^5^ 
 
 REPORT OF THE SPEECHES DELIVERED 
 AT A ME- ^ TING OF FREE CHURCH 
 OFFICE-BEARERS ^ DEC. 3, 1880 
 CONCERNING THE CASE OF 
 W. ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 
 
 
 "^^^^0^ a 
 
 i? 
 
 si 
 
 
 
 
 
 fM 
 
 SP-^sS^iSK 
 
 F^^ 
 
 
 irP-'*Sk-' 
 
 . - 3 
 
 BX 
 
 9225 
 
 .8647 
 
 R46 
 
 1881 
 
 M 
 
 '^^"^'^'^ 
 
^ APR f^ lo'R , 
 
 % 
 
 BX 9225 .S647 R46 1881 
 Report of the speeches 
 
'A 
 
 PROFESSOR W. ROlMiRTSON SMITH 
 
 REPORT OF Till: SPEECHHS 
 
 Dr.I.IVKRKD AT A MEKIING OF 
 
 FREE CHURCH OFFICE-BEARERS 
 
 WHO DISAPPKOVKI) OK ■iliVl ACTION OF 
 THE COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF I'KOF. \V. ROBERTSON SMITH, 
 
 HEED IN THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN IXSTITUTi; GLASGOW, 
 Friday, December 30, iSSo. 
 
 h£C. SEP IB8I 
 
 Divisi 
 
 PRINTED BY W. C. BLACKIE ,Jc CO., GLASGOW 
 1S81. 
 
J 
 
jT ,HtC. SEP )bb I j'; 
 
 REPORT OF PUBLIC MEETING. 
 
 Last niglit (Dec. 3(1) a i)ul)lir, meeting of lay officc-hcarcrs con- 
 nected with the Free Church who disapprove of the action of the 
 Commission in the case of Professor Robertson Smith was held in 
 the Christian Institute. There was a large attendance of office- 
 bearers. The chair was occupied by Dr. W. G. Blackie; and 
 beside him on the platform were the Rev. Mr. Scrymgeour, Sheriff 
 Murray, Professor M'Kendrick, and Messrs. Jas. Campbell of 
 Tulliechewan; Thos. Russell of Ascog; Peter Gardner, W.S., 
 G. W. Clark, John M'Clure, Walter Duncan, J. Morison, R. Rule, 
 Walter Macfarlane, A. A. Ferguson, J. Hart, J. L. Mitchell, 
 J. Lawson, Boyd, Campbell -liouglas, Gilbert Eeith, N. Caw, 
 S. Barclay, A. S. Taylor, Alex. AVatt, and G. M. Kerr, ike. 
 
 The meeting having been opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. 
 Scrymgeour, 
 
 The Chairman said in the first instance he had to read certain 
 letters of apology which had been received from some gentlemen 
 who were prevented being present. The first was from the Lord 
 Dean of Guild, who said that while he was not learned enough to 
 form an opinion on questions of Hebrew scholarship, he professed 
 to have an opinion on the more important question of justice and 
 fair dealing. He trusted that the next General Assembly might 
 find the recent proceedings of the Commission to be unconstitu- 
 tional, otherwise the general principle of Presbyterian Church 
 government would fall under public condemnation. Letters had 
 also been received from Mr. James Stevenson; from Mr. A. S. 
 Baird; from Mr. Ness, Bellahouston Academy; from Mr. James 
 Templeton; and from Dr. Anderson Kirkwood. 
 
 The Chairman then said — Fellow office-bearers, we are met to- 
 night for a very grave and important purpose — to call in question 
 the legality and wisdom of the action of one of our Church Courts. 
 We are met because we believe our liberties as office-bearers of the 
 Free Church are endangered by the recent action of the Commis- 
 sion of the General Assembly in the case of Professor Robertson 
 Smith; and at the same time to take such steps as may be com- 
 petent to preserve our status and defend our rights. We are not 
 to discuss the merits of Professor Robertson Smith's case; we leave 
 them to be dealt with by the constitutional Church Courts. Con- 
 sequently those who hold opposite views respecting the merits of 
 that case may consistently unite together in carrying out the objects 
 of this meeting. 
 
 In considering this very important question, I trust we shall be 
 
able to exercise great wisdom ami caution and forbearance, to 
 avoid undue heat, and to refer to those who do not go along with 
 us in a becoming and Christian spirit. At the same time, however, 
 we must use great plainness of speech, so that none may misappre- 
 hend our opinions or underrate the strong conviction of danger 
 which impels us to take action in defence of our rights. 
 
 Every office-bearer when admitted to oftice must sign the For- 
 mula. That document binds him to "' assert, maintain, and defend 
 the Christian discipline and government of this Church by Kirk 
 Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies." 
 'I'here is no word here of Commissions, and that for the very excel- 
 lent reason that the Commission is not an independent Church 
 Court, possessing its own inherent rights. It is an annual creation 
 of the General Assembly, and possesses only such powers as the 
 Assembly delegates to it. It is composed of all the members of 
 the Assembly and one clergyman in addition, who is nominated by 
 the moderator— this nomination being understood to mark the 
 fact that this Court is not the Assembly, and that it is not neces- 
 sarily constituted of members of Assembly; for if the right be 
 reserved to nominate one member, it may be exercised to nomi- 
 nate all the members. 
 
 This Court is a most useful one when acting strictly within its 
 own defined lines; but obviously it may become a dangerous one 
 if tempted to exceed the limits of the powers which have been 
 delegated to it. Its powers are thus defined in the Manual of the 
 Practice of the Free Church of Scothtnd in her Several Courts, 
 p. loo: — "The Commission cannot take up any cause or matter 
 which has not been specially referred to it by the General Assembly, 
 except when anything of public interest occurs which is of general 
 concernment to the whole Church. In this case it is instructed 
 to advert to the matter and to see that the Church do not suffer 
 or sustain any prejudice which it can jjrevent, as its members shall 
 be answerable." The terms of this constitution are suflicient war- 
 rant for the step the Commission took in appointing a committee 
 to examine the writings of Professor Robertson Smith; but to de- 
 duce from these terms that the Commission is thereby empowered 
 to take judicial action is a position which I cannot allow. It is a 
 position the legality of which was not demonstrated during the 
 sitting of the Commission, and has not been demonstrated even 
 by the united wisdom of the whole Presbytery of Glasgow during 
 a discussion of two days' length. 
 
 My contention is that the Commission exceeded its powers 
 when it suspended Professor Robertson Smith from the exercise 
 of his professorial duties. I know that the contention of the 
 leaders of the Church, on the other hand, is that there was no 
 suspension — that Professor Robertson Smith was merely instructetl 
 not to teach. To my mind, such an obvious subterfuge is unworthy 
 (;f the quarter whence it proceeds. C)thers equally zealous, but less 
 cautious, justify the judicial action of the Commission by the alle- 
 
5 
 
 gation of danger to the Churcli. forgetful of the adage Fiat Jusfida 
 mat ai'Iiim. Jf exi)ediency and tlie Church's danger are to be 
 admitted as reasons for jjerpelrating injustice, for allowing a huge 
 committee like the Commission to overstep its constitutional 
 powers, where is the security for our liberties? Anyone against 
 whom a fama clamosa may be got up is liable to be cited by the 
 Commission to appear before it, and then to be judged and sen- 
 tenced without even having been heard in his own defence. In 
 the recent case Professor Robertson Smith was heard tx gratia 
 and not of right. 
 
 All the steps taken by the Commission in this case seem to 
 point to a foregone conclusion. Look at the day on which the 
 Commission was appointed to meet, /// It imc effect iim. October 27th, 
 and the reason given for appointing — that the Commission might 
 be able to suspend Professor Smith before the beginning of the 
 winter session; there was no word then of only instructing him 
 not to teach. Look at the one-sided committee nominated by 
 the mover of the resolution — a committee of consideration, if not 
 of deliberation. I wonder what amount of consideration the writ- 
 ings of Professor Robertson Smith were likely to receive from a 
 committee among whose most marked members were included 
 men of such temperate speech and calmness of judgment as the 
 well-known Bishop of Dingwall, and the equally well-known pres- 
 byter of Helensburgh. 
 
