that the Professor saw those 
 consequences or adopted them. I am well aware that, in the 
 course of such an argument, 1 may have made use of 
 expressions which, whether when I uttered them, or as they 
 appear in the reports, seemed to persons who had not fully 
 followed my reasoning, or who heard or saw them without 
 accurate connection with the context, to involve a special 
 assault upon the views of the Professor. In my reply at the 
 close of the discussion, I intimated my sincere regret if I had 
 thus unintentionally appeared to assail him on a matter not 
 before the Court, and I disclaimed the purpose of, either by 
 my speech or my motion, founding my judgment of the 
 relevancy upon the declarations in the defence. 
 
 Thus, the Assembly was made fully aware before the vote, 
 that the ground ascribed to us by Principal Rainy was dis- 
 claimed by us, and that our motion was intended to stand 
 upon its own independent footing. There is no excuse, there- 
 fore, for the allegation that the vote was come to upon a false 
 issue. It was not come to upon any ground that could bo 
 upset by any subsequent decision. 
 
 I have still to explain the real meaning of the last clause 
 of the judgment, and to vindicate my own action from the 
 allegation of unfairness towards the Professor. But I think 
 it will be better, before deahng.with these topics, that the 
 nature and meaning of the judgment on the third particular 
 of the First Charge should be clearly explained by a qualified 
 person. For that judgment has been represented as involving 
 a reversal of the one on Deuteronomy, No representation 
 could be more foolish and unfounded. It springs out of the 
 idea that the previous vote proceeded on a particular view of 
 the Professor's declarations, and that in his pleading on the 
 latter case he overthrew that view. I have already shown 
 that no declaration by him could aflPect the force of the real 
 argument as to Deuteronomy. But it is desirable that your 
 readers should have a clear account set before them as to the 
 reasons for the decision on the third particular. 
 
 I was myself precluded from voting in that case by tlic 
 
17 
 
 accidental circumstance of my having been prevented from 
 being present when the dissentients from the sentence of the 
 Presbytery were heard at the bar. My absence on any such 
 occasion is always with me a reason for not voting, whatever 
 may be my opinion. But I hope that you will receive a com- 
 munication from one who took part in the discussion. 
 
18 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE THIRD PARTICULAR UNDER THE FIRST CHARGE. 
 By Key. William Wilson, D.D. 
 
 IN the Communications Nos. II. and III. Sir Heniy 
 MoncreifF has shown what the judgment of the Assembly 
 really was on the second particular under the first alternative 
 charge in the libel against Professor Smith, and the grounds 
 on which that judgment was based. It might not have been 
 necessary to say anything as to the judgment of the Assembly 
 on the third particular under the same charge, but for the 
 fact that the Assembly's judgment on this particular has 
 been represented as a virtual reversal of their judgment on 
 the second particular, and an undoing, in virtue of Professor 
 Smith's pleading at the bar, of what had been done earlier 
 on the same day. 
 
 It was perhaps not very unnatural on the part of those 
 who approved of and adopted Dr. Kainy's reasons of dissent 
 to arrive at such a conclusion. They assumed that Professor 
 Smith had been condemned without being heard as to his 
 views on Inspiration, and that, after his statement at the bar, 
 the Assembly repented of their previous action under the 
 second particular, and by a large majority acquitted him of 
 the charge under the third particular. How erroneous 
 such a conclusion was has been made sufficiently apparent by 
 Sir Henry Moncreiff in his demonstration that the Assembly's 
 judgment on the second particular was not, in any degree, 
 based upon what Professor Smith had stated in his defence 
 on the subject of Inspiration ; but solely upon the fact that 
 his statements regarding the Book of Deuteronomy are 
 opposed in their legitimate results to the supposition of tl 
 Book being a thoroughly inspired historical record, accordini 
 to the teaching of the Westminster Confession. 
 
 But apart from that it is surely a blind and reckless con 
 
 10 
 
It) 
 
 foundiii£v of things that ditter to represent the judgment 
 of the Assembly on the third particular as at all affecting the 
 judgment they had already pronounced on the second par- 
 ticular. It might with just as much reason be alleged that 
 the unanimous judgment of the Assembly finding the first 
 particular not relevant was repented of so soon as it had been 
 pronounced, and that this judgment was virtually reversed 
 by their judgment on the second particular. 
 
 I think it is safe to assume that the Assembly were not so 
 ignorant or so fickle as to be capable of acting in such a way. 
 They considered each charge separately and gave upon each 
 an independent judgment. They found the first particular 
 not relevant because it did not appear certain that Professor 
 Smith held or had stated the views imputed to him. They 
 found the second particular relevant on the ground as already 
 stated. They found the third particular not relevant on 
 entirely independent grounds. 
 
 The fact of their being a third as well as a second par- 
 ticular is enough to show that the two were not identical, and 
 that there might reasonably be a different judgment on the 
 one from what was given on the other. 
 
 In the third particular there is nothing at all about the 
 Book of Deuteronomy. It charges Professor Smith with 
 lowering " the character of the inspired writings by ignoring 
 their Divine authorship, and by representing the sacred 
 writers as taking freedoms and committing errors like other 
 authors ; as giving explanations that were unnecessary and 
 incorrect ; as putting fictitious speeches into the mouths of 
 their historical characters ; as giving inferences of their own 
 for facts ; as describing arrangements as made use of in their 
 complete form at a certain time which were not completed 
 till long afterwards ; and as writing under the influence of 
 party spirit and for party purposes." 
 
 The question which the Assembly had to determine was 
 whether this charge, certainly a very grave one, was relevant 
 not merely to the effect of inferring censure if it was proved, 
 but whether it was relevant to the effect of being sustained by 
 quotations from Professor Smith's writings. If it ^^ as not so 
 sustained it could not be found relevant as a charge against 
 him. 
 
 Now, no one in the Assembly proposed to find the charge 
 
20 
 
 relevant as it stood. The one motion ^Yas that the Assembly 
 sustain the Dissent and Complaint, and reverse the judgment 
 of the Presbytery to the extent of finding that the statement 
 of Professor Smith, that an inspired writer allowed himself 
 the same freedoms as were taken by ancient historians is, in 
 the sense in which it appears to the General Assembly, to be 
 used by him so unguarded and extreme as to be incompatible 
 with the inspiration and infallible truth of the sacred 
 Scriptures. The other motion was, that the Assembly 
 dismiss the Dissent and Complaint, and affirm the judgment 
 of the Presbytery — that is, that the Assembly find the charge 
 not relevant. 
 
 It was the latter motion M'hieh, by a large majority, 
 became the judgment of the Assembly. It does not neces- 
 sarily follow from this judgment that Professor Smith is 
 declared to be entirely blameless in regard to his statements 
 about what an inspired writer allowed himself to do, and that 
 his statements on this subject may not be found unguarded 
 and extreme. The judgment is simply that his statements do 
 not contradict or are not opposed to the doctrine of the 
 immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and Divine authorit}'- 
 of the Holy Scriptures. It is still open to the Church Courts 
 to consider, under the second alternative charge in the libel, 
 whether Professor Smith's statements are not such as by their 
 ill-considered and unguarded setting forth of speculations of a 
 critical kind, tend to awaken doubt, especially in the case of 
 students, of the Divine truth, inspiration, and authority of 
 any of the Books of Scripture. 
 
 It is not my part to vindicate the judgment of the 
 Assembly. I have exhausted my functions in showing what 
 the judgment is, and in showing that in no sense and to no 
 extent can it be regarded as weakening or traversing the judg- 
 ment regarding the views of Professor Smith on the Book of 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
21 
 
 THE DECLARATIONS OF PROFESSOR SMITH IN HIS 
 
 DEFENCE. 
 
 By tSiR Henky Moncreiff. 
 
 THESE declarations, as contained in a printed statement, 
 and as made orally at the bar, are considered by some 
 members of last Assembly to prove the Professor's orthodoxy 
 and spirituality. Other members object to them as indicating 
 unsoundness. This difference of opinion relates to their 
 bearing on the subject of Inspiration. My disclaimer in my 
 reply at the close of the discussion on the question regarding 
 Deuteronomy, of any intention to assail them, and my rej^eti- 
 tion of that disclaimer in my last communication, did not 
 mean that I was satisfied with their orthodoxy any more than 
 it signified my conviction of their heterodoxy. It simply 
 meant that I repudiated the supposition of my having 
 imputed heterodoxy to them in my argument about his theory 
 of Deuteronomy, or of my having founded ray judgment of it 
 in the slightest degree upon such imputation. I agree with 
 Dr. Eainy that to have done so would have been quite 
 illegitimate. 
 
 What, then, was the intention, and what is the effect, it 
 may be asked, of the last clause of my motion as adopted by 
 the Assembly? It is in the following terms : — 
 
 " While his declarations on the subject of Inspiraiion are the reverse 
 of satisfactory, and do not indicate his reception of tie look in that 
 character. ^^ 
 
 The chief point in the first reason of dissent by Dr. Eainy, 
 Sheriff Campbell, and others, is that our judgment "proceeds 
 on the sense ascribed to a declaration of Professor Smith." 
 Surely when this allegation is placed in close proximity to 
 the terms of the clause quoted above, your readers may see 
 at a glance how strangely and ridiculously without founda- 
 
22 
 
 tlon it is. I could conceive of the clause being objected to, 
 because not specifying any declaration and not defining 
 Avherein the want of satisfactoriness lies. But when it does 
 not specify, and does not define, I could not have conceived 
 beforehand that many persons of approved wisdom and dis- 
 ca-etion, such as Dr. Rainy or Sheriff Campbell, would have 
 committed themselves to the assertion that we ascribed a 
 sense to something which we have neither specified nor 
 defined, while we said not a word about any sense whatever 
 ascribed to anything whatever. 
 
 When I heard the objection raised, my astonishment was 
 so great, and my consciousness of its injustice so clear, that 
 my first impulse was to decdare emphatically that the 
 obnoxious clause had no essential connection with the deci- 
 sion on the relevancy, and that, if the Assembly chose, it 
 might be withdrawn. Dr. Anderson Kirkwood, in seconding 
 Dr. Rainy's motion, spoke of my declaration as indicating 
 that my motion had been very crudely drawn. It has been 
 imagined, I see, that this observation must have been felt by 
 me as very severe. On the contrary, it did not disturb me 
 at all. For I simply saw in it a specimen of the delusive 
 conceptions into which an acute and sagacious mind may be 
 occasionally drawn. Dr. Kirkwood's usual sagacity might 
 have shown him that my somewhat hasty declaration was 
 simply a proof of groundlessness in the allegation made by 
 tlie objectors, and of my utter surprise at finding it brought 
 forward. 
 
 As the latter clause of the Assembly's deliverance, though 
 not bearing itself on the relevancy of the charge about 
 Deuteronomy, had reference exclusively to that charge, the 
 word satisfactory as used in it cannot be reasonably under- 
 stood in the wide sense of what would satisfy on the subject 
 of the Professor's orthodoxy regarding Inspiration or any 
 other theological question. It must be taken in the re- 
 stricted sense of what would satisfy as a defence against our 
 view of his theory on Deuteronomy. Let me ask your 
 readers to observe that, in this restricted sense, no declaration 
 of adherence even to the strictest conceptions of plenary 
 verbal Inspiration could be satisfactory. For no such decla- 
 ration by him can overcome the force of legitimate inferences 
 drawn from^his view of that book. The theory regarding it 
 
23 
 
 set forth in the extracts is condemned as contrary to the 
 standards, even though he be found maintaining its Inspira- 
 tion in the most ortliodox manner. 
 