 I am aware that a cbscussion has arisen respecting the precise 
 time at which the mover announced that Professor Smith's friends 
 might add members to this committee. That question appears to 
 me a trivial side issue not worth disputing about. The ofifence, in 
 my estimation, consists in the mere proposal of a one-sided com- 
 mittee to try a brother ofTice-bearer. It has been stated that an 
 eminent member of the Church has defended the appointment of a 
 committee of this kind. So much the worse. Wrong can never be 
 made right, even by the support of an eminent man. Did time 
 permit, it would be easy to trace the actings of this committee and 
 point out its shortcomings, but I must pause, as all needful points 
 will doubtless be spoken to by the speakers who are to move and 
 second the various resolutions which will be submitted to the 
 meeting for approval. — The chairman concluded by reading the 
 following letter from Dr. Anderson Kirkwood : — 
 
 " To Dr. W. G. Blackie, chairman of the Glasgow meeting of 
 3d December, as to Professor Robertson Smith's case. 
 
 " My dear Sir, — I regret much that I shall be unavoidably pre- 
 vented from attending the important meeting to-morrow evening. 
 But perhaps, with the permission of the meeting, I may be allowed, 
 through you, to state the views which I would have expressed had 
 I been ])resent; and I shall do so as shortly and clearly as I can. 
 
 " ist, then, let me say, with all deference to the Commission 
 
and its committee, its sub-committee, and the committee's con- 
 vener, that in the light in which I and many others regard their pro- 
 ceedings, tliey have done what they could to prejudice and con- 
 demn Professor Robertson Smith, not only without any libel, but 
 without any formal or distinct charge, without any proof, and with- 
 out almost hearing him. It is this glaring disregard of all justice 
 and fair play that we seriously complain of. We complain, in short, 
 of the old and well-established libel, through the Presbytery, being, 
 in this case, ignored and superseded. 
 
 " 2d. And we complain too, of this best safeguard of our office- 
 bearers' character and status and rights and liberties being disre- 
 garded without any specific authority, and confessedly also without 
 any precedent. 
 
 '' 3d. In (;ict they acknowledge that they are creating a prece- 
 dent for this particular case; but their ostensible reasons for doing 
 so are certainly not very forcible. One excuse is that Mr. Robert- 
 son Smith wrote the new article after he was served with the old 
 and now exploded libel, just as if the mere service of a libel (incap- 
 able it may be of proof) amounted to an ecclesiastical interdict, such 
 as is here pretended. Another excuse is the very flimsy one that 
 there was the usual crop of cut-and-dry memorials got up from 
 willing Presbyteries and laid on the table of Commission. I know 
 of no other reasons worthy of consideration, for the remainder of 
 the new indictment consists of some make-weights on the old lines, 
 introduced to give a colouring to the resuscitated charge. I 
 maintain that all these excuses for the precedent sought to be 
 established are as futile as they are far-fetched; and further, that 
 apart from all excuses, the precedent itself is not within the com- 
 petency of the Commission, or their committee or sub-committee, 
 and that it is as unwarranted as it is unnecessary, unjustifiable, un- 
 constitutional, and illegal. 
 
 " 4th. There are, however, several sections of the late Com- 
 mission who will not, of course, concur in this opinion. For ex- 
 ample, (ist) it is not to be expected that parties sent from the 
 North for the mere purpose of voting will condemn themselves. 
 One of their number, but (so far as I know) only one, avows that 
 he paid his own expenses! (2d) Again, it is not to be expected 
 that ministers who employ their pulpits, not in preaching the 
 (jospel, but in abusing Professor Robertson Smith, will find fault 
 with the Commission's proceedings. They cannot consistently 
 do so, for their avowed conviction is that he should long since 
 liave been deposed without any trial whatever. They, in fact, 
 emulate, or rather surpass, the ferocity of Bunyan's Implacable, 
 whose language was — ' Might I have all the world given me, I 
 could not be reconciled to him ; therefore let us forthwith bring 
 him in guilty.' (3d) There is a third class, chiefly composed of 
 ministers, who rejoice at instead of condemning the Commission's 
 ])roceedings. They have been all along opposed to Mr. Robertson 
 Smith, and were so disappointed, chagrined, and irritated at the 
 
decision of last Assembly, that they Jiavc since been yearning for 
 a pretext to review and reverse that decision, and they are glad 
 that, through the Commission and its committee and sub-committee, 
 they have at length found that pretext. Jkit (4th) there is happily 
 yet a fourth section, if not of the late Commission, at least of the 
 office-bearers of the Free Church, whose motto is Fiat justitia 
 mat ca'litiii. They look with mingled sorrow and indignation on 
 the unconstitutional conduct of the Commission, and are now 
 taking means (as is shown by the meeting of to-morrow evening 
 and other similar meetings) to let their sentiments be known 
 throughout the Church, with a \iew to their due influence on next 
 Assembly. 
 
 "5th. If I have rightly characterized the i)roceedings of the 
 Commission it is no wonder that people supposed there was some 
 tendency on their part to have a one-sided committee. Nor is it 
 surprising that it has been matter of grave remark that the com- 
 mittee were not called timeously together; that their report (who- 
 ever prepared it) was hurried through the committee without due 
 consideration; that it was not in the hands of the members of 
 Commission till the day of its meeting; and that it was then hastily 
 adopted after an ex tempore speech, reluctantly allowed, ex gratia, 
 to Mr. Robertson Smith at the last moment? There has in conse- 
 ([uence, since the meeting of the Commission, been a good deal of 
 blame cast upon the Commission and its committee and its sub- 
 committee, and its committee's convener, for all this unseemly 
 hurry-skurry; and let it not be supposed that any of them have 
 come skaithless out of the melee. 
 
 " 6th. But the explanation is that all these parties were resolved, 
 regardless of every other consideration, to prevent so accomplished 
 a scholar as Professor Robertson Smith from occupying his chair 
 this session, and they have unhappily attained their object by getting 
 him to defer to an 'instruction' (as it is called) which they have is- 
 sued on the subject. It is to be regretted, I think, that he did defer to 
 this instruction. He was appointed ad vitam aitt adpam ; and as 
 no competent case of eiilpa was brought against him, he could not 
 be legally interfered with in his chair. If, as is not unlikely, these 
 Commission proceedings will end in a civil conflict, the sooner it 
 is begun the better. The Commission and its supporters will then 
 know authoritatively whether or not they have acted ultra vires. 
 ^leantime, Professor Robertson Smith has this consolation, that he 
 never has been charged with introducing his critical opinions into 
 the prelections of his class, and there was no reason, therefore, for 
 the 'instruction' in question. 
 
 " 7th. It is certainly not pleasant, after wading with the Free 
 Church through the ten years' conflict and the Disruption times, 
 and the former College and Sustentation Fund controversies, to 
 tind one's self engaging in another internecine warfare; but I hope 
 that light may yet arise in this darkness, and that those of us wlio 
 feel strongly in regard to the abstract case of Professor Robertson 
 
8 
 
 Smilh (whom, by the way, I scarcely personally know) may be 
 enabled to retain their connection with the Free Church. His 
 case is the only one that crops up now ; but there have not been 
 wanting, in the course of the discussions, many intermittent indi- 
 cations of a determination to make it a test case, to be followed 
 up by the like proceedinL;s against other professors, and, if so, 
 vhv not also against all ministers and elders favourable to his 
 views? 
 
 '• 8tli. The im])ortance of this particular case cannot therefore be 
 overstated, and the greatest regret I feel is, that our ex))erienced 
 and much-respected officials should have deemed it their duty to 
 take a leading i)art in the controversy, instead of keeping them- 
 selves free to act as mediators. 
 
 •' The meeting will kindly excuse the length of this communica- 
 tion, and the strong terms in which I felt bound to express myself. 
 —I remain, truly yours. 
 
 " Andf.rsox Kirkwooi). 
 
 "(Jlnsojow, 145 West (Icoige Street. Dccemljor -•, iSSo. " 
 
 Mr. Peter (I.vrdnek, ^\'.S., moved the first resolution as 
 follows: — "That this meeting desires to record its gratitude for the 
 settlement of the case of Prof. W. Robertson Smith at last General 
 Assembly, and views with grave concern the renewal of agitation 
 in the matter." 
 
 He said: — Before proceeding to speak to this resolution, allow 
 me to express the hope that we shall be able here to avoid every- 
 thing like the personalities which have characterized the recent 
 di.scussion in the Presbytery. The resolution states that we were 
 grateful for the settlement of the case of Professor Smith at the 
 last Cieneral Assembly, ^\'e were so, first, because some of us 
 thought that the ])roceedings against Professor Robertson Smith 
 were a huge mistake from the beginning, ^\'e were very glad tt) 
 see the thing " taken out of court," as we lawyers say, on almost 
 any terms whatsoever. Secondly, we were very glad to see the 
 settlement because it gave a promise of peace to the Church, which 
 was sorely needed. 
 
 But I wish to refer to two points which api)ear to me more impor- 
 tant than these. Let us see first what the settlement of the 27th Ma)- 
 rcallv was. In short terms it was this — that Professor Robertson 
 Smith was restored to his chair, and his views were not condcmneil 
 in the resolution, and by ia\r inference were to be tolerated in the 
 Free C'hurch, That you may not suppose that this is merely our 
 view, I wish to point out that this was the view of Dr. Begg, ex- 
 pressed at the time. In his protest and dissent which is recorded 
 in the official blue-book, we find him dissenting from the resohitiun 
 adopted by the Assembly "because the views of Professor Smith 
 are not condemned in the resolution, and by fair inference are to be 
 tolerated in the Free Church." 'i'his view is certainly right, and the 
 relief that tht* settlement brought to a good many of us arose from 
 
9 
 
 that very thing, that Professor Smith's views were to be tolerated 
 in the Free Church. 
 
 This brings me to the first main reason for our feeling grateful 
 for the settlement on which I wish to insist. It is this. The 
 settlement maintained intact our Protestant right of private judg- 
 ment on points not closed by the Confession of Faith with our 
 own consent. It was the danger of interfering with that right of 
 private judgment that had weighed with us all along. That was 
 the real danger, as it appeared to us, of the case of Professor 
 Robertson Smith. Let me remind you what Protestantism in this 
 aspect means. You know that the term came into use in conse- 
 quence of the protest of the Reformers at the second diet of Spires 
 in 1529. At that time the Catholic states endeavoured to turn 
 back the Reformation. This was protested against, and in the 
 famous protest the reforming party claimed the right to put the 
 Bible above Pope, Church, Council, and every other human autho- 
 rity in matters of faith and practice. And they further claimed 
 for each believer the right, and laid upon him the responsibility, 
 to determine for himself what are the contents of the Bible, and 
 what is their meaning, by means of itself, its language, and its con- 
 nection. You will observe that the men who claimed this right 
 were believing men, and that thus in relation to the Scriptures 
 every Protestant is, and claims to be, a believing critic. What is 
 criticism? It is neither more nor less than the Greek equivalent 
 of the Latin expression " private judgment," which, as we all know, 
 is the key of one of our most important Protestant positions. 
 This right of private judgment, or believing criticism, was fearlessly 
 exercised by the Reformers themselves. For example, I need 
 mention only the free criticism of I^uther, not only in regard to 
 the meaning of the Scriptures, but in regard to their contents, 
 which led him, among other things, to reject as non-canonical the 
 Epistle of James. 
 
 This individual right of private judgment or believing criticism 
 is expressly acknowledged and insisted on in our Westminster 
 Confession of Faith. In chapter i. section viii. we are reminded 
 that " because the original tongues are not known to all the people 
 of God, who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are 
 commanded in the fear of God to read and search them;" there- 
 fore they are to be translated into the vulgar tongues for popular 
 use. Further, in the Act of Assembly of 1846, which regulates the 
 subscription of office-bearers to the Formula, we have the express 
 clause that the Church " does not regard her Confession of Faith 
 or any portion thereof, when fairly interpreted, as favouring intoler- 
 ance or persecution, or consider that her office-bearers, by subscrib- 
 ing it, profess any principles inconsistent with liberty of conscience 
 and the right of private judgment." 
 
 The right of private judgment thus recognized was, after the 
 time of the Westminster Confession of Faith, put in exercise in 
 regard to, among other things, the revisal of the text of Scripture. 
 
 A 2 
 
10 
 
 About two hundred years ago the examination and collation of 
 ancient manuscrij^ts, especially of the New Testament, received a 
 fresh impulse. This alarmed many timid people at that time. 
 They feared the unsettling of the text of Scripture, and the scholars 
 who were engaged in the work were denounced as free-thinkers. 
 These fears led to answers by such scholars as Dr. Bentlcy, and 
 the work went on. A\'hat is the result now? We have a better 
 text than the Westminster divines had, and we know what passages 
 — they are not many, probably not above a five-thousandth part of 
 the text — are of doubtful authority as regards the sense. For 
 example, no one now is alarmed to hear from any pulpit or else- 
 where the statement that the texts which I am now to mention are 
 of doubtful authority. In the fifth chapter of John, the fourth 
 verse, describing the descending of an angel into the Pool of 
 Bethesda, is not in the best manuscripts. The same remark applies 
 to the narrative of the woman taken in adultery, in the seventh 
 and eighth chapters. This passage, it is almost certain, was never 
 \\Titten by John, and if it be a genuine part of the text at all, it 
 ought probably to appear in the (iospcl according to Luke. Simi- 
 larly the 37th verse of the eighth chai)ter of Acts and the verses 
 in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of John about the three 
 that bear record in heaven, are of doubtful authority, and no one 
 would rely on them as certainly a part of the text. 
 
 Has any harm been done by this investigation leading to such 
 results? Certainly not I But popular ignorance does not know these 
 things, and gets j)anic-stricken when any one speaks of doubtful pas- 
 sages in the text of Scripture. To illustrate this ignorance, let me 
 tell a circumstance that occurred in my own experience not long 
 ago. I was conversing with a deacon of this Church — a professional 
 man, intelligent and well educated in other respects, but who, as 
 it happens, had not directed his mind to this subject. We were 
 talking of a text in Scripture, when I remarked that it was not in 
 some of the best manuscripts, and that its genuineness was in con- 
 sequence doubtful. To that remark my friend replied, c^uite inno- 
 cently, "Why don't they look at the original manuscript and see if 
 it is there?" I do not need to tell this meeting that no manuscript 
 earlier in date than the fourth centur}- is known to be in ex- 
 istence. 
 
 Now, will any one who knows anything of the subject say, in 
 view of these results, that there is no room for further light on the 
 text and meaning of the Scriptures, especially of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The mere fact that Professor Smith found and has had to 
 deal with serious difficulties in connection with both the text and 
 interpretation of the Old Testament proves the contrary. Professor 
 Smith found in existence the difficulties referred to. He did not 
 invent them; but he, as a believing critic, or, in other words, a 
 Protestant, has tried to remove them. He may be mistaken in 
 his attempted solutions, and if so, this is surely capable of being 
 proved by argument. 'J'his has not been done. P>ut, at all events. 
 
II 
 
 Professor Smith, in making these efforts, is within the riglit of every 
 Protestant to exercise private judgment. 
 
 In consequence of their failure to prove by regular argument 
 that his conclusions are erroneous, it is now proposed by his 
 opponents to come down upon iiini with the iron hand of church 
 iiuthority and close his moulh. That is, it is ]jroposed to close 
 up all investigation on the lines in which he has been moving. 
 Well, if that be done, all I have to say is that we are on the 
 road to Romanism. In the good old times, when a man wrote a 
 book, that could not be conveniently answered, the method adojjted 
 was to have the book burned by the common hangman, or the 
 writer himself was burned or had his head cut off. Nowadays a 
 different mode of procedure is adopted. A man is threatened with 
 the loss of status and of salary by the chance votes of panic-stricken 
 partisans. This is just another form of persecution, but it is per- 
 secution none the less. How long will it be before men learn that the 
 true way of dealing with erroneous opinions is to answer them? 
 