 At the same time, I acls;no^vledge that if he had presented 
 to us iu defence what appeared to us a clear and unmistakable 
 expression of opinion in accordance with the Confessional 
 doctrine as to the infallible truth of tlie written Word, I 
 should not have proposed a different judgment on the rele- 
 vancy, but I should have been disposed to append to it a 
 resolution to the effect tliat, before pronouncing sentence in 
 the case, there should be a special conference with Mr. 
 Smith, which might lead to a modification of the sentence. 
 I made no such proposal because there did not seem to me to 
 be any such clear and unmistakable expression in the defence. 
 The Professor's declarations were to me the reverse of satis- 
 factory as a defence, because they not only fell short of being 
 an answer to the independent arguments for the relevancy 
 of the libel, but because they puzzled me, and seemed to 
 raise some very doubtful questions. I know of nothing more 
 unsatisfactory in statements than that they shovild be puzzling 
 and difficult to be reconciled with one another. That is the 
 idea indicated by the words 'S'crers^ of satis f act o'ry.^^ The 
 declarations were the reverse of satisfactory as a defence in 
 meeting the charge about Deuteronomy, because the Assem- 
 bly did not fully understand what their meaning was. We 
 did not pronounce upon their essential merits. We merely 
 put them aside as being the reverse of available. We added 
 that they did " not indicate " the Professor's " reception of 
 the book " of Deuteronomy in the character of an inspired 
 historical record. Of course they could not do so without 
 contradicting his theory. Besides, in his printed defence 
 (p. 32) he expressly declares his contention to be " that a 
 book, or part of a book, which at first sight may seem to be 
 strictly historical, appears on closer consideration not to be 
 so." He said in his oral pleading that the legislative part 
 was inspired laio, while maintaining that the apparent assign- 
 ment to it of its place in the order of events was not inspired- 
 lilstory, because not literal history at all. 
 
 Thus the Assembly, by the clause objected to, did nothing 
 more than dismiss the defence as unavailable. It was argued 
 that the declarations on Inspiration had no reference to the 
 
24 
 
 charge about Deuteronomy, and tliat we were not entitled to 
 take notice of tliem. But they formed part of a long intro- 
 duction in the Professor's printed statement to his consideration 
 of the particular charges. The application of that intro- 
 duction was not limited by him to one or more of the charges, 
 and, having been circulated among the members for some 
 weeks previously, it challenged attention. It is most un- 
 reasonable, therefore, to find fliult with our adverting to the 
 declarations which it contains as inadequate for their pur])ose. 
 Moreover, in his speech at the bar. Professor Smith himself 
 complained that Principal Brown had not alluded to the 
 statements in the printed defence. But if parties at the 
 bar were called upon to meet it, surely the Court w\as war- 
 ranted in dealing with it. 
 
 I may be excused for briefly explaining my personal 
 position with respect to representations and complaints by 
 Professor Smith and others. In his speech at the bar, in 
 relation to the third particular (on which Dr. Wilson has 
 written), the Professor spoke of the party against him having 
 followed my examjjle in dwelling chiefly upon his declarations 
 regarding Inspiration. He further said that so far as he 
 could fjrasp my argument, that appeared to be the chief point 
 in it. This statement confirmed my impression that, however 
 great may be his ability and learning, his power of grasping 
 an argument against him requires strengthening. I have 
 shown, I think, in my previous communication, that any 
 alleged unsoundness in his declarations was not only not the 
 chief point of my argument, but formed no part of it at all. 
 Consequently, it is evident that, along with the dissentients^ 
 he missed the meaning and force of what I maintained ; while 
 I know through many assurances that they were fully seen 
 and appreciated by members of the highest intelligence. The 
 truth is that, unconsciously to themselves, it suited himself 
 and his supporters better, to take the view which they did of 
 my statements than to l;)ok in the face what these reallv 
 amounted to. He and they complained of my imputing to 
 him the opinion that parts of the Bible were inspired and 
 other parts not inspired, understanding the supposed opinion 
 to signify that some books, or some chapters, or some verses 
 might not be counted as inspired. 
 
 As such an opinion is directly opposed to what he had 
 
25 
 
 explicitly stated in his printed answer to the libel, they might, 
 in the exercise of sober judgment, have given me credit for 
 having carefully read and considered the statements of that 
 answer, and they might have seen that my language applied 
 not to what he had therein disclaimed, but to what he had 
 expressly maintained. I have already shown that, in the 
 words complained of, I was alluding to his interpretation of 
 the fifth section of the first chapter of the Confession with 
 regard to the infallible truth attributed to the Scriptures. 
 That interpretation has nothing to do with any distinction 
 between particular books, chapters, or verses ; and my 
 criticism did not extend beyond the point of his interpreta- 
 tion. My use of the words "part" or "parts" seems to 
 have misled hini and others. In their keenness they did 
 not observe how closely I was keeping to the point actually 
 raised by his interpretation. The result of that interpreta- 
 tion is in his own words (Answer, p. 26) that, while we 
 may say that " Scripture is the infallible "Word of God," 
 " we cannot invert the proposition, and say that the infalli- 
 bility wdiich belongs to the Divine substance of the Word 
 extends to the outward form of the record, or that the self- 
 evidencing power of the Word as a rule of faith and life 
 extends to expressions in Scripture which are indifferent to 
 faith and fife." 
 
 This statement does not conflict with the view, indicated 
 by the Professor at the bar, that God maybe heard speak- 
 ing in every verse of Scripture, and that no verse should 
 be regarded as if it had nothing to do with salvation or 
 spiritual profit. He did not require to instruct any of us 
 by reference to Calvin and other authorities upon that subject. 
 Many of us had learnt from our earliest years to consider with 
 reverence that God thus speaks to us by His Spirit in every 
 part of the written Word. Persons taught by the late Dr. 
 Andrew Thomson and his contemporaries do not stand in 
 need of guidance from a young professor in these days upon 
 what has always been to them a fundamental principle. 
 Their own study of the Word itself has, by God's grace, been 
 quite enough for their thorough establishment in that prin- 
 ciple. And the fact of his somewhat presumptuous suggestion 
 to the contrary leads to the inquiry whether the foundations 
 of his own theology have been laid as largely on the old 
 
26 
 
 Scottish basis as lie thinks they are supported by the scholar- 
 ship of Europe. 
 
 But his statement implies that there may be expressions 
 in any verse of Scripture -which, being indifferent to faith and 
 life, are not to be regarded as possessing that character of 
 infallible truth which the Confession ascribes to Scripture, 
 and the full assurance of which the Spirit of God alone 
 conveys. A book is made up of expressions, and my difficulty 
 is, how I can regard the book as inspired if its expressions 
 are not inspired. An expression in a verso is p)art of the 
 verse, and my difficulty is, upon Professor Smith's interpreta- 
 tion, how I am to know which part of a verse possesses the 
 character of infallible truth and which p>art does not ? I 
 cannot see my way through this difficulty, and he has done 
 nothing to relieve me by any subsequent statement. 
 
 When I gave my explanation in reply on the matter of 
 Deuteronomy, I was not making quotations for the purpose 
 of proving the Professor to be imsound. Dr. Candlish in- 
 terrupted my explanation, intended to disclaim the imputation 
 of unsoundness on Inspiration as bearing upon my motion. 
 I do not always hear distinctly, and I did not know what 
 Dr. Candlish meant. I declined to be interrupted in my 
 explanation. But I did not decline to read anything which 
 Professor Smith or his friends might think necessary, and 
 would have gladly done so had I been asked before I con- 
 cluded. I expressly disclaimed the idea of making him 
 responsible for any inferences which my difficulty suggested. 
 
 My last explanation is, that Avhen in the College Com- 
 mittee I agreed that there was no ground for a libel for heresy 
 against Professor Smith, I looked upon a libel for heresy in 
 the strictest sense as a libel charging him with a personal 
 and direct or conscious denial of the Confessional doctrine ot 
 Inspiration. I thought I had evidence that he thoroughly 
 held that doctrine, and I did not think it reasonable to make 
 him responsible for my own logical inferences from his theory 
 of Deuteronomy. But I thought that theory dangerous and 
 unsettling, just because the natural and legitimate inference 
 from it was opposed to the inspiration of the book. I would 
 not have had a libel framed against him had he not demanded 
 one. But I would have had steps taken to prevent the 
 teaching or promulgation of that theory by a Professor of 
 
27 
 
 our Church. A libel, however, having been prepared on his 
 demand, and it liaving been conceded that the libel was 
 relevant if the logical result of his published opinion was 
 opposed to the Confessional doctrine, I felt constrained to 
 taKe the ground which I occupied in the Assembly. 
 
 Many members of Assembly and many devoted ministers 
 and elders of our Church are deeply concerned about the 
 views of Inspiration still avowed by Professor Smith. They 
 think them incompatible with the position of a Free Church 
 Theological Professor. Others are satisfied with his sub- 
 stantial orthodoxy, while they admire his ability, attainments, 
 and Christian character. I do not grudge him that admira- 
 tion, while I keep in mind that the most dangerous errors 
 have originated with loveable and devoted servants of Christ. 
 I give no opinion as to his orthodoxy or heterodoxy on 
 Inspiration, because the question may be raised by another 
 libel, or in some other competent form, and I should wish to 
 keep myself free to judge of it if raised. 
 
 I think, however, that the judgment of the Assembl}' on 
 his theory of Deuteronomy may prevent him from occupying 
 his chair while he continues to hold that theory as it is 
 indicated in the quotations of the libel. But I think we 
 should carefully avoid doing anything to imply that a 
 man who appears to hold the Confessional doctrine of Inspi- 
 ration, should be excluded from our ministry or oldersliip 
 because he feels conscientious difficulty about the date and 
 authorship of any book of Scripture, while he does not 
 jjromulgate his difficulty in an injurious manner. 
 
 Many eminent names were attached to the Reasons of 
 Dissent from my motion. It is reasonable, therefore, to men- 
 tion some of the persons who voted with me, and who adhere 
 decidedly to the ground which I took up. Not forgetting 
 Dr. Begg, Dr. Thomas Smith, Dr. H. Bonar, and others 
 usually opposed to Dr. Hainy upon questions of a diffijrent 
 kind, but referring speciall}^ to ministers and elders who most 
 frequently concur with the Principal, I may say that I was 
 supported by Dr. Wilson, Dr. Goold, Professor Duns ; Mr. 
 Gibson, of Perth ; Mr. Howie, of Grlasgow ; Mr. Inglis, of 
 Dundee ; Mr. Kelman, of Leith ; Mr. George Macauley, 
 of Edinburgh ; Dr. M'Lauchlan, of Edinburgh ; Mr. jNIilroy, 
 of Penpont ; Mr. Smith, of Sanquhar ; Mr. Nicoll, of 
 
 c 
 
28 
 
 Glasgow ; Mr. George Philip, of Edinburgh ; Mr. Rankine, 
 of Strathaven ; Mr. Riddell, of Glasgow ; Mr. Smith, of 
 Tarland ; Mr. .James Wilson, of the Barclay Church, 
 Edinburgh ; and Mr. Wood, of Elie, Mmister-s ; and by 
 Mr. Thomas JSIcMicking, of Helensburg ; Mr. John Muir, 
 of Glasgow ; Mr. John E. Millar, Glasgow ; Major Ross, of 
 Aberdeen ; Mr. James Sime, Edinburgh ; Mr. John Chal- 
 mers, Edinburgh ; Professor Simpson, Edinburgh ; Mr. John 
 Maclaren, Edinburgh ; Sheriff Hugh Cowan, I^Ir. David 
 Dickson, Edinburgh ; Mr. William Dickson, Edinburgh ; 
 Mr. Daniel Eraser, Glasgow ; Mr. James McLure, Glasgow ; 
 and Mr. John Macdonald, Edinburgh, Eldcra. I am further 
 allowed to mention that Mr. Burns, of Kirkliston ; JSIr. 
 Walker, of Dysart ; and Colonel Young, though for special 
 reasons they did not vote at all, are cordially with me in the 
 substance of my judgment. I am also authorised to say that 
 Mr. David Maelagan, Edinburgh, whose name is so Avell 
 known to your readers, though declining this year to be a 
 member of Assembly from finding it impracticable to be in 
 Glasgow during the sittings, has formed a very decided 
 opinion in favour of my motion and against the Reasons of 
 Dissent. These are but a few specimens of the very large 
 support that is tendered to me.* 
 
 * In a letter from the Rev. Dr. Elder, of Rothesay, he intimated his 
 adherence to my view in strong terms. 
 
29 
 
 VI. 
 
 DR. RAINY.— THE ASSEMBLY VOTE.— NO REACTION.— COL- 
 LEGE REPORT. — PUBLICATION OF FIRST ANSWER 
 TO THE LIBEL. —NEAV THEORY OF INSPIRATION.— 
 MR. SMITH'S EXPLANATION. — DR. CANDLISH. — THE 
 CONFESSION. 
 
 By Eev. Norman L. Walker, Dysakt. 
 
 NO one who has not been intimately acquainted with the 
 history of the Free Church during the last ten years 
 can form any adequate idea of the pain Avhich it gives some 
 of us to appear in any way in opposition to Dr. Eainy. All 
 the world knows his ability as a leader, but only those who 
 have seen him in private counsel can fully realise how single- 
 eyed he is, how simple and unaffectedly he seeks the glory of 
 God in the good of his Church, and how absolutely free he is 
 of all self-seeking and personal ambition ! He has been a 
 leader of the generous Disruption type, and very much, I 
 believe, on that account he was followed during all the Union 
 controversy with a heartiness and loyalty which could hardly 
 be exceeded. 
 
 I refer to this in connection with a strange misapprehen- 
 sion which I find existing as to the conclusion to be drawn 
 from the vote in last Assembly. Many who ought to know 
 better have spoken as if Sir Henry Moncreiff had secured 
 more support than he would probably otherwise have got in 
 consequence of his having constructed a singularly cunning 
 and attractive motion. I am just as certain of this as I can 
 be of anything that Sir Henry lost a considerable number of 
 votes by putting into his motion more than was needful. 
 What gained for him the majority was simply this, that he 
 represented substantially the mind of the Assembly on the 
 point at issue. That he carried his motion at all — carried it 
 n-eifjhted as it was — and carried it against the opposition, the 
 
 c2 
 
30 
 
 speech, and the Protest of Dr. Eaiiiy, was indeed " a moral 
 victory ; " but it was a moral victory of a very different sort 
 from that which has been claimed. In itself my own opinion 
 is of course of very little moment, but it is not irrelevant in 
 this connection to say that I was one of a number who did 
 not vote at alL and that I was influenced in this abstention, 
 first, by dissatisfaction with not the substance but the con- 
 struction of Sir Henry's motion, and, secondly, by my feelings 
 of loyalty towards my natural leader, Dr. Rainy. 
 
 I am glad to take the opportunity offered here of stating 
 my own feelings in regard to the case of Professor Smith ; 
 but before doing so I would venture to say a word in vindica- 
 tion of those who have now resolved to speak out their minds 
 with kindly frankness. I have met with some who seemed 
 inclined to characterise all who said a word against Professor 
 Smith as guilty of persecution. They claim for him and his 
 friends an absolute right to say whatever they please, but they 
 are shocked when the corresponding right has been exercised to 
 express disapprobation on the other side. I do not believe that 
 Professor Smith himself can sympathise with this one-legged 
 toleration. He has, on his own responsibility, and under the 
 pressure doubtless of conscientious convictions, given currency 
 to views which run counter to our most venerable traditions, 
 and he is too magnanimous to feel even a moment's personal 
 irritation against those who, equally under the influence of 
 their consciences, are candid enough to say what they think 
 of his views and of his manner of propagating them. But 
 apart from that, the necessity for plain speaking is being im- 
 pressed upon us with painful intensity. I have seen it again 
 and again stated that those only have no sympathy with the 
 new movement who are more or less remotely under the in- 
 fluence of ecclesiastical Toryism and Dr. Begg ! Well, I 
 may without presumption say that I know something of the 
 ministry and eldership of the Free Church. I have had a 
 good deal of intercourse in my time with the men who have 
 been most zealous for Union and for Disestablishment, and I 
 can testify in the most direct way to this fact, that those who 
 have taken counsel to state their opinions in these columns 
 consist just of the very kind of men with whom Dr. Robert 
 Buchanan was wont to confer in times of perplexity. It is 
 here indeed that we feel this new trouble so grievously. The 
 
31 
 
 Aberdeen Case has driven a v/edge into the Free Church which 
 has cut deeper than the Union controversy. And under these 
 circumstances it would be folly to be silent any longer. 
 
 Like most other loyal men in the Church, I accepted the 
 Report of the College Committee. We had confidence in its 
 Convener — one of the wisest men remaining to us, 
 Mr. Laughton, of Greenock — and in the leading members of 
 the committee ; and when they advised us that although there 
 was a good deal to condemn in Professor Smith's teaching, 
 there was nothing in it to necessitate an action for heresy, 
 we Avere satisfied to acquiesce. As a corollary to that con- 
 clusion, I was prepared to assent to a motion, which was 
 constructed but never proposed, in the Assembly of 1877, to 
 the effect that Mr. Smith be then sent back to his Chair with 
 a rebuke and with the expression of a generous hope that in 
 future he would be more careful of the susceptibilities of his 
 brethren. 
 
 We all know what followed the Assembly of 1877. Pro- 
 fessor Smith continued his contributions to the "Encyclo- 
 paadia," taking very much the same hue as before. His trial 
 at Aberdeen led to elaborate defences being offered in his 
 favour and to his acquittal on all the charges. And still the 
 stone continued to roll, until some leading elders felt the spell 
 of the new movement, and, from being strong opponents of 
 Professor Smith in the College Committee, became his 
 partisans. Under circumstances like these, it is not surprising 
 that some of us simple-minded country brethren became 
 seriously perplexed. Could it indeed be the case that we had 
 after all been concerning ourselves about the matter quite 
 needlessly ? Was it really true that Professor Smith had not 
 only done nothing amiss, but had been doing wdiat was fitted 
 to add fresh glory to the Free Church and to promote more 
 effectively the interests of true religion ? I can honestly say 
 for myself that I was open to conviction. And when at last 
 the first Answer to the Libel was published, I at once pro- 
 cured it, and studied it with a carefulness becoming the 
 occasion. 
 
 And it was then that I was thoroughly aroused to a sense 
 of the seriousness of the issue that was being raised. 
 
 Hitherto I had regarded the Aberdeen movement as one 
 which concerned in a direct way only the subject of Biblical 
 
32 
 
 Introduction. I knew of course what revolutionary views 
 might be taught even in that connection, and also that in the 
 discussion of it, questions might be raised as to the very 
 nature of Revelation. But formally the matter debated had 
 been chiefly that of the history and authorship and composi- 
 tion of the Books of the Bible, and the world had not been 
 made to realise that Professor Smith had any particular view 
 of Inspiration. 
 
 In the first Answer to the Libel, however, a theory of 
 Inspiration was distinctly developed, and that theory seemed 
 to me to be one which, although suiting a free-handed critic 
 exceedingly well, was fitted to present to the Scottish people 
 another Bible than they have been reading since the Refor- 
 mation. What Professor Smith appeared to teach was this, 
 that Holy Scripture is divisible into two indefinable portions, 
 the one being " the Record," the other " the Divine Com- 
 munication of God's heart and will which the Record 
 conveys," and that the Witness of the Spirit, and therefore 
 the infallible truth and Divine authority of Scripture, only 
 extend to that knowledge of Grod and of His will ivJdch is 
 necessary to salvation ; or, in other words, " infallible truth 
 and Divine authorit}' " cannot be ascribed to any expression 
 in Scripture which touches neither faith nor life. 
 
 I felt that here was something winch struck deeper than 
 any question of Introduction. The Church might come to 
 doubt the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy and be con- 
 ceivably not any the worse for it ; but if a theory of Inspira- 
 tion were to come into common use, which allows a man to 
 say ; this is Scripture, hut it is not infallibly true or divinely 
 authoritative — I could imagine a most serious state of matters 
 to be produced ; and with this feeling in my mind I went to 
 Glasgow. 
 
 Well, but there, I may be told, Professor Smith made a 
 speech in wliich there was a triumphant vindication of his 
 orthodoxy. He did make a speech upon the subject, a very 
 able and remarkable speech, and I have not the slightest hesi- 
 tation in saying that if he had never said a word elsewhere 
 about Inspiration, nobody who heard him speak from the Bar 
 would have ever dreamt for a moment of questioning his 
 soundness. But as it was, the speech simply perplexed me. 
 He did not withdraw his teaching in the Ansiver. He did 
 
33 
 
 not show wherein his statements at the Bar were reconcilable 
 with those already in print. And I could not help asking 
 myself as he proceeded if he was really using his words in the 
 two places in the same sense. 
 
 I admit, of course, that he may turn round upon me and 
 accuse me of stupidity. He was bound to give us arguments, 
 but he was not bound to find us understandings to take them 
 in. But I would not be altogether defenceless under such a 
 charge. It is to me a significant circumstance that I find 
 everybody around me putting upon the Answer to the Libel the 
 very same interpretation as I do, and not only so — this a fact 
 to which I can directly testify, tltat the disciples of Professor 
 Smith are not themselves all able to make the distinctions lohich 
 he does. They take his theory in its rough-and- ready form, 
 and argue, without any circumlocution, that such or such a 
 portion of Scripture is not of infallible authority, because it 
 was within the competency of the unaided human mind to 
 produce it. So great a master of language as Professor 
 Smith could not have expressed himself so as to be interpreted 
 in a certain way by friend and foe alike if he had meant him- 
 self to be understood quite differently. 
 
 But I may be reminded that i\\Q Answer was itself ap- 
 pealed to so as containing a recognition of the Divine authority 
 of the sacred Scriptures. There was, for example, a passage 
 to which Professor Candlish called the attention of Sir Henry 
 Moncreift while he was speaking, and which he was exceed- 
 ingly anxious should be read. Sir Henry did not read the 
 passage, not because he was not willing to do so, for, as all 
 will admit, he is candour itself, but because he was not aware 
 at the time of the importance which was attached to it. But 
 all who had the papers at the moment in their hands did of 
 course read it, and I am pretty sure that it produced convic- 
 tion only in the minds of those who were already convinced. 
 The passage stated in substance that if a man goes to the 
 Bible in a spiritual state of mind he will find Divine and 
 authoritative truth in every part of it. That was presented 
 as conveying the impression that Professor Smith held the 
 doctrine of plenary inspiration, as it is commonly understood. 
 If that Avere the case, what could be the meaning of the dis- 
 tinctions introduced elsewhere ? Were those distinctions to 
 be interpreted in the light of this passage, or was the passage 
 
34 
 
 to be read in the light of tlie distinctions ? I for my own 
 part liave no doubt at all that the latter was the course 
 intended to be followed. And in that view I would, if I had 
 the opportunity, put such questions as these — Is there not 
 Divine truth in every part of Scripture whether it is " found" 
 or no ? Is it only the spiritual man who will find Divine 
 authority in Scripture? Will not the spiritual man find 
 Divine truth in every part of — a tree ? 
 
 Professor Smith asserts that the views he holds on this 
 subject are those of the Confession and of the Confessional 
 theologians. I do not presume to contradict him in my own 
 name. But there is still at least one man among us whose 
 acquaintance with the theological literature of the Con- 
 fessional period is second to none ; and although I am 
 not permitted to mention his name, I think it is due to the 
 interests of truth to say that on that point he considers 
 Professor Smith's assumptions to be so entirely unwarranted, 
 that their having been put forward at all by him has shaken 
 his confidence in the critical ability of Mr. Smith, even in all 
 other connections. 
 
35 
 
 VII. 
 
 THE PRACTICAL QUESTION.— SPIRIT IN WHICH BIBLICAL 
 PROBLEMS . SHOULD BE DISCUSSED. — PROFESSOR 
 SMITH'S DEFECTS.— WHAT HIS RESTORATION W^ILL 
 IMPLY. — RECOGNISED UNCERTAINTY OF HIS 
 POSITIONS. — DANGER TO THE FREE CHURCH. — 
 MISGIVINGS OF ITS FRIENDS. — REJOICINGS OF ITS 
 ENEMIES.— THE EXAMINER AND THE THEOLOGICAL 
 REVIEW.— 0\]K CHURCH'S HERITAGE.-DR. LINDSAY. 
 
 By Rev. Norman L. Walker. 
 
 I HAVE stated that I am not satisfied that Professor 
 Smith's view of the Bible as a divinely authoritative 
 Revelation, is either sound or safe. 
 
 But apart from that there can be no doubt that the ques- 
 tion practically before the Church is this, " After all that has 
 happened, would it be wise and prudent to recommit to Professor 
 Smith the important charge of the upbringing of our future 
 ministry ?" I am quite aware of the delicacy of the question, 
 but as Dr. Rainy said at the Assembly, we are at last taking 
 up our respective responsibilities, and it is only fair that it 
 should be known that there are not a few, whose loyalty to 
 the Church and to those liberal principles which it has of 
 recent years been professing cannot be questioned, who are 
 strongly of opinion that that question must be answered 
 in the negative. 
 