 The other particular in which I wish to point out that the setde- 
 ment of 27th May last was satisfactory, is that it rejected a new 
 standard which is sought to be imposed upon the office-bearers of 
 this Church. It will be remembered that even in the Assembly of 
 1878, in Glasgow, Sir Henry Moncrieff was obliged to go beyond 
 the Confession of Faith in order to carry the relevancy of the one 
 remaining limb of the originally many-limbed libel against Pro- 
 fessor Robertson Smith. 
 
 This appears more clearly now from Sir Henry's admissions 
 immediately after the judgment of May last. In the first of his 
 additional reasons of dissent he was compelled to admit that 
 the libel served on Professor Smith was " not a libel for heresy 
 strictly so called, but a libel for dangerous error tending to heresy 
 by logical inference." In short. Professor Smith could not be con- 
 victed by the Confession of Faith alone. Accordingly, in the 
 motion which was carried at the August Commission a new stand- 
 ard was invented and set forth as a test to be applied to his 
 articles. This new standard is called " the accepted belief and 
 teaching of the Church." 
 
 What is this new standard, and what are '• the accepted belief 
 and teaching of the Church"? I have signed the Confession of 
 Faith, and I am ready to be bound and tried by it, but I am not 
 willing to be bound and tried by an indefinite standard such as that 
 now proposed. If we were to yield to this, we should be consenting 
 to a breach of contract between the Church and ourselves, and I 
 for one am not prepared to consent to be tied by any indefinite 
 standard like this. In fact, when I ask what it means, I find 
 that it is nothing more than words. There is not one of the men 
 who have used it who could stand up and tell us what it really 
 means. 
 
 But I have exhausted the time at my disposal, and cannot enlarge 
 upon this head. The second jiart of the resolution follows naturally 
 
12 
 
 upon tlie first, and requires no separate argument. I tlicrefore 
 conclude by again submitting the resolution for your acceptance. 
 
 Mr. Walter Dun'CAN, in seconding the resolution, said — After 
 the speech to which you have listened, the duty falling to me need 
 be nothing more than formal. But I wish to point out that the 
 resolution gives a key-note to our meeting. Whatever sympathies 
 we may have with Professor Smith, it is not as his friends, but as 
 Free Church office-bearers that we are here. Nor are we here 
 merely as those who have complaints to make. We are grateful 
 for the decision by last General Assembly of a case which had for 
 years disturbed the peace of the Church. Uut other things have 
 occurred since then. Weeks had scarcely elapsed when agitation 
 was renewed. That agitation, the haste with which it was resumed, 
 and the manner in which it has been carried on, fill us Avith grave 
 concern. And we owe it not merely to the interests involved, but 
 to those who, opposed to us in view, are yet one with us in aim, to 
 give voice to our anxiety. We do not underestimate the responsi- 
 bilities of leadership. But it is easy to drift into danger which 
 timely knowledge may avert; and it is well to recognize that not 
 only is the peace of the Church again disturbed, but, in the opinion 
 of many, even its unity may be imperilled. 
 
 Our reasons for concern are various, i. The haste oi the agita- 
 tion. Is it not ominous that so immediately after a decision by the 
 Supreme Court, discussion should be stirred in regard to what the 
 Commission itself has termed "cognate views?" 2. lis parentage. 
 Anonymous correspondence advertised the alarm, though other 
 correspondence contributed its share. And though some presby- 
 teries memorialized, frank admissions were made by honoured 
 fathers that they moved only in deference to the alleged disturb- 
 ance. Of the article which occasioned it they knew nothing. All 
 this, too, while the College Committee looked on in calm repose, 
 though composed of most comi)etent men whose duty it is to act 
 in any real emergency of the kind. Is it not matter for grave con- 
 cern that questions of scholarship should be tossed into our church 
 courts almost without inquiry, instead of being first considered by 
 the best experts in the Church's service? This new method does 
 justice neither to scholarship nor to Presbyterianism. The old is 
 better. 3. There are other novelties that give us concern. Among 
 these, one is the way in which our professors are spoken of. Called 
 by the Church to fill places of responsibility and influence, they 
 need her sympathy and are entitled to her protection. We gladly 
 yield the respect due to gray hairs and long service, but the pro- 
 fessoriate, too, has its claims. How are they met? Has it not 
 been increasingly common of late to see in presbyteries and 
 elsewhere those who regard the professors as a kind of target at 
 which every vagrant archer may shoot an arrow and go his way, as 
 if shooting arrows were either a pastime or a pleasure? 
 
 Few men who have candidly considered the article which has 
 furnished occasion rather than cause for the renewed agitation. 
 
13 
 
 and who ])ay any attention to correspondence in the ]nil)]ic i)rints, or 
 to pamplilets which are circulated with a freedom wliich indicates 
 supply out of all proportion to demand, can avoid the inference 
 that the alarm prevailing in the Cliurch is largely the offspring of 
 uninformed, or it may be misinformed, earnestness. It is pleasanter 
 to assume want of knowledge than to infer want of candour, and 
 our choice lies betwixt these two. 
 
 On all sides we seem to be living amongst spectres. There was 
 one in the Presbytery no further gone than yesterday, and it has 
 been put upon me as a duty to refer to it. My esteemed friend 
 Mr. Wells made a most impassioned appeal for light, offering even 
 to sacrifice any atom of official intluence he ]iossessed if only Prof. 
 Smith would frankly give it, and such sacrifice were neces.sary to 
 stand by him. But he also went on to depict in strong language 
 the distress to ministers, and dispeace and disturbance to kirk- 
 sessions and congregations, resulting from some dangerous petition 
 obtruded upon them by certain people he terms "emissaries." 
 (Extracts from his speech and the requisition addressed to Prof. 
 Smith, since published, were here read.) 
 
 You will observe Mr. Wells is emphatic. He usually is; and I 
 at least pay a willing tribute to his singularly clear and forceful 
 style. But he is labouring under some entire misapprehension. 
 He wants light, as Ave all do. And yet, will it surprise you to hear 
 that, according to the best information I can get, Mr. Wells has 
 not yet signed the requisition? On the contrary, it looms before 
 him as a spectre, stirring only his indignation and alarm. There 
 must be some explanation for this. Every one knows that the eye 
 when accustomed for years to a uniform but subdued light loses 
 the power of contraction, so that sudden exposure to noonday 
 produces temporary blindness. Mr. Wells has been studying the 
 constitution, and he tells us that he passed from a state of complete 
 ignorance in the beginning of November to full knowledge at the 
 end of it. Has his usually clear vision suffered from a transition 
 so great and so rapid? 
 
 There seem to be spectral forms all about us; and it is no 
 wonder that timid people are afraid. Light is the only cure. In 
 my school-days I knew a gamekeeper very zealous in his master's 
 interest. Early one winter morning he got his eye on a poacher 
 whom he had long suspected. There he was, standing in the field 
 behind the farmhouse. Wishful to detect him in the act he 
 watched him patiently. It was evident they were Avatching each 
 other, for neither moved. The hours passed: and you may think 
 that the gamekeeper would have gained his end — besides dispelling 
 any doubt that may have crept over him — by at once securing his 
 prisoner. But Avhy should he? The conviction that is bred of 
 zeal and twilight is seldom troubled with doubt. So he waited on; 
 and when the morning broke the farmer's pump stood revealed 
 before him. What seemed a gun under the poacher's arm was 
 only the pump-handle ! Which thing is an allegor}^ 
 
H 
 
 Differences of opinion there must be. Were it otherwise this 
 jirobationary life would lose a large part of its needful discipline. 
 And the reasons are plain. Knowledge is imperfect. We see 
 through a glass darkly. There are many shadows. All the more 
 reason that we should welcome the light, and walk in it, and wait 
 for more until the day dawn and the shadows flee away. 
 
 Mr. Wait said — 'i'he resolution which has been intrusted to me 
 is in the following terms — " That while expressing no opinion upon 
 questions of Hiblical criticism, this meeting regards the action of 
 the Commission which met on the nth of August and on the 
 27th of October, in connection with Professor W. Robertson Smith's 
 case, as contrary to the principles of justice, and to the customs of 
 the Church." 
 
 Sir, I hold that the crisis which we are met to consider involves 
 a question of much greater interest than the guilt or innocence 
 of Professor Smith w'ith regard to the charges, or rather insinuations, 
 which have been levelled against him ; not that we as laymen, or 
 office-bearers of the Church, can be or are indifferent to the vital 
 issue which has been raised, and which, for the good and comfort 
 of all, must sooner or later l)e settled; but because we can discover 
 in the rash and unconstitutional method of procedure which, in an 
 evil moment has been adopted, a spirit of innovation, which, if not 
 checked, will go far to sap the very foundation of Presbyterianism, 
 and to place, not Professor Smith only, but every devout inquirer 
 and searcher of Cod's Word at the mercy of an unreasoning panic 
 and temporary majority. And let me here say, that I fully 
 avow the good faith, and recognize the great services to the Church 
 at large of many of the fathers and brethren whose conduct, in this 
 case, we feel it our duty to impugn. The truth of Scripture is a 
 matter of the first moment to us all, and when that is thought, rightly 
 or wrongly, to be imperilled, we can well understand the grave 
 anxiety and overwhelming fear which are apt to overtake good 
 and even learned men. With that anxiety and almost passionate 
 zeal for the Word we can all sympathize, and to some degree 
 share in the feeling; but all the more and just because of this 
 natural and inevitable prejudice which must spring up when the 
 mere charge of heresy is announced, should we see to it that the 
 truth itself is not being after all sacrificed to popular clamour, and 
 that the very safeguards which the Church has in her wisdom erected 
 for the protection of her dearest liberties arc not ruthlessly set aside. 
 
 And that is precisely what, with sorrow I say it, seems to have 
 been done in the present case; for let us calmly consider what is the 
 law of the Church, and what has really taken place. The law of 
 the Church provides by the Act of 1707 that all processes against 
 a minister are to begin before the Presbytery to which he belongs. 
 They alone have primary jurisdiction. I have also the authority 
 of Sir Henry Moncrieff for that statement. Further, it is the estab- 
 lished practice and law of tlie Church that every judicial process 
 of a serious kind can be carried out against a minister only by way 
 
15 
 
 of libel. This also is the dictum of Sir Henry. Now the libel 
 against a minister may be i)rosecutcd cither by the Presbytery, or 
 by another party outside the Presbytery. If the Presbytery arc 
 themselves the prosecutors, they must decide the question of 
 relevancy of the libel first, and serve it as a relevant libel. Before, 
 however, considering the relevancy, the accused must be sum- 
 moned to meet upon ten days' free notice, and a copy of the libel 
 must accompany the summons. In this way the minister not 
 only receives timely notice of the proposed charge, but has an 
 opportunity of explaining his views and vindicating his position, 
 and he may, if he is dissatisfied with the resolution arrived at, 
 dissent and complain. On the other hand, if any party other than 
 the Presbytery is the prosecutor, the libel falls to be presented to 
 the Presbytery, who may, if they consider proper, order it to be 
 served, but in that case the relevancy is not considered until after 
 the service. Here again, however, the minister still being a mem- 
 ber of court, has an opportunity of seeing the charge and explain- 
 ing his views, for he is not a party at the bar until after service. 
 There is this further important provision, namely, that after a 
 resolution to serve a libel upon a minister has been passed by the 
 Presbytery, he ceases, ipso facto, to exercise the functions of his 
 office, both ministerial and judicial. Again it is the undoubted 
 right of any accused member to have his case reviewed and con- 
 sidered on appeal, first by the Synod, and secondly, as a court of 
 last resort, by the General Assembly. The only difference in the 
 case of a professor is, that by an Act of Assembly it is the special 
 function of the College Committee to prosecute in any case of 
 heresy; but, as in the Act, the rights competent to all parties accord- 
 ing to the laws of the Church are reserved, I hold it was quite 
 open for any third party, such as Dr. Adam, or anyone else who 
 might feel himself aggrieved or called upon, to commence proceed- 
 ings. Now these are very important provisions alike for the safety 
 of the Church, that they may" not be led into rash or ill-considered 
 proceedings, and for the safety of the party who may be accused. 
 And such being, so far as I can gather, the existing law 
 of the Church, let us consider how far it has been followed in the 
 present instance, and if not followed, by what authority and for 
 what good purpose a different course has been pursued. 
 
 I take it, sir, that the Commission in August last, when, on the 
 representation not of his own Presbytery, but of other Presbyteries 
 which had no authority over him whatsoever, they appointed a com- 
 mittee to examine the writings of Professor Smith and to consider 
 their bearing upon the accepted belief and teaching of the Church, 
 with power to report to another special meeting, and cited him 
 to appear for his interest, were originating, at their own hand, 
 a new process involving, or at least with a view to, discipline, — and 
 although I have looked carefully, I can find no authority for 
 such a step in the law or customs of the Church. In the first 
 place, they were usurping the powers of the inferior court, who 
 
i6 
 
 alone have primary jurisdiction. In the second place, the Com- 
 mission is not a fixed court in the constitution of the Church 
 at all, and depends entirely for its existence, and for every item of 
 its authority, upon a special act of the Assembly passed every year. 
 Moreover it is expressly provided that the Commission cannot 
 take up any cause not specially referred to it. For this dictum I 
 have again the authority of Sir Henry. Accordingly Professor Smith 
 having been, by the judgment of the last Assembly, restored to his 
 office and absolved from the ])revious charges, it was, in my opinion, 
 beyond the power of the Commission to originate a new charge, 
 and invent a new system of process specially for the occasion. 
 
 I am aware that there is an attempt to get a foothold of law for 
 such a procedure in the power said to be vested in the Commission 
 of adverting to matters of public interest, but with that I shall after- 
 wards deal. Meanwhile mark what follows! A committee is 
 appointed — as to its composition I do not stop to inquire; and 
 then a sub-committee is appointed to prepare a draft report — 
 neither do I stop to inquire as to the constitution of that sub- 
 committee, regarding which, however, I notice Professor Lindsay 
 dissented. And my first remark is as to the extraordinary resolution 
 of the committee not to allow Professor Smith to be present, or to 
 invite him to confer with them. That seems to me not only to be 
 a violation of the law of the Church, but of the ordinary principles 
 of justice. 'J'hey were there to incjuire into the meaning and 
 bearing of Professor Smitli's writings, and they excluded the only 
 one who could explain and allay their uneasiness and alarm. I 
 have heard this excused on the ground that it is quite open for the 
 Church to appoint a committee to examine the writings of a 
 member, and to put their own interpretation upon such writings, 
 apart from his intended meaning and outwith his presence. I do 
 not di-spute this, if in so doing they intended merely to make their 
 report a basis for proceeding in the ordinary way by libel; but 
 when, as in the present case, they njade it a step of process with 
 tlie view to discipline, they were bound, in my view, in common 
 honesty, to hear and confer with the accused. But that was not 
 all. Having, in the face of what they term uneasiness and alarm, 
 done nothing for two months, the committee prepared their report 
 at the last moment, and then citing Professor Smith to appear for his 
 interest upon the 27th October, they handed him in open court a 
 copy of the formidable indictment, and also of a resolution con- 
 demning his views, and virtually suspending him from the exercise 
 of his dearest Church privilege, thus practically asking him to say 
 why sentence should not be pronounced against him. Why, that 
 is the question that is usually addressed to a man who has been 
 already tried and convicted, and it is difficult to say whether one is 
 more amazed or saddened at the spectacle. I am setting aside for 
 the present the noble answer which that wondrous scholar gave 
 to the unexpected call. It had no right to be demanded of him 
 at the time and in the manner in which it was; and when, in almost 
 
17 
 
 indecent haste and without an answer, they passed tlieir rash and 
 incompetent resolution, there closed one of the saddest chapters 
 of our Free Church history. 
 