 The question is one which is not settled when you have 
 decided in the abstract that Biblical criticism ought in a Free 
 Church to have elbow-room. Nor is there even an end of all 
 debate when you have determined how far a private member 
 of the Church, or even a minister, may be allowed to go 
 without challenge in his investigations. There is something 
 additional involved, something vital to the proper administra- 
 tion of the Church, in the inquiry of how far you are justified 
 
36 
 
 ill having at the very fountain-liead of your system one in 
 whom entire confidence is not placed. 
 
 1, While many Biblical problems are in these days 
 pressing for solution, and that so urgently, that no Church 
 can afford to overlook them, it is of vital moment to the peace 
 of individual Churches that such critics as undertake to speak 
 for them should do so as flir as possible in harmony with 
 their spirit. I do not say that they should shock no prejudices 
 and stir' up no opposition, for nobody can inove forward in 
 any direction without awakening the indignation of some one 
 who wants to stay behind. What I mean is this, that if a 
 scholar wishes to retain the confidence of his Church in con- 
 nection with any new views, and especially if he is to carry 
 that Church along with him, he must show that he is not 
 under influences external to it which are moving him to take 
 up positions of antagonism with suspicious speed. Now, 
 without discussing the question of whether Professor Smith is 
 right or not in his views, I hold it to be demonstrable that he 
 is not the kind of critic into whose hands the Free Church 
 could with an utter confidence entrust the fighting of its 
 battles on the field of Biblical Introduction. 
 
 (1.) Professor Smith has more than once said that if he 
 had only guessed how ill the Church would have taken his 
 manner of writing, he would have been more careful in the 
 construction of his articles. It is greatly to his credit that ho 
 has intimated as much. But the wonderful thing is this, 
 that it should not have occurred to him at the outset that tiie 
 paper "Bible," in the "Encyclopaedia," could not possibly 
 appear without wounding the susceptibilities of his communion. 
 The defect of savoir /aire thus displayed is so extraordinary 
 that if Professor Smith were to have recommitted to him by 
 the General Assembly its interest in Biblical Criticism, the 
 Free Church could never be free from anxiety as to his 
 methods of defence in the future. In perfect good faith, he 
 might at any moment speak in ways which, however well 
 fitted to serve literary purposes, would needlessly disturb tiic 
 peace of the denomination to which he belongs. 
 
 (2.) But, further, it is inconceivable that the course of a 
 critic should be followed without some misgiving who has 
 already taken up an advanced position on almost all the 
 debatable questions. I read some time ago a ])ninphlet tlu; 
 
37 
 
 argument of which was substantially this — Here is a doctrine 
 which is not regarded as a strictly orthodox one, but such a 
 person taught it, and yet he was tolerated. It was the same 
 with such another individual ! He taught so and so, and yet 
 his offence was condoned. Why, then, when open questions 
 are so willingly allowed, make any difficulty about Professor 
 Smith? The answer is easy. John Wesley was a Per- 
 fectionist, Mr. Spurgeon is a Baptist, ]\Ir. Eyle is an 
 Erastian. Nevertheless, we all regard these men as per- 
 fectly sober-minded, trustworthy Christians. Why ? Because 
 they have kept in the main to the old paths, and their 
 divergences are looked at as possible eccentricities. But 
 show us a man who is at once a Perfectionist, a Baptist, 
 and an Erastian, and it will not be easy not to stand some- 
 what in doubt of him as one whose mind is, perhaps, too 
 open to conviction to be altogether reliable. And it is just 
 so in the present case. I do not say that Professor Smitli 
 cannot be right in all his views, but 1 do say that no man 
 ought to feel any surprise if a conservative body like the Free 
 Church should hesitate about a fresh commendation to the 
 world as its representative critic of one Mdio has not merely 
 moved forward at one point, but has, as has been said, 
 advanced with a startling boldness along the whole line. 
 
 If we are to nourish a school of criticism, pledging our 
 credit for it, giving to it our material support, we are entitled 
 to expect that it shall exhibit in its own place and way some- 
 thing of our esprit de corps. In other words, it must be 
 reverent in the manner of its criticism and cautious and 
 conservative in its method of advance. And with all my 
 admiration for Professor Smith I fear that he does not possess 
 those qualities which are necessary to secure for him the full 
 confidence of such a Church as ours in a time like the 
 present. 
 
 2. There is another thing to be considered. If the case 
 ends in the re-imposition of Mr. Smith in his Chair, that act 
 will be regarded by the world as more than a vote of con- 
 fidence in himself personally. It loill he interpreted as a 
 triumph jor the vieics he has jjfomulgated. I am aware that 
 many of those who support him say that they are not to be 
 held as agreeing with his views. Some of them, indeed, go a 
 great way further, and affirm emphatically that they differ 
 
38 
 
 from him, and are always likely to differ from him. Others 
 are more modest. They are like the old woman who took 
 a friend to hear her minister preach one Sunday. The minis- 
 ter was one of those able men who are so profound that they 
 are understood only by a favoured few. When the two 
 worshippers left the church together, the following conversa- 
 tion occurred : — 
 
 " Well, how did ye like him? " 
 
 "Likehira?" said the stranger. " Oh, I thocht I liket 
 him gey weel. But / didna understand Jiim. Bid you ? " 
 
 " Me ! " exclaimed the regular hearer. Wad I ha^e the 
 presumption ? " 
 
 It is this humble and self-denied position which certain 
 even of our leading men have taken up. They say, we don't 
 know what may be the truth ; but Professor Smith knows, 
 or will come to know ! And the wisest plan for the Church 
 to adopt is to give him liberty enough, and he will bring us 
 all out into the light by-and-by ! ! 
 
 Now, I say nothing of the absurdity of this position in 
 itself, or of the use which the Papists might fairly make of it. 
 But I may point out that this blind confidence in criticism is 
 only possible to those few who are intimate friends of the 
 critic, and who have, as they think, cause to have an utter 
 confidence in him. It is out of the question to suppose that 
 a whole Church should ever agree to abnegate its functions, 
 and leave the determination of its articles of belief to one so 
 far unknown man. 
 
 However, what I was saying was this, that, whether we 
 mean It or not, the world will understand that In recognising 
 Professor Smith we are more or less expressly putting our 
 imprimatur on his opinions. Tou think it will be enough to 
 guard against such an inference to say that you personally 
 dissent from these opinions, or that your mind is in a state of 
 suspense about them. But the great unreflecting public Is 
 not given to make nice distinctions. What it will see will be 
 this, the Free Church taking a scholar who teaches in effect 
 til at the Bible is about the most sophisticated book in 
 existence, and replacing him in a position where he will be 
 authoritatively emp)oioercd to indoctrinate the youth of the 
 communion with the views he has adopted, and it will judge 
 and act accordingly. 
 
39 
 
 Now I do not know that any number of persons in the 
 Free Church have as yet come to be so assured of the truth 
 of Professor Smith's positions as to wish to secure for them 
 such conspicuous sanction. I hope we shall all be willing to 
 believe anything whatever upon sufficient evidence. But I 
 may remind you that we are as yet a long way off from the 
 point of being compelled to recognise Mr. Smith as what 
 some of his friends have flatteringlv called him, a " Second 
 Galileo:' 
 
 In the first place, his positions are not of a kind to admit of 
 demonstration. Anybody who denies the diurnal revolution 
 of the earth can be proved to be a fool or an ignoramus. But 
 the critics can never, in the nature of things, make their 
 points so clear as to be entitled to dogmatise. To the end of 
 time it will continue to be a question of probabilities, and 
 some of the most important points will be determined one 
 way or another according to the degree of the veneration 
 which men have for the book which we call the Bible. If 
 that volume suiks to the level which it has reached under 
 Unitarianism nothing will be easier than to convince those 
 who read it that it is full of cunning Oriental devices. But 
 if it holds the place it has hitherto done in Scotland, the 
 critics will find that a very elaborate array of arguments will 
 be required to convince the Christian people that its con- 
 struction is the reverse of simple, and that Sir Walter Scott 
 was largely anticipated there in those innocent impositions 
 which he practised in his " Chronicles of the Canongate." 
 
 But, secondly, this has to be borne in mind also, that on 
 the great questions in connection with which Professor Smith 
 has taken up advanced positions, there has not even been 
 secured a consensus of the critics. I do not say that I would 
 have been satisfied to take the law at their lips, even had they 
 been unanimous. Wq are often told that the highest science 
 has pronounced in favour of Evolution, and yet we, ignorant 
 ]Deople though we are, contrive to maintain our faith in 
 Creation notwithstanding. And our faith has roots whic^h 
 would not be touched although all the critics in the world 
 were agreed that' Moses never heard of Deuteronomy and 
 John never wrote the Gospel that bears his name. But it is 
 assuring to know that there are just as competent men as 
 Professor Smith who have gone over all the ground which 
 
40 
 
 lie has traversed, and who have come back to the old paths 
 with their old beliefs unshaken.* This fact clearly shows 
 that it is not mere ignorance which keeps us as we are. And 
 in these circumstances we object most seriously to our Church 
 being even apparently committed to the approval of views 
 from the general adoption of which much evil might con- 
 ceivably come, and regarding which there is nothing even 
 like critical certainty. 
 
 3. One other consideration must be soberly weighed, and 
 it is this, that if the Free Church acquires among its 
 neighbours the reputation of being as " liberal " as Professor 
 Smith, it will no doubt come to be regarded with a new 
 interest by some who have hitherto looked askance at it, bat 
 it will certainly cease at the same time to fill the |;/ace oj 
 peculiar iufiiienco which it has heretofore held in the country/ 
 and in the woidd. 
 
 I do not know what some think will be the effects pro- 
 duced in that good time to which they are looking forward 
 on the simple-minded Christian people of Scotland when our 
 ministers shall feel compelled to tell their congregations that 
 the Bible is a very much more artificial book than their 
 fathers ever dreamt it to be ; that in particular it contains 
 nobody knows how many romances which were deliberately 
 palmed off as histories ; and that a very great deal of what 
 has been piously supposed to refer to Christ has no more 
 connection with Him than the Thames has with Moscow. 
 Tliey may fajicy that our national religion will easily stand 
 the shock ; but for myself I doubt it much. If what they 
 say is true ; if Deuteronomy was really written seven 
 centuries after the date at which it pretends to be written ; if 
 Ecclesiastes is a fiction cunningly composed by some 
 Chatterton of the post exile period to impose upon his con- 
 temporaries for their good; if Jonah is a legend, and 
 Canticles nothing more than a love poem, and the latter 
 half of Isaiah was the work of an anonymous author far 
 greater than the great Prophet himself, we must trust a good 
 
 * Principal Douglas, our Glasgow Professor of Hebrew, h.as, for 
 example, published a pamphlet in which he gives his reasons for 
 believing that our Aberdeen Professor of Hebrew is all wrong about 
 Moses. 
 
41 
 
 God to preserve an unsophisticated community in the 
 simplicity of its fiiith. But since criticism cannot prove its 
 position, since the critics are still at war among themselves, I 
 wish that it had been some other Church than our own that 
 set the unsettling theories afloat ; and 1 hope that our 
 Church will show a wiser ambition than to keep the flag 
 flying which sjmbolises the doubtful liberality which it is 
 now the fashion to boast of. 
 
 When I was editing Tlie Presbyterian in the heat of the 
 Union conflict, I used frequently to boast that our Church 
 had, in the position which it then took up, the cordial sym- 
 pathy of all the outlying members of the Presbyterian family. 
 The English, Irish, and American Churches were all bidding 
 us God-speed. I hope, however, that those who think they 
 are doing the Free Church good service by encouraging the 
 advanced school of criticism will take note of the ominous 
 circumstance that they are thus contributing to sejyarate it in 
 spirit from all its sisters. It is significant that it is through 
 an English Presbyterian newspaper that those who agree 
 with Sir Henry Moncreiff" are seeking to reach their brethren 
 in Scotland. I have the best reasons for believing that Pro- 
 fessor Smith has scarcely any followers or sympathisers in 
 Ireland. And if his views find any echo in America it is not 
 from icitlihi the bosom of cuvj of the Presbyterian Churches 
 there. 
 