 I have said incompetent resolution, for as I remarked before, no 
 remit had been made by the Assembly to the Commission to deal 
 with any such case in such a manner. No doubt, and this is the 
 so-called ground of justification, the Commission is empowered, 
 when anything of puljlic interest occurs, " to advert to the matter, 
 and to see that the Church do not suffer, or sustain any prejudice 
 which it can prevent;" but that is a Avidely different thing from 
 setting aside all the ordinary rules and safeguards of the Church, 
 and, without inquiry, or at least sufficient inquiry, pronouncing 
 judgment. "Advert to the matter!" What does that mean? Can 
 it mean anything else than this, that, having their attention drawn 
 to any important question or interest, they were in a constitutional 
 manner to follow it up, and in the present case to draw the atten- 
 tion of the Presbytery or the College Committee to ihtfama, with 
 the view of expiscation of the truth and fair trial of the accused. 
 Instead of that, — and that was all the power they had, — and in 
 marked contrast and in opposition to the anxious provisions in the 
 laws and forms of our Church, for the careful consideration of any 
 charge, and against doing any injustice to a member, they assumed 
 an authority which, in the opinion of many, would scarcely be covered 
 by the nobi/c officium of the General Assembly itself, and recorded 
 a judgment which, for the honour of the Church at large, should 
 not be allowed to stand. 
 
 Sir, I have noticed in the recent discussions two precedents 
 quoted in support of these extraordinary proceedings. The one is 
 the Culsalmond case, and the other the Marnoch case. Let me 
 for a moment deal with these; and at the outset I cannot help 
 remarking that it is an ominous circumstance that the supporters 
 of these proceedings require to go back to the sad and troublous 
 times of the Establishment to find what they consider support. 
 And it is pleasing to think that at any rate during the existence 
 of the Free Church no case has occurred which can give them 
 the slightest encouragement or warrant. But do the precedents 
 help them? I think not. First, in the Culsalmond case, the 
 majority of the Presbytery, not only against the declared law of the 
 Church, but against the will of the majority of the communicants 
 and in the face of an appeal to the Synod, proceeded to induct 
 Mr. Middleton the presentee. The minority of the Presbyter}' 
 appealed to the Commission, and they, dealing not with a duly- 
 appointed minister, but with one who, in the eyes of the Church, 
 was defying the law which he as a minister was bound to respect, 
 took the temporary charge of the parish, and enjoined the presentee 
 to abstain from doing duty. In doing this the Commission did not 
 suspend a minister from his charge, for he had no charge, and all 
 they did was to preserve the status quo in the parish pending the 
 appeal to the Synod and the due consideration of the objections 
 
1 8 
 
 which had been lodged against the presentee. But is that at all 
 analogous to the case of Prof. Smith? In the former case it was 
 simply an administrative act of the Commission, probably then 
 within their competency, to prevent, so far as they could, the 
 Church suffering prcjuilicc from the illegal and contumacious 
 action of one who was defying the law of the Church, and who was 
 not in their eyes the minister of the jiarish at all; and in the other 
 case it is the Commission originating a case of discipline, and in 
 the exercise of that discipline suspending a minister — a professor 
 — from the exercise of an office to which, admittedly, he has been 
 duly appointed, and of which he cannot and ought not to be de- 
 prived except according to the ordinary rules of the Church. 
 
 Again, in the Marnoch case, the Strathbogie ministers who were 
 suspended had not only declined to obey the lawful instructions 
 of the Church, but in defiance of these orders had proceeded 
 with the intrusion of Mr. Edwards; and the point attempted to be 
 made here is that as the Commission at a special meeting sus- 
 pended these ministers, so it was competent for them in October 
 last to instruct Prof Smith to abstain from teaching; but the cases 
 are not parallel, for the Marnoch case had been the subject of 
 consideration in the previous Assembly, and they had specially 
 remitted the whole case to the Commission, with full powers to do 
 ever}'thing they did. Indeed that this was the case is evident from 
 what took place in the subsequent Assembly, when the authority 
 of the Commission was challenged. For the issue then raised was 
 whether the remit covered what had been done, and the Assembly 
 decided in the affirmative. Instead, therefore, of the Marnoch 
 case being a precedent in favour of the present procedure, it is a 
 direct authority against it, and substantiates this, that the Commis- 
 sion require a special remit from the Assembly before dealing with 
 any new cause. 
 
 You will notice that my resolution does not express any opinion 
 regarding the soundness or unsoundness of Professor .Smith's views, 
 and is entirely confined to the action of the Commission, ^^'hat we 
 ask, and what we as office-bearers are entitled to require, is that in this 
 age of searching inquiry and perplexing doubt the light should be let 
 in and not excluded, and that when the enemies of our Christian 
 faith are assaulting us with arguments on many points of doctrine 
 and scripture, we should have the chance, at least, of hearing the 
 answers which the competent ministers and professors of our 
 Church have to offer us for our comfort. I for one feel my strong 
 need of such assistance; and when, in a reverent and conscientious 
 spirit, one of our teachers is, amid the darkness incident to our lot, 
 reaching towards the light, and trying to point the way, I must 
 decline, and I ask you to decline, under whatever pretext the plea 
 may be presented, to be a party to his summary condemnation, 
 in the vain hope of conserving the truth by foolishly stifling 
 inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Robert Rule said — You will have observed that the 
 
19 
 
 resolution raises two questions, tlic one relative to an individual 
 office-bearer, the other relative to the Presbyterian government of 
 the Church. 
 
 The first question may be put thus: Was the procedure of the 
 Commission characterized by justice to the office-bearer with whom 
 it dealt? And the second: Did the Commission respect the right 
 of the Presbytery to be the court of first instance, according to the 
 customs of the Church? 
 
 Now we all know, and we all glory in the knowledge, that in 
 our civil and criminal tribunals the principles of justice underlie 
 the forms of procedure at every step — that these are designed with 
 a special view to protect from an arbitrary judgment on the one 
 hand, and the power of an impatient prosecutor on the other. 
 When a case has been conducted according to these forms the 
 judge applies the law according to the evidence led, and this is 
 what we know by the name of justice in our system of jurisprudence. 
 But in our ecclesiastical courts we have a right to expect not only 
 this, but something more. Parties are here tried by brethren, and 
 are entitled to brotherliness as well as legal justice. And this is no 
 mere sentiment, but an essential part of justice, especially in ad- 
 ministering laws which are not codified, as in the American churches, 
 but are in great part traditional. 
 
 Mark, then, the significance of the question raised in the resolu- 
 tion. It is not, " Were the proceedings of the Commission char- 
 acterized by brotherliness?" but bare "justice." Now, I submit 
 that this is demanding for Professor Robertson Smith less than he 
 is entitled to. There is much difference of opinion as to whether 
 he got bare justice, but I have never heard one voice raised on 
 behalf of the Commission to say that he was treated with justice 
 plus brotherliness. Therefore in the only sense in which the 
 Church of Christ is at liberty to interpret the word, as applied 
 within her courts, he did not get justice. 
 
 Take these instances. In the Assembly of 1839 a debate on 
 the non-intrusion question, led by Dr. Chalmers, issued in the 
 appointment of a committee to confer with the government. When 
 the names of the committee were read next morning it was seen 
 that all parties in the house were represented. Even Dr. Cook's 
 was there, until he retjuested it to be withdrawn. But there was 
 no such liberality shown in our August Commission. True, the 
 minority were allowed to add such names as they chose to the 
 one-sided committee nominated by Dr. Wilson, but that allowance 
 was practically withdrawn by the subsequent appointment of a sub- 
 committee entirely one-sided, and who became responsible for the 
 condemnatory report submitted to the October Commission. But 
 especially was unbrotherliness manifested in refusing to confer with 
 Professor Robertson Smith, in defiance of the law of the Church, 
 for which in this instance we can give chapter and verse, in Matthew 
 1 8th and 15 th. 
 