 There are people, however, who have hailed with acclama- 
 tion the signs of a growing " breadth " in the Free Church. 
 Some of the representatives of the Broad School in the 
 Scottish Establishment were early in the field with their con- 
 gratulations. So, too, with such newspapers as the Scotsman, 
 the Spectator, and the Christian World. Nothing could 
 possibly exceed the cordiality with which they have welcomed 
 Professor Smith as a co-worker with them in the great cause 
 of the Church's " enlightenment." But even still more 
 significant is the language used in two other quarters, to 
 which, as they are less generally accessible, I may make more 
 particular reference. 
 
 I have before me at this moment two ]-ecent publications 
 one the Christian Union, of New York, the other the Theo- 
 logical Review for July. The former is edited by Mr. Henry 
 Ward Beecher, who, as all the world knows, holds very revo- 
 
42 
 
 lutlonary views of the Bible. The latter is the orgcan of the 
 English Unitarians. 
 
 In the Christian Union the proceedings of our Assembly 
 are commented upon as follows : — 
 
 " In a published article in the ' Enclyclopedia Britannica,' Professor 
 Smith takes the ground that Deuteronomy was written during the 
 captivity by an anonymous but inspired writer, who took the name of 
 Moses to give his work greater dramatic effect. The weakness of this 
 attempt to reconcile the old theories of plenary inspiration with the 
 latest results of critical scholarship was evidently felt by Professor 
 Smith's defenders, who based their defence not on the soundness of his 
 position, but on the more general ground that the Confession of Faith 
 allows a larger latitude of criticism and interpretation, so long as any 
 theory of Divine inspiration is maintained. The view of Professor 
 Robertson Smith was declared to be unsatisfactory by the small majority 
 of 23 ; and it was unmistakable that the young men of the Church were 
 all, or nearly all, with Professor Smith. Indeed he received at the close 
 of the debate something very like an ovation from the galleries, which 
 were largely occupied by theological students. 
 
 " Whether this action will lead to Professor Smith's withdrawal from 
 the Church remains to be seen. We judge not; certainly it does not 
 compel him to withdraw. Meanwhile it is worth while to note the views 
 on the subject of inspiration maintained by the younger, more liberal, 
 and growing feeling of the Scottish Free Church. These are indicated 
 by the majority of 143 which negatived a resolution of censure against 
 Professor Smith, which was couched in the following terms: — 
 
 " ' That the Assembly sustain the dissent and complaint, and reverse 
 the judgment of the Presbytery, to the extent of finding that the state- 
 ment of Professor Smith, that an inspired writer allowed himself the 
 same freedom as was taken by ancient historians, is, in the sense in 
 which it appears to the General Assembly to be used by him, so incor- 
 rect and extreme as to be incompatible with the inspiration and infallible 
 truth of the sacred Scriptures.' 
 
 " It would perhaps be hardly fair to conclude that the majority of 
 the General Assemblj' held that the uninspired writers generally allowed 
 themselves the same freedom as was taken by uninspired historians, 
 though this is the plain implication of their action. But the protest 
 presented by Principal Rainy, and signed by a large number of the 
 minority, we may fairly cite as an indication of the tendency of religious 
 thought in Scotland." 
 
 *' Apparently," concludes the article, " in the on-coming discussion 
 respecting the Inspiration of the Scriptures, which is inevitable, and 
 ivhich ire are prepared to tcelcome, the Free Church of Scotland will be an 
 honoured leader.^' 
 
 " Laudari viro laudato " is a thing to boast of, but I 
 confess I read with something of a pang the ominous compli- 
 ments thus paid to our Church by Mr. Beecher. 
 
43 
 
 But the Unitarians ot England look with no less pleasure 
 upon our position and prospects. Their organ, the Theological 
 Review, understands Professor Smith's teaching on Inspiration 
 just as the Christian Union understood it. 
 
 *' Infallible truth and Divine authority [so the Heview interprets his 
 meaning] which are proved by the witness of the Spirit, belong to the 
 Bible only in so far as it is a record of spiritual truth, of God's revela- 
 tion of Himself and His will. The word of God is contained in the 
 Scriptures. The two things are not co-extensive, and the Bible is not 
 infallible or authoritative on matters which are not of faith. Its 
 historical accuracy and all the literary and critical questions about its 
 form, are to be decided by the ordinary method of evidence. In 
 acquitting Professor Smith on this charge by a majority of 263 to 140 
 the Assembly has perhaps not fully adopted the sweeping theory which 
 he advanced in his defence. But it was referred to in the discxission 
 and must have influenced the voting. . . . Here we must leave this 
 interesting case. Its lengthened debates and even the formal docu- 
 ments have been read by hundreds and thousands. All over Scotland 
 it is felt that a new impulse has been given to liberal ideas. The 
 opportunity is a great one for the Free Church, for when this con- 
 troversy is settled in favour of liberty, she will appeal strongly to the 
 really cultivated classes, and the character of her clergy will be 
 permanently raised. Professor Smith is entitled to tlie thanks of his 
 countnj." 
 
 A member of Farliament said lately that nothing startled 
 him so thoroughly, or made him more doubtful about the 
 rightness of a certain course he was pursuing, than the fact 
 that his speech was listened to in absolute silence by his 
 friends, and was received with noisy demonstrations of satis- 
 faction by his political opponents. I hope the Free Church 
 will mark and reflect upon the ominous circumstances I 
 have now given illustrations of — that its own kith and kin 
 in England, Ireland, and America are looking on with mis- 
 (Tivino- and anxiety, while the movement led by Professor 
 Smith is being hailed with joy by Unitarians and Latitudi- 
 narians. 
 
 Even were the drift of things less plainly testified to, it 
 would argue great inconsideration on our part if we were to 
 assent to a complete change of front in our Church without 
 much more seriously calculating the consequences. Every 
 Church has its idiosyncracy, its distinctive characteristics, and 
 a good deal of its strength and effectiveness lies in its being 
 true to itself. You would not make Mr. Spurgeon more 
 
 D 
 
u 
 
 useful by getting liiin to become a University man, and so 
 qualifying him to address (say) the Benchers of Lincoln's 
 Inn. The Wesleyans would not serve their ends as a 
 Christian denomination any better by becoming as staid and 
 respectable and dignified as the Church of England. And 
 I feel inwardly persuaded that it will soon appear that the 
 mission ol the Free Church of Scotland has ended if it 
 developes into a body whose distinctive features shall be 
 " Culture " and " Liberality." Our typical Free Churchman 
 is Chalmers — a man with his mind open to receive new light 
 from any quarter, and deeply interested in scientific inquiry 
 and Biblical research, but, above all, practical, philanthropic, 
 full of sound sense and wisdom, and impatient of everything 
 which threatened profitless discussion to the possible injury of 
 the great cause of the conversion of the world. It is not to 
 speak disparagingly of " culture " to say that we would make 
 a very doubtful gain if we ceased in our humble way to follow 
 the lead of Chalmers, and became chiefly distinguished in the 
 world by that kind of intelHgence which, for want of a better 
 word, may be called " Encyclopasdism." We might, indeed, 
 thus raise, as the Theological Beview points out, the character 
 of our ministry, and attract " the really cultivated classes^ 
 But the chances are that we would at the same time become 
 emasculated as a working Church, and become about as 
 practically useless among the masses at home and abroad as 
 the Unitarians themselves. 
 
 When I think of the almost certain effects of the new 
 movement if it succeeds, I confess I am greatly surprised at 
 the attitude assumed towards it by individuals who ha^e 
 hitherto been prominent in their support of revivals, and I 
 would have been even more astonished if I had not knowii 
 that something of the contrariety we now witness has been 
 long known in Germany. Tholuck, for example, was at once 
 a Pietist and a Rationalist. But I heartily hope that same 
 of those to whom I now refer will have their eyes opened. 
 The practical question at issue at present is really this : Are 
 we prepared to have the Bible occupying in Scotland a position 
 essentially different from that which it has held there since 
 the Reformation ? Hitherto the free critical apparatus has 
 been applied only to the Old Testament, but the New Testa- 
 ment must be taken up next. And it is well to be warned 
 
45 
 
 beforehand that in the opinion of competent scholars the very 
 same arguments which have been apphed to Deuteronomy 
 may soon destroy for us the historical character of St. John's 
 Gospel. 
 
 But we are told we must take heed what we do. There 
 are some who will leave the Church if Professor Smith is not 
 upheld. But, alas ! I can reply that I have heard threats of 
 a similar kind made on the other side by men who have done 
 immensely more for the establishment of the Kingdom of 
 God in the world. And that is what aggravates me. I am 
 not anxious that Professor Smith should be proved a heretic. 
 I shall be very sorry indeed if he is compelled to leave the 
 Church. But I would ask what great service has he 
 rendered to us that we should allow him to divide us again 
 into two hostile *camps? I know he has suggested many 
 doubts which did not exist before. I am unaware of his 
 having conclusively settled any which were previously 
 prevalent. And it is rather a barren compensation to offer 
 at the sword's point to a distracted Church the counter boon 
 merely of a great literary reputation. 
 
 It is said, however, that the galleries were in his favour, 
 and that he is the hero of our young men. But I venture to 
 think it possible that the value of that testimony may be over- 
 estimated. It is certain, for one thing, that a fair proportion 
 of those who so vehemently applauded had no real conception 
 of what is at stake. Besides, it is the natural thing for young 
 men to take the advanced side on every question. Who 
 among them does not want to be thought " cultured ? " 
 When the time comes for the agitation in favour of organs 
 and a liturgy, you will hear the galleries equally enthusiastic 
 on the side of '' progress." 
 
 The occasion is one which requires our gravest and most 
 moderate and most thoughtful men to speak out. I feel that 
 it is something like presumption in me to write such a paper 
 as this. I unaffectedly wish that some older man — some 
 Disruption minister — had undertaken to express the feelings 
 which I know are in many hearts. But events are hastening 
 on, and as no one else seemed inclined to say in what light 
 he viewed the crisis, I have felt constrained to break the 
 silence. It has happened to me to have been led in more 
 ways than one to study what I may call the philosophy of the 
 
 D 2 
 
46 
 
 history of the Free Churcli. Durin£^ the Union controversy 
 I wrote perhaps more than any other man in the defence and 
 exposition of the movement which was then in progress, and 
 1 was most thoronghly persuaded that it was in entirest har- 
 mony with the principles of tlie true and historical Church of 
 Scotland. When the Patronage Act again was passed, I 
 ])ublished a little book, " Our Church Heritage," in which 
 the historical relation of the Free Church to the Establish- 
 ment was attempted to be shown. And more recently I have 
 been led over the same ground once more in connection with 
 the life of Dr. Robert Buchanan, I make these personal 
 references by Avay of apology for myself. Years of thought 
 and study have profoundly convinced me that the Free 
 Church has a " heritage " which it cannot lose with impunity. 
 What is now threatened is the loss of a portion of that 
 heritage. One great source of its influence in the world is 
 the maintenance of its reputation for orthodoxy. If that goes, 
 as the enemies who are watching outside plainly expect it to 
 go, the blank will not be made up by the compensating 
 distinction of its becoming " the honoured leader " of an ad- 
 vanced school of criticism. The train will then be shunted 
 on to an entirely different line, and the destination of our 
 Church will be — first dissolution, and next the absorption of 
 probably its largest section into a Moderate and comprehen- 
 sionist Establishment. 
 
 roSTSCUIPT. 
 
 Since writing the above, I have read Professor Lindsay's article in 
 the Omtcmjwranj Revicio. If I had any misgivings before as to the 
 wisdom of sending these " communications " to the press, they have been 
 entirely removed by the perusal of that paper. It is exceedingly to be 
 regretted that the Professors are taking so much to do with the Aberdeen 
 case. By creating the impression that they are banding together to 
 make a common cause of it, they are running the risk of shaking the 
 confidence of the Church in its colleges altogether. If, however, our 
 Professors do feel constrained in conscience to interfere, they ought to 
 consider much more seriously than I fear Dr. Lindsay has done what is 
 the best method of doing so. 
 
 1, For example, the main issue, in his judgment, is a very simple 
 one. It is " whether it is possible to be equally loyal to criticism and 
 dogma?" Is that a true statement of the case ? Have we to do only 
 with the settlement of an abstract proposition ? If anyone were to ask 
 me whether it is possible to be equally loyal " to criticism and to 
 dogma," I would feel utterly una,ble to answer. I don't know, anymore 
 
47 
 
 than I know whether it is possible to be " equally loyal" to science and 
 to revelation. What we have really to do with is Professor Smith" s 
 Criticism and the Dogma of the Free Church, and while I feel quite 
 assured that true criticism and true doctrine will always agree just as I 
 am certain that true science and revelation will agree, I have no certain 
 guarantee that either Professor Smith or Professor Lindsay will infallibly 
 reach absolutely sound positions both as to doctrine and criticism, if only 
 they are allowed rope enough. 
 
 2. Dr. Lindsay, again, coolly assumes that those who failed to 
 appreciate Mr. Smith's articles, " Bible," were such as had " settled on 
 their lees in Sion"! Xay, he is even more explicit ere he closes. The 
 opponents of the new movement are '' Pharisees " — Pharisees, too, of 
 the worst class, for in this matter they have the Sadducees as their 
 associates. Such language is not likely to promote the peace of the 
 Free Church. 
 
 3. A thoroughly unsuccessful attempt is made to show that there is 
 no doctrinal difierfence between the Church and Mv. Smith on the 
 subject of Inspiration. The Christian World, one of Professor Smith's 
 most earnest supporters in the public press, is not deceived by the dust 
 he raises. "It is not without disappointment," it says, "that we observe 
 Professor Lindsay's anxiety to make out that Professor Smith and the 
 party supporting him in the Free Church have not deviated from the 
 old arbitrary theory of Inspiration. The question in dispute has not been 
 one ahout tvords, hut about something far deeper thati words." 
 
 4. Dr. Lindsay tries to turn into ridicule the remark made by some- 
 one that a Free Church Critical School ought to be "reverent and 
 conservative.'' To him this demand means nothing but that the School 
 mnst hold opinions like those of the utterer of the remark ! It is rather 
 sad to think that terms like these have no meaning for those who have 
 so much in their power to secure that the Holy Scriptures shall be 
 venerated or the reverse. 
 
 Altogether, those who read the Contemporary should be informed that 
 Professor Lindsay has written a merely partisan article, and that those 
 who do not happen to agree with his conclusions neither admire its spirit 
 nor accept it as a fair statement of the "Critical Movement in the Scotch 
 Free Church." 
 
48 
 
 VIII. 
 By Rev. Walter Wood, Elie. 
 
 I have been greatly interested in reading Mr. Walker's 
 communications in the two last numbers of the Weeldy 
 lievieiv, and I am tempted to ask for the insertion of a few 
 remarks from a different point of view, for I supported both 
 the motions that were carried in the Assembly. It may seem 
 indeed a somewhat strange thing that so many men are hurry- 
 ing forward to explain or defend the motions for which they 
 voted, but the truth is we arc placed in a very peculiar posi- 
 tion. Honestly believing that a right decision on the matters 
 before the Assembly was of the greatest importance for the 
 character of the Free Church, we have been doing our best 
 to procure such a decision ; and now we find the judgment of 
 the Assembly assailed as incompetent and as unfair to the 
 party at the bar. It is easy to conceive how Sir Henry Mon- 
 creiff especially, whose name has been associated among us 
 with everything that is fair, and honourable, and judicially 
 impartial, should have resented the imputation that he had 
 framed his motion to catch votes, and that in so framing it he 
 had condemned the accused party on a point on which he had 
 not had an opportunity of being heard in his own defence. 
 Of course the charge made against Sir Henry Avas unwar- 
 ranted, as he has himself proved. But those who voted along 
 with him are bound to assist in repelling it. 
 
 For myself, I have belonged to no committee that had 
 anything to do with Professor Smith's case, and I came up to 
 the Glasgow Assembly having had no consultations with any- 
 one, and entirely ignorant of what course the matter was 
 likely to take. I had, however, taken great interest in the 
 case from the beginning, for such inquiries as those to which 
 Professor Smith has civen his attention have for me a 
 
4V) 
 
 peculiar charm ; and for forty years back and more I have lost 
 no opportunity of studying all works on this subject which 
 have come in my way. Sometimes I have smiled at the 
 extravagant claims which the votaries of the higher criticism 
 assert for their " new science of history, with its new methods 
 and unexpected results," but on the whole I have always 
 been inclined to give to all such inquirers the widest possible 
 range consistent with a due regard to " fundamentals." 
 
 Like many others, I would have preferred that this case 
 should have been settled without a libel ; but regrets on this 
 subject are vain. Professor Smith demanded a libel, and he 
 was entitled to do so. After seeing the libel as first drawn, 
 I came to be of opinion that it was far too complex, and con- 
 tained too many particulars, to permit of the great questions 
 at issue being satisfactorily settled by means of it. I did not 
 blame the Presbytery for so drawing the libel, for I did not 
 see how, in the circumstances, they could have acted other- 
 wise ; but I went up to the General Assembly at Glasgow 
 very much persuaded that under the first charge of the libel 
 — that of *' publishing and promulgating opinions which con- 
 tradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspi- 
 ration, infallible truth, and Divine authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures" — it would have been better if instead of eight 
 there had been only one particular included ; and that one 
 the second, embodying the charge concerning the Book of 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 Just as I entered the Assembly Hall for the first time the 
 Smith case was called. The question which first came up 
 was the relevancy of the first particular, charging Professor 
 Smith with promulgating the opinion that the Aaronic priest- 
 hood was not divinely instituted in the time of Moses ; and it 
 was quite in accordance with the opinions which I had formed 
 that that charge should be dropped from the libel. Then 
 we had the pleadings from the bar on the second charge — the 
 one regarding Deuteronomy — and notices of motion for next 
 day were given by Sir Henry jMoncreiff and by Principal 
 Kainy, the former of whom I was at that time inclined to 
 support. 
 
 Now I wish to give a short summary of the speech 
 delivered by Sir Henry Moncreiff in support of the motion 
 which he had given notice of, because I think it has been too 
 
50 
 
 little attended to, and because the motion cannot be fully 
 understood without it. He began by defending the language 
 of the libel as giving a fair expression of Professor Smith's 
 opinions. Then he went on to say that the question wliether 
 Deuteronomy was professedly historical lay at the very foun- 
 dation of the case ; for, till that was settled, he could not 
 bring the Standards of the Church to bear on Professor 
 Smith's opinions. And how did he propose to settle that 
 question ? Not by an appeal to the Confession of Faith, 
 as Professor Lindsay intimates in his article in the number of 
 the Contemporary Review for August, 1878. The Confession 
 contains no statement on the subject, as Sir H. Moncreiff 
 expressly acknowledged. But he proved, or attempted to 
 prove, that Deuteronomy is professedly historical, by an 
 appeal to the only conceivable ground of proof of such a 
 proposition — an examination of the Book itself, and of the 
 sanction given to it by our Lord, His apostles and evan- 
 gelists. 
 
 But, said Sir Henry, the conviction that Deuteronomy is 
 historical is not sufficient to enable us to come directly to the 
 conclusion that Professor Smith's view is opposed to the 
 Standards. We must therefore look more closely at the 
 Confession of Faith, and at the first chapter of it, entitled 
 '• Of the Holy Scripture." The first section declares that 
 it had pleased God to commit His revealed will " wholly 
 unto writing ; " whence we may safely conclude that the 
 revelation comes to us in a safe state for our guidance. The 
 second section enumerates the Books of Scripture, just as 
 they were received by the Jews ; and, besides, it identifies 
 Uohj Scripture iviili the Word of God ivritten, and declares of 
 these Books that they are all given by inspiration of God, to 
 he the rule of faith and life. Passing now to the fifth section 
 of the chapter, we find it asserted concerning Scripture that 
 our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and 
 Divine authority thereof, is from the inward loork of the Holy 
 Spirit, hearing loitness hy and luith the icord in our hearts. It 
 was at this point that Sir H. Moncreiff made allusion to Pro- 
 fessor Smith's defences, and it was with respect to the mean- 
 ing to be put on this section of the Confession. The defences 
 appeared to allege that because it is by the inward work of 
 the Holy Spirit that we get full assurance of the Infallibility 
 
of Scripture, therefore infallibility, as used in the Confession, 
 could only apply to what cannot be made known to us except 
 by the power of the Spirit. This Sir Henry denied to be the 
 doctrine of the Confession. He referred to the previous part 
 of the fifth section, as declaring that the entire perfection or 
 infallibility of Scripture could be made out by clear evidence, 
 even apart from the work of the Spirit, although the Spirit 
 alone can make men to be individually assured of that infalli- 
 bility. It will be seen, of course, that the argument rested 
 not on any assumed sense put on Professor Smith's words, 
 but on Sir Henry's own interpretation of the Confession of 
 Faith. 
 
 Applying the principles laid down to the statement in 
 question about the Book of Deuteronomy, the argument 
 concluded thus : — Deuteronomy is presented to us by God as 
 a historical book. If so, then according to the Confession it 
 is a part of that which is the rule of f;ur faith and life, and 
 moreover it is, as part of the Word of God, infallibly true. 
 And consequently the statement regarding it made by 
 Professor Smith contradicts or is opposed to the Standards. 
 Sir H. Moncreiff concluded by saying that the Assembly was 
 not now entitled to try Professor Smith on the question of 
 inspiration, for it would be quite wrong to libel a man for one 
 thing, and find him guilty of another. 
 
 I have given this brief sketch from my own memory, 
 assisted by the newspaper report, which I find to be very 
 imperfect, chiefly for the purpose of explaining the perplexity 
 which I felt on learning from Principal Rainy 's speech that he 
 regarded the motion as one which ought not to have been 
 proposed ; as proceeding upon an interpretation of Professor 
 Smith's words which he repudiated, and as condemning that 
 gentleman on a point on which he had never been heard in 
 his defence. I was so bewildered that I even hesitated 
 whether I should give my vote as I had intended ; nor did I 
 make up my mind until a conversation with an old and valued 
 friend, not a member of Assembly, had satisfied me that his 
 views of Sir H. MoncreifPs speech and mine perfectly agreed. 
 
 This is worth notice only as bearing on the question of 
 the majority ; for I emphatically endorse !Mr. Walker's state- 
 ment that, in the circumstances, to have carried his motion 
 at all was for Sir Henry a great moral victory. How 
 
52 
 
 many persons must have been bewildered ! How many, 
 like myself, unwilline; to desert Principal Rainy, under whose 
 banner we had rallied more often than under Sir Henry 
 Moncreiff's ! It is altogether a mistake to suppose that the 
 majority was due to a fortuitous coalition of parties. It was 
 rather the result of an instinctive rush to the breach to 
 defend the great Protestant doctrine of an infallible Word oj 
 God. And I venture to assert that as the matter in debate 
 comes to be better understood, the majority will increase 
 instead of diminishing. 
 
 But it may, perhaps, be said, " You complain of Sir H. 
 Moncreiff's speech having been ignored, and his motion 
 misunderstood ; is it likely that this should have really been 
 the case, especially consider/ng the character of the speakers 
 on the other side?" Now I at once reply that it is not 
 likely, and that if men had believed that it loas likely, the 
 ma.jority in favour of Sir H. Moncreiff's motion would have 
 been much larger than it was. But, likely or unlikely, it is 
 unquestionably true that the speech was ignored, and the 
 motion ivas misunderstood. And I venture to account for it 
 in this way. As the two motions were tabled the evening 
 before the debate took place, I imagine that the speech of 
 Principal Rainy was in a great measure constructed before 
 Sir H. Moncreiff's speech was delivered. Out of several facts 
 which suggest this solution, my space will only permit me to 
 notice one. In Sir H. Moncreiff's motion the following 
 words occur : — " The statements of Professor Smith . . . are 
 opposed ... to the supposition of the book being a 
 thoroughly inspired historical record, according to flie teaching 
 of the Westminster Confession^ On this, Principal Rainy 
 remarks, " Where did the Westminster Confession say so ? 
 They were asked to put into their judgment these words, 
 while the Confession did not teach a syllable on that question." 
 Now, as I have already shown. Sir Henry explicitly declared 
 in his speech that before he could come to the Confession of 
 Faith, at all, he must first settle the question whether the 
 Book of Deuteronomy is professedly historical. Therefore 
 the words of the motion must mean *' a historical record 
 thoroughly inspired, according to the teaching of the Con- 
 fession." One would have thought that this meaning was 
 sufficiently obvious from the fact that the Confession teaches 
 
53 
 
 nothing about the historical character of" the Book, while it 
 does teach something about its inspiration. At all events, 
 Sir Henry's speech should have made it clear. Yet Pro- 
 fessor Lindsay improves upon the misconception by telling 
 us that " the dissent practically declared that the motion 
 which was carried . . . had postulated, on the one 
 hand, that Deuteronomy was, according to the Confession, 
 professedly an historical Book." There is no such declara- 
 tion in the Reas( 
 have been true. 
 