 We do not say there was injustice done to Professor Smith by 
 
20 
 
 the Commission taking up the memorials. Some step was neces- 
 sary to allay the alarm allci^ed to exist — and this is the central 
 pivot round which the whole circle of discussion revolves, — what 
 was to be done? Surely to decide first whether this was the old 
 case. If so, it was closed by the deliverance of last Assembly. 
 But if not, and it was decided that new matter had emerged calling 
 for fresh punitive and repressive measures, then the answer should 
 have been the dignified one given by the town-clerk to the shout- 
 ing multitude in the theatre of Ephesus, " The law is open, and 
 there are deputies, let them implead one another," which being 
 applied to the present case would read — " The Presbytery of Aber- 
 deen is open, and there are Commissioners, let them deal with the 
 matter." 
 
 To bring out the irregularity of the jiroceedings which actually 
 took place in the Commission, let us suppose the new articles 
 complained of had been written by another delinquent, say a 
 member of the Presbytery of Glasgow, and the Commission had 
 proceeded to suspend him from oftice, without any form of trial, 
 till the meeting of Assembly in May, would not that same 
 Presbytery, which yesterday decided there was no injustice done 
 to Professor Smith, have risen to a man to rescue their brother 
 from so summary an injustice? I beg to second the resolution. 
 
 Professor M'Kendrick said — Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
 the resolution that has been intrusted to me is as follows : — " That, 
 by straining the constitution of the Church, as has been done in 
 this case, the position of every office-bearer has been threatened 
 and rendered precarious, the time-honoured forms of our Presby- 
 terian government have been brought into discredit, while ground 
 is given for the reproach that a Church free from State control is 
 unable to conduct her affairs in a grave crisis with due regard to 
 the principles of justice." 
 
 I Avould have been glad had this resolution been allotted to one 
 with more experience in ecclesiastical affairs than I have had, as 
 the cause I have to plead may suffer in my hands, not, however, 
 from any inherent weakness in itself, or from any want of convic- 
 tion on my own part of the justness of the issue. Had I con- 
 sulted entirely my own inclinations, you would not have had to 
 listen to me to-night, because the work I have to do takes me out 
 of the field of discussion in matters of practical politics either in 
 Church or State, except when a grave crisis occurs in the affairs of 
 either. Then I consider it to be the duty of every citizen and of 
 every churchman to take his fair share of duty and responsibility. 
 AVhen I was asked, therefore, to move the resolution I have just 
 read, I at once complied, because, in my opinion, such a crisis in 
 the affairs of our Church has occurred as to make it incumbent on 
 every office-bearer and on every member to take his share in the 
 conflict, and to do all he can to secure the victory of the cause he 
 espouses. When a man feels that an injustice has been done to 
 a member of his Church, that the principles of his Church have 
 
21 
 
 been dragged tlirough the dust, and that unless a vigorous protest 
 be madethere is the possibihty of a similar injustice being done to 
 himself, he must lay aside all feelings of personal convenience and 
 come forward manfully to do battle in favour of what he thinks is 
 a right cause. 
 
 You are all already so well acquainted with the recent ])rocced- 
 ings in the case of Professor Robertson Smith as to make it un- 
 necessary to describe them in detail. We are not here to-night to 
 discuss the merits of the case. That must be i)ostponed to a later 
 stage of the proceedings. ^Vhether we agree with Professor 
 Robertson Smith in the criticisms of Scripture he has put forward 
 or not, we are not here to discuss the question of whether his 
 views are right or wrong, but whether he has been treated in 
 accordance with the judicial rules of the Church, which are 
 founded on the principles of justice; or, at all events, with the 
 fairness and courtesy which we would all expect were we in a 
 similar position ourselves. This view of the matter I am well 
 aware will not satisfy some of our opponents. So convinced are 
 they that the views given expression to by Professor Smith disturb 
 what they term the peace of the Church, that they seem deter- 
 mined to check him in the meantime, and eventually to get rid of 
 him, even by measures which may not be in entire accordance 
 with the rules of the Church or with the principles of judicial pro- 
 cedure. They seem to think that a suspension of the order of 
 judicial procedure, or, at all events, a grave alteration in the forms 
 of procedure, is called for in the circumstances, and that Professor 
 Robertson Smith should be dealt with in a summary way. They go 
 on the principle that in the particular circumstances of the case 
 the laws regulating the action of the Church may be strained to 
 their utmost point of endurance, and, in the opinion of some, be 
 actually broken, if only the ]:)erson accused be condemned. Their 
 position is that the peace of the Church is so seriously disturbed 
 iDy the promulgation of the views of Professor Smith, even in the 
 pages of an Encyclopaedia used for consultation, and in the pages 
 of a periodical read only by experts, as to call for extreme measures ; 
 it is to them a matter of the highest importance to prevent Professor 
 Smith from teaching his students ; he must be checked in some 
 way in the meantime, and, if possible, be ejected from the Church. 
 I can put no other construction on the words that have fallen from 
 certain prominent men, notably by Dr. Kennedy of Dingwall, who 
 has stated in very clear, if slightly coarse, terms what his party 
 aim at. 
 
 Now, sir, I believe that such opponents are acting from a con- 
 scientious, but at the same time a mistaken, sense of duty. What 
 is called the voice of conscience is not always right. If it were, 
 many of the bitter disagreements of mankind, especially in matters 
 of religion, would not have occurred. In the history of the Church 
 there are many examples of unjust and cruel things done in obedi- 
 ence to what were believed by their perpetrators to be the dictates 
 
22 
 
 of conscience. 'I'he light of conscience in such a case as the one 
 we are considering can only be a trustworthy guide when it acts 
 upon a recognition of ascertained facts and in accordance with the 
 principles of justice. If conscience leads a man to do what is 
 unjust, if it causes him wilfully to shut his eyes to the evidence of 
 facts clearly ascertained, then it is a wrong guide. It seems almost 
 unnecessary to say that our opponents are conscientious and hon- 
 ourable men, but still it must be said, as their actions may have an 
 interpretation put on them of a dififerent kind. In the affairs of 
 private life we would find them to be gentlemen, and we cannot 
 believe that in the management of the afl'airs of the Church they 
 do not try to sustain the same character. If this were possible; 
 if it could be that men having a notable place in the Christian 
 Church were actuated by improper motives in a public matter 
 affecting the Church, and did things deliberately in a high-handed 
 and tyrannical way, I confess this would be a severe blow to mj' 
 conception of what a Christian man should be, and I would also 
 have grave doubts as to the soundness of our present ecclesiastical 
 system. I cannot but believe, however, that those leaders of our 
 Church who have taken up a position of antagonism to us are 
 actuated by good motives; they fancy they are to save the Church 
 from the inroad of what they regard as dangerous views of hoi}- 
 Scripture; they think the peace of Christians is disturbed, and that 
 the energies of the Church are diverted from their proper work; and 
 therefore they are prejiared to take extreme measures to put down 
 the disturber of the peace. 
 
 My position regarding these men is that in so acting they have 
 made a most profound mistake. I accjuit them of any desire to 
 be unjust, but, in their mistaken zeal, they have been unwittingly 
 so, and tliey have done a grievous wrong, not only to the individual 
 specially implicated, but to the Church at large. And I am sure 
 it is a matter of deep regret to us all that men who, by their age 
 and experience, by their long service in the Church, by their con- 
 nection in some cases with the early struggles of the Church, now 
 matters of history, and by their character as able ministers and 
 laymen, men who should have led the Church through this grave 
 crisis with calmness and dignity, with a sense of justice and fair- 
 ness, have failed us in the hour of panic and alarm, and have 
 resorted to measures of which we cannot approve. Instead of 
 being our guides through this troublesome matter, they have lost 
 their way and have led us into difficulties of the most intricate 
 kind, and, besides, they have compromised the position of the 
 Church in the eyes of all fair-thinking men. I cannot help ex- 
 pressing my feeling, that had we at the present juncture the pre- 
 sence of Thomas Chalmers, with his breadth of view and eloquent 
 persuasiveness, or of Robert Candlish, with his mental perspicuity, 
 logical acumen, and sense of rightness, we would never have been 
 in the present difficulty. Such men would have been strong in a 
 time of panic, and they would have guided the Church in a spirit 
 
23 
 
 of fairness and of liberal dealing. Our deep regret is that their 
 mantle has apparently not {iiWcn on those whom we naturally 
 looked upon as their successors. 
 