 1 have sometimes been asked, "But, then, if all that 
 you say is true, how do you account for the fact that on the 
 evening of the day when this vote was taken there was such 
 a collapse of the majority, when the Assembly was called on 
 to express its opinion on the tJnrd particular ? " This is a 
 question which none are better entitled to answer than Dr. 
 Wilson and myself. For we were both of us in the ranks of 
 the defaulters ; we both supported Sir Henry's motion, and 
 we both declined to vote for the relevancy of the third par- 
 ticular. Dr. Wilson distinctly stated to the house the reason 
 which influenced him. He could not vote for the first motion 
 because it appeared to him to limit the freedom which 
 certainly all the authors of the sacred Scriptures had in the 
 exercise of their mind under the superintendence of the 
 Spirit. As for myself, I voted along with Dr. Wilson, mainly 
 on the ground that I wished to throw out all the other counts 
 of the libel under that head, and to take the issue on the 
 question regarding Deuteronomy alone. So far from our 
 votes betokening any change of opinion, Dr. Wilson and I 
 would have voted on Sir Henry Moncreiff's motion the same 
 way as we did at first, had it been a second time submitted 
 for the judgment of the Assembly. And we may fairly sup 
 pose that we were very far from standing alone in the view 
 we took of the question. 
 
 Professor Lindsay informs us that by the public press of 
 the country it was held that " the second vote had knocked 
 the bottom out of the first." I fear the wish must be father to 
 the thought, for nothing can be more certain than that it is 
 utterly erroneous. For the first of the two judgments found 
 that certain statements concerning the Book of Deuteronomy 
 were contrary to the Confession of Faith ; while the second 
 
54 
 
 found that certain statements regarding Chronicles and other 
 books were not relevant to support the charge laid in the 
 third particular of the libel. These two deliverances are 
 perfectly consistent. No doubt, if any of the supporters of 
 Sir Henry Moncreiff's motion came to believe that they had 
 condemned Professor Smith for a theory of inspiration which 
 he did not hold, they may have resolved that they would not 
 go a step farther in that direction. But such supporters 
 could not have been very intelligent, and must, I should 
 think, have been very few. It has already been shown that 
 the motion proceeded on no ground of that kind. And if, 
 when Professor Lindsay uses the following words : — " In the 
 evening, when his (Professor Smith's) views of inspiration 
 were under discussion, the motion which declared him free 
 from heresy," &c., he means to assert that Professor Smith's 
 views of inspiration were ever formally before the Assembly, 
 or that they were declared by the motion of that evening to 
 be free from heresy, then I meet the statement with the most 
 emphatic denial. Both Dr. Wilson and I voted for that 
 motion, and I am very sure that neither of us will admit that 
 we expressed any opinion then, or that we are prepared to 
 express any opinion now, on Professor Smith's view of Inspi- 
 ration. The truth is that his view appears to be one of those 
 things which no one can understand. To me it seemed that 
 his oral statements were not consistent with his printed 
 defences ; and if ever the Church Courts are called on to 
 give a judicial deliverance on that point, a previous inquiry 
 will be necessary, in order to furnish the materials for an 
 intelligent decision. 
 
55 
 
 IX. 
 
 THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION ABOUT 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 By Sir Henry Moncreiff. 
 
 THIS decision was proposed by me with extreme reluc- 
 tance. I took part in the case at all at sjreat sacrifice 
 of inclination. I w^as driven into my course by circumstances 
 over which I had no control, and by the force of a growing 
 conscientious conviction. I was anxious that the ability, 
 scholarship, and services of Professor Smith should not be 
 lost to the Free Church of Scotland. My appreciation of 
 these kept me for a long time imder the influence of a desire 
 that no strong measures should be taken against him, and 
 under the influence of a hope that, through friendly confer- 
 ence, the Church might havd satisfied herself as to the safety 
 of his continuance with us. But the question is not now one 
 with reference to the personal qualities or tendencies or future 
 position of an individual. Some of our excellent brethren in 
 the eldership have treated it too much as if it were so. Let 
 me entreat them and all the friends of the Church to remem- 
 ber that it is a much larger and more vitally-important 
 question. 
 
 It is not even a question respecting a statement, in such a 
 publication as an encyclopaedia, of doubtful or unsound 
 opinions held by others which have not been decidedly adhered 
 to by the Professor himself, nor is it simply a question as to 
 uufTuarded expressions from the meaning of which we may 
 expect him to withdraw. If I could have looked upon it in 
 either of these lights, I might have concurred in the objections 
 to my motion adduced by Dr. Anderson Kirkwood and Mr. 
 James Stevenson in last Assembly. It is still open to the 
 
Professor to allege either of these grounds when the Ubel has 
 been served upon him, however unhkely his doing so may 
 appear. But the conclusion mainly contended for by his 
 supporters was manifestly quite different. 
 
 The question really involved in their contention is whether 
 or not our Church shall for the future allow our ministers and 
 professors to maintain on critical grounds that such a book as 
 Deuteronomy is not infallibly true in its apparently historical 
 announcements, and that some of the language ascribed to 
 Moses in it never svas or could have been uttered by him, but 
 was the production of a writer who lived at least 700 years 
 later, and was instructed by the Spirit of God, in accordance 
 with recognised literary forms, to employ it as if it had come 
 from Moses. The decision of last Assembly, finding the 
 charge about Deuteronomy relevant, amounts to a refusal of 
 liberty to do this, because such liberty is inconsistent with the 
 Confession of Faith. The decision tends to separate Pro- 
 fessor Smith from his Professorship and from our ministry in 
 the event of his continuing to maintain the opinion referred 
 to. In the event of retractation, separation might not follow. 
 But the vital question was not the eflFect upon Mm. It was 
 whether or not liberty to maintain such an opinion shall for 
 the future be allowed to all our professors and ministers. I 
 trust, therefore, that what is personal in the bearing of this 
 question on the Professor will not blind any of our ministers 
 or elders to what concerns the binding authority of Scripture 
 and the position of the Free Church of Scotland. 
 
 For the longer that 1 consider the subject the more 
 thoroughly am I persuaded that the liberty demanded would, 
 if allowed, cut the Bible to pieces and destroy that reverence 
 for its authority which is fundamental to our faith. I have 
 also an increasing impression that it would break up the 
 integrity of our ecclesiastical fellowship, and reduce our well- 
 compacted Church into sectional fragments. Thus my 
 endeavours to vindicate the judgment of last Assembly have 
 not arisen from a mere wish to defend my own action, but 
 from what I think a well-grounded apprehension that anv 
 future departure from the principle of that judgment would 
 entail upon us an incalculable amount of confusion and 
 distress. The case of Professor Smith might thereby, in my 
 view, become known as carrying with it the first approaches 
 
57 
 
 of an iceberg, which will crush the Free Church vessel by 
 its chilling weight, and upset her organisation in a miserable 
 overtiu'ow. 
 
 Let nie not be mistaken. It is not the denial that the 
 Book of Deuteronomy was in its present shape and in all 
 its parts written by Moses personally that I condemn as con- 
 trary to the Confession and fraught with so much evil. Nor 
 do I thus condemn a rejection of the particular arguments 
 which appear to me in their accumulated force to prove the 
 thoroughly historical character of Deuteronomy. There is a 
 variety of lines of proof to the same effect. The judgment of 
 last Assembly does not insist upon any one of these lines 
 of proof. It only insists on the admission that Deuteronomy 
 is strictly historical, and that all its historical statements arc 
 infallibly true. The liberty asked for is liberty to deny the 
 infallible truth of some of these statements in their strictly 
 historical character. This, and this alone, is the liberty which, 
 in the case of Deuteronomy, I considered to be condemned by 
 the Confession, and which I think would lead to the fearful 
 consequences that I tremble to think of. It has been suggested 
 that the more intelligent laymen in our Assembly saw the 
 historical character of Deuteronomy to be not a matter of 
 faith, but simply a matter for human investigation. I rather 
 think that there were very intelligent laymen, as there were 
 very intelligent ministers, who viewed the subject in an 
 entirely different light, and regarded the Confession as assert- 
 ing the infallible truth of each Book of Scripture in the 
 character which it professedly assumes. 
 
 Undoubtedly human sagacity, guided by the Spirit of God, 
 must judge in each case what that character is. But it has 
 hitherto escaped the penetration of some of our otherwise very 
 intelligent friends that the truth of an inspired Book's pro- 
 fessed character is a prominent and essential part of its 
 essential and infallible truthfulness. I must judge of the 
 scope and bearing Avhicli any Scriptural announcement carries 
 with it. But if I judge erroneously on a point of serious con- 
 sequence, so as to deny the truth of what the Church I belong 
 to regards as clearly proclaimed by the infallible voice of 
 God, ray own speciality of judgment cannot set me free to 
 maintain and teach, as a minister or a professor of that Church, 
 anything which contradicts in her judgment the infallible 
 
58 
 
 tratli of Scripture. There are few cases, andeed, in which this 
 principle would require to be applied, except those of historical 
 representation. For points of vital doctrine are otherwise 
 guarded by particular statements in the Confession. But its 
 application, where historical accuracy is concerned, is indis- 
 pensable to the maintenance of the Confessional declaration on 
 the subject of inspiration. The doctrines of Christianity are 
 based upon the facts which inspired history records. Take 
 away the infallible truth of these facts and you take away 
 the foundations of faith. Our only protection against the 
 denial of them is in holding that the Confession asserts 
 their infallible truth in what appears to the Church their 
 manifest character. Our Confession is not occupied with 
 minute assertion of particular facts in Scripture history. But 
 it throughout assumes the infallible truth of these in con- 
 formity to its declarations on inspiration in its first chapter. 
 
 The fundamental fact, however, represented in any in- 
 spired Book is its own character as a communication from 
 God. To some people it is self-evident, and to other people it 
 is proved by various lines of evidence, that the Book of 
 Deuteronomy is professedly historical, and that, consequently, 
 God presents it to us as an infallibly true history. If this 
 conclusion be well founded, to deny its historical accuracy is 
 to contradict the Confession of Faith. The only reply seems 
 to be that our Confession nowhere declares that Deuteronomy 
 Is professedly historical. But the Confession nowhere declares 
 that the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 
 Joshua, Judges, or Euth, are strictly historical. It does not 
 do so with respect to the Books of Samuel, Kings, Ezra, or 
 Nchemlah. No one of the four Gospels is thus characterised 
 by it. The Book of Acts stands in the same position. Are 
 we, then, to hold that it is consistent with the doctrine of the 
 Confession to represent the narratives given in anyone of 
 these Books as not infallibly true ? Are we to allow a pro- 
 fessor or a minister to teach that any part of the accounts 
 relating to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph, is erroneous 
 Can we permit it to be maintained that the Gospel of Luke, 
 or part of it, or that the Gospel of John, or part of it, or that 
 the Book of Acts, or part of it, has been ascertained to 
 originate in a different age from that in which it claims to 
 have appeared ? If liberty be asked^ for the maintenance of 
 
59 
 
 sucli views in connection with critical discoveries, how shall 
 we refuse the request, except on the ground that because the 
 narratives referred to are professedly historical, the infallible 
 truth ascribed by our Confession to all the Books of Scripture 
 would otherwise be contradicted ? 
 
 Again, if anyone shall deny that the Epistle to the Romans 
 is a book of doctrinal instruction by the Apostle Paul, or shall 
 assert that some of the instruction apparently given by him 
 was really inserted and represented as his by a later writer, 
 or if anyone shall contend that a prophetical intimation in an 
 Old Testament Book was not written until after the event, 
 how shall we prevent such interference by a minister or pro- 
 fessor with the integrity of the Divine Word, except by appeal- 
 ing to the professed character of the Book, or of the instruction, 
 or of the intimation, and insisting on its infallible truth on the 
 footing of the Confessional doctrine in its application to all 
 the Books ? No supporter of Professor Smith has yet shown 
 how, if his view of Deuteronomy be permitted, the thorough 
 infallibility of other parts of Scripture can be protected from 
 assaults arising out of alleged discoveries made by modern 
 criticism. It is good for our Church to encourage critical 
 researches. But when their conclusions involve an inroad 
 upon that doctrine of infallible truth which has come home to 
 our conviction upon evidence that is independent of them all, 
 we dare not allow room for such conclusions, and even when 
 they create difficulties which we cannot solve, it is our needful 
 wisdom simply to confess our inability, while we adhere stead- 
 fastly to what we have been taught by the voice of God in 
 His Word, and feel assured that He will make all things clear 
 in the end. 
 
 The question of libert}' as to Deuteronomy I regard as a 
 test question, the determination of which will have a wide 
 application to many Books and passages of Scripture. If the 
 significance which they bear upon their own showing is to 
 be set aside by supposed critical discoveries, I see no limit to 
 the havoc which such liberty might produce. The Free 
 Church cannot long hold together or sustain her character 
 for orthodoxy upon such a system. Orthodox and straight- 
 forward men throughout the world have concurred in con- 
 demning the theory which would make Deuteronomy the 
 work of a later inspired prophet, who put words into the 
 
 E 
 
60 
 
 mouth of Moses. The late Charles Kingsley condemned this 
 idea, because good men and inspired prophets are not in the 
 habit of telhng lies, and because if any prophet of gifts so 
 extraordinary as to originate Deuteronomy 700 years after 
 Moses had really existed we should have heard more about 
 him. I have recently found evangelical ministers of learning 
 and intelligence in the Church of England starting back with 
 abhorrence from the theory of Professor Smith, and saying 
 that in place of obviating the charge of a pious fraud it only 
 makes God a party to the fraud. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Goold, well known in connection with the 
 Reformed Presbyterian Church and its recent union with the 
 Free Church, now for many years the secretary of the National 
 Bible Society of Scotland, and Moderator of the Free Church 
 Assembly in 1877, voted for my motion in last Assembly. He 
 assured me at the time that he thoroughly concurred with me 
 in opposition to the Reasons of Dissent, and he advised me 
 when preparing the Answers and gave his approbation to 
 them. I am authorised to say that his agreement with me 
 specially embraces my argument regarding the application of 
 the Confessional doctrine on "infallible truth" to the professed 
 character of inspired Books, and my conception that it does 
 not appear from any statement by Professor Smith's supporters 
 how allowance can be given to his view of Deuteronomy 
 without preventing us from protecting the integrity of other 
 parts of Scripture. It is a striking circumstance tliat no 
 attempt has ever been made to grapple with the Answers to 
 the Reasons of Dissent.* These Answers are regarded as quite 
 unanswerable by very capable judges, and it will not do to go 
 on appealing to the Reasons of Dissent without venturing to 
 look the Answers honestly in the face. 
 
 Let me, in conclusion, point out that to admit the legiti- 
 macy of a Free Church professor or minister maintaining the 
 theory of Deuteronomy which our judgment has condemned, 
 must tend to undermine any satisfactory doctrine on inspira- 
 tion, I do not say that a defective view of that subject is at 
 the root of the theory, and that the broader question is the 
 question of inspiration. I know that some well-instructed 
 
 * The Reasons of Dissent and the Answers will be found in the 
 Appendix. 
 
61 
 
 persons think so ; but to me it appears that the relation of the 
 one question to the other is the reverse of this opinion. I look 
 upon an undue love of the higher criticism and an undue sub- 
 jection to the attraction of its conclusions as leading men 
 almost unconsciously to defective views of inspiration. I 
 regard the question concerning Deuteronomy as raising the 
 broadest issue which can come before our Church — an issue 
 which will comprehend in it the preservation among us in its 
 integrity of a sound judgment on inspiration. If the state- 
 ments in Deuteronomy with respect to what Moses did or said 
 are not to be considered historically accurate, because their 
 exact accuracy cannot be reconciled with critical conclusions, 
 then in obedience to similar conclusions our ministers and 
 professors must be free to abandon a profession of belief in the 
 exact accuracy of other statements in other Books. Professor 
 Smith, indeed, may stop short in carrying out his conceptions 
 to all their legitimate results ; but w^e can have no assurance 
 that in the future others will stop short along with him. It 
 will thus become necessary for them to contend that what is 
 said in the Confession about the infallible truth of Scripture 
 does not involve the exact accuracy of the statements to which 
 the conclusions of criticism are opposed. They will say, as 
 some have already said, that these statements are infallibly 
 true only in so far as the Spirit of God gives us an assurance 
 of their truth. Thus they will be led to frame for us a new 
 Bible — a Bible, the authority of which will depend, not on the 
 objective infallibility of the written record, but on the per- 
 suasion of the individual soul that the truths of that record are 
 brought home to the mind and heart by thy assuring power of 
 the Holy Spirit. The operation of that assuring power is in- 
 dispensable to the faith and comfort of God's people. But to 
 allow the substitution of it for the objective infallibility which 
 ■we have been accustomed to attach to the whole of the written 
 record would, I feel, be a fatal mistake. 
 
 I adhere to our judgment on Deuteronomy all the more 
 because I regard it as both a needful and effectual barrier 
 against such a mistake. I wish to impress our ministers and 
 elders with a sense of the obligation that is laid upon them to 
 sustain our judgment, in order to save the Church from incal- 
 culable disturbance and division. I am aware that the carry- 
 ino- out of it may cause a measure of disturbance and division, 
 
but we ought boldly to choose the least of two evils. Con- 
 sistent action for the inte£!:rity of the P>ible is indispensable to 
 our safety. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 For the sake of some readers I desire to point out that 
 all my statements, now republished, refer exclusively to the 
 character and merits of decisions already pronounced by the 
 last General Assembly of our Church. I have most scrupu- 
 lously refrained from touching any question which was left for 
 the consideration of the Presbytery of Aberdeen. I have 
 purposely avoided reading with any career attention the reported 
 speeches of its members since the month of June. I have 
 glanced at the reports so far as to see whether references 
 made to my own name were correct in point of fact. But I 
 have not yet made myself acquainted w^ith the arguments 
 employed on either side. It may become my duty to do so 
 before the meeting of our next Assembly. 
 
 H. W. M. 
 
63 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 I. 
 
 REASONS OF DISSENT FROM THE JUDGMENT ON 
 DEUTERONOMY BY DR. RAINY, AND OTHERS. 
 
 Because the judgment is incompetent as a judicial sentence, 
 in respect that it proceeds on the sense ascribed to a declara- 
 tion of Professor Smith in his defence on which he had no 
 notice to plead either from the bar or the House, on which he 
 did not plead, and on which it does not appear that he has 
 been dealt with, for explanation or otherwise, in any Court ; 
 and in respect that the judgment was argued for from the 
 same materials, and that Professor Smith was not heard 
 thereon. 
 
 Because Professor Smith in the extracts charged under 
 this particular of charge first, does not deny the inspiration 
 and authority of the Holy Scriptures, and in particular of the 
 Book of Deuteronomy, but maintains the same. 
 
 Because the theory that Deuteronomy presents in a 
 peculiar literary form, but under the guidance of inspiration, 
 the legislation of an age later than that of Moses, whatever 
 objections may apply to it, and whatever dangers may be 
 apprehended in connection with it, does not in itself conflict 
 directly with any views of inspiration, even the most strict. 
 
 Because in order to establish consequences as arising from 
 the said theory, tending to show that it is opposed to the Con- 
 fession in its results, it is necessary to make assumptions 
 which are not borne out by the Confession on the one hand, 
 
64 
 
 or which are repudiated by Professor Smith on the other ; 
 and both modes of procedure are illegitimate. 
 
 Because the statement of Professor Smith already referred 
 to in the first reason, whatever the effect of it may be, could 
 in any view communicate to his theory of Deuteronomy no 
 new responsibility in reference to the Church's doctrine of the 
 Bible, and ought to have been dealt with on its own merits. 
 
 Because it is of great moment to the successful main- 
 tenance and defence of the truth, that when opinions are 
 published which are apprehended to have in them any 
 elements of danger, the mode of dealing with them should be 
 such as does not strain the discipline of the Church nor 
 abridge the liberty of its office-bearers. 
 
 Because the present state of critical studies, especially 
 with reference to the Pentateuch, renders it necessary that a 
 large discretion should be allowed to the office-bearers of the 
 Church in any honest efforts to do justice to indications of 
 criticism, as long as faith in the peculiar origin, office, and 
 authority of the Scriptures is maintained. 
 
 II. 
 
 ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL 
 ASSEMBLY. 
 
 The great respect due to the names of those who have 
 attached their signatures to these reasons seems to call for 
 the following answers, which might otherwise have been 
 unnecessary : — 
 
 As to the first of them, it is quite obvious and palpable to 
 ordinary unbiassed understandings that the judgment does 
 not proceed on any sense ascribed to a declaration by 
 Professor Smith on the subject of inspiration, but simply on 
 
65 
 
 what the Assembly regard as legitimate inferences from his 
 views of the book of Deuteronomy, and that it deals with his 
 declarations on inspiration only as furnishing no satisfactory 
 reply to those inferences, while it leaves the question an unde- 
 cided one — how his declarations may themselves be viewed 
 in relation to the Confession of Faith. It is also manifest 
 that no argument for the judgment was founded upon any 
 other basis except what is furnished by the extracts in the 
 libel, though it was indicated that his defence did not appear 
 sufficient. 
 
 As to the second reason, the fact that in the extracts 
 Professor Smith does not deny, but maintains, the inspiration 
 of the Book of Deviteronomy cannot overthrow the force of 
 legitimate inferences drawn by the Assembly from his view of 
 that Book. 
 
 As to the third reason, the fact that Professor Smith's 
 theory regarding Deuteronomy does not conflict with any 
 view of inspiration, is quite consistent with the conclusion 
 that the logical result of it is to make the inspiration of that 
 Book indefensible. 
 
 As to the fourth reason, the judgment makes no assump- 
 tion which is not borne out by the Confession. It simply 
 represents that Professor Smith's theory is opposed to the 
 doctrine of the infallible truth of the Book of Deuteronomy 
 in the only character in which God presents it to us, just as 
 any theory disputing the reality of incidents recorded by the 
 Evangelist Luke would be opposed to the doctrine of the 
 infallible truth of his waitings. On the other hand, the judg- 
 ment assumes nothing which Professor Smith has repudiated, 
 but simpl}'- draws inferences from his acknowledged theory. 
 
 As to the fifth reason, it exhibits an inadequate perception 
 of what the judgments and arguments for it were. These do 
 not attach any new responsibility to Professor Smith's theory 
 on account of his declarations. They only indicate that he 
 has said nothing to remove the responsibility which inherently 
 attaches to it. 
 
 As to the sixth reason, it is denied that the judgment 
 involves any straining of discipline. The Assembly regard it 
 
6G 
 
 as demanded by the necessity of the case. Professor Smith 
 demanded a libel ; and the libel, with its defences, having been 
 brought before the Assembly, no one can reasonably complain 
 because the Assembly have drawn what they consider legiti- 
 mate inferences from the extracts which it contains. 
 
 As to the seventh reason, the Assembly regard it as quite 
 irrelevant. The judgment does not interfere with the large 
 discretion referred to, but it finds that the theory of Professor 
 Smith involves an unwarrantable use of that discretion. 
 
 PErNTURS, DKURy HOUSSJ, .ST, MATiY-IjR-BTRAND, LONDON, W.O. 
 
KMOTOMOUNT 
 
 , PAMPHLET B^^4D€R 
 
 I manufacturtai by 
 iCAYLORD BROS. Inc. 
 ' SyrocuM, N.Y. 
 Stockton. Co«f . 
 
.««v^ 
 
 BW5546 .S65W43 
 
 Communications on the case of Professor 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 >^ir 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 i)^ 
 
 
 ¥»« 
 
 
 ufMij 
 
 sjm