 What, sir, is the present state of things ? One of the professors 
 of our Church has stated briefly some of the results of modern 
 criticism regarding the ]>ible in an Encyclopaedia, which is sup- 
 posed to be a work to which anyone can refer for the most recent 
 opinions on any subject. In any other topic excejJt such as relates 
 to theology, no one would suppose for a moment that the author 
 of the article accejjted, or put forward as his own, the statements 
 he makes, but would take it for granted that he was endeavouring 
 to hold up a mirror to reflect the best and most accurate opinions 
 of the time. In such a work, also, brevity and conciseness of 
 style are expected, and complete proof of any statement made 
 cannot be given. The professor is taken to task for the opinions 
 stated in the article. They are assumed to be his own opinions, 
 and after a long and protracted trial, in which the case is buffeted 
 from one court to another, backwards and forwards, by the ecclesi- 
 astical battledore for several years, at last it is decided virtually in 
 the professor's favour. I use the word virtually by choice, because 
 there is no doubt of the fact, and I think we ought courageously 
 to recognize it, that the result was largely owing to special circum- 
 stances; and that had our opponents seen eye to eye, the result 
 might have been difterent. This fact largely accounts for their 
 determined hostility now; they wish to retrieve the ground they 
 lost on that occasion. At all events the professor was practically 
 absolved. He was acquitted; he was admonished to be judicious 
 in the future as to the promulgation of statements of an unsettling 
 character; he took the admonition in good part, and after a short 
 speech, which was natural, indicative of deep personal feeling, 
 showing a grateful spirit, and breathing a desire to do in the future 
 what was best for the good of the Church, the case came to an end. 
 
 Next morning, when the newspapers spread the intelligence far 
 and wide, the feelings aroused were mainly of two kinds. Many 
 were disappointed and were deeply grieved at what they looked 
 upon as a retrograde movement of the Church. These were our 
 opponents. But even they probably thought that the case was at 
 an end, and that the troublesome professor had got such a lesson 
 as would keep things quiet for some time to come. On the other 
 hand, many rejoiced. They felt that whether or not the professor's 
 views were correct, something had been gained in the direction of 
 freedom of personal opinion for every oftice-bearer, and more espe- 
 cially a certain latitude in critical matters to our professors, Avho 
 are not only the teachers of our youth, but our investigators into 
 all matters of Biblical truth. This feeling was not confined to 
 members of our own Church; it was shared in by members of many 
 other churches. It is surely a significant thing that, whatever may 
 be our ecclesiastical differences, liberal men of all churches find a 
 common platform in searching after the truth; and come from 
 
24 
 
 Avhatever quarter it may, the truth, or what hi the judgment of men 
 is aceepted as such, will be hailed with joyous acclamation, and 
 any attempt to suppress it in any church will at once be resisted 
 by all men of right feeling in other churches. 
 
 But this period of comparative repose was unfortunately des- 
 tined to be soon disturbed. Within two or three weeks after the 
 date of the last meeting of the Assembly, another volume of the 
 Encyclopedia was published containing new articles written by Mr. 
 Smith. These articles were written some time last year, and I 
 believe they were sent in to the editor of the Encyclopaedia in 
 October, 1879. As corrected by the author, they were of course 
 incorporated in the volume, and at the time of the deliverance of 
 the General Assembly, although they were not published, they were 
 absolutely beyond his control. On the deliverance of the As- 
 sembly, though he had gone straight from the Assembly Hall to 
 the otiice of the publishers and had recjuested them to exclude 
 certain articles which might be obnoxious, this proposal could not 
 have been carried out. I have ground, indeed, for believing that 
 at that very time the volume had actually reached America. 
 
 But two questions will be asked— (i) Why did Professor Smith 
 write such articles whilst his case was under discussion? and (2) 
 why did he not refer to them when he accepted the deliverance of 
 the Assembly ? Now, it is more easy to ask these questions than 
 to answer them; and I observe that our opponents put a most 
 ungenerous construction on Professor Smith's conduct. To answer 
 them satisfactorily is to suppose that Professor Smith was constantly 
 on the alert for all possible contingencies, and arrayed the chief 
 affairs of his life with reference to these. When he wrote these 
 articles he may not have contemplated the possibility of their 
 being reviewed by the Church, because, if the case were decided 
 against him, they would not come under the jurisdiction of the 
 Church; and if, on the other hand, it were decided in his favour, 
 he might naturally expect that nothing more would be heard of 
 the matter, especially as nothing was stated in these articles which 
 was beyond what might be found in the first articles, or inferred 
 from these. Or the case may be put in another way : either the 
 views contained in the first articles were in accordance with the 
 Standards of the Church, or they were not. If it were decided by 
 the Assembly that they were not, then Professor Smith knew that 
 he would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Church as regards the 
 second articles, because they would be published after the meeting 
 of Assembly. If, on the other hand, the Assembly decided that 
 the views in the first articles could be held by Professor Smith 
 consistent with his position in the Church, then he might reason- 
 ably expect he would not be tried over again for the publication of 
 another series of articles containing views of a similar kind to those 
 in the first. 
 
 But, sir, the momentous time came when he was at the bar of 
 the Assembly after the declaration of the vote; he heard the words 
 
25 
 
 of the moderator, and rejjlied to these. Why (hd he not advert 
 to these articles then? 1 know nothinp^ of Professor Robertson 
 Smith's feehngs on that occasion; but I (an readily conjecture, in 
 a most natural way, what they may have been. His mind was 
 filled with thankfulness that at last the Churcii had practically 
 acquitted him, and he looked forward to his proper work at the 
 college at Aberdeen with buoyancy and hope. He gras|)ed the 
 position, and in a kw brief sentences indicated his conception of 
 what he had yet to do in the service of the Church. If you think 
 of the circumstances in which he was placed, and in the light of 
 all that happened ])reviously, you will have little difficulty in under- 
 standing why he made no mention of the articles at this lime 
 Avithout construing his conduct into an act of contumacy, as has 
 been done by the Commission. So far as he was concerned at 
 that time, the thing had been done, and could not be recalled; on 
 the decision of the Assembly, I think he had a reasonable ground 
 for assuming that no further action v.'ould be taken in the matter, 
 and that consequently the wisest thing he could do was to hold his 
 peace. Had he done otherwise; had he then and there stated 
 that other articles were about to be published, I am quite at a loss 
 to say what would have happened, particularly as the Assembly 
 had committed itself before it gave him the opportunity of making 
 a statement. 
 
 But, sir, suppose for a moment that Professor Smith had stated 
 at the bar of the Assembly that whilst he accepted the decision 
 thankfully, and hoped in the future to engage in work of a kind 
 not likely to cause controversy, he was sorry to inform them that 
 other articles might shortly appear which, although of a similar 
 kind to those they had just been considering, would probably give 
 offence to some of the brethren. Su])pose he had said this, what 
 could the Assembly have done? It could not reverse the decision 
 it had just given; it had no power to do that. But even sup- 
 posing it had reopened the case, it could do nothing with the 
 forthcoming articles until they were published. Altogether, sir, I 
 think Professor Smith acted prudently in saying nothing about 
 them. At all events, his conduct is capable of a generous exjila- 
 nation without a charge of contumacy being hurled against him, 
 and I am convinced tliat throughout the whole of this part of the 
 transaction Professor Smith acted in perfect good faith. 
 
 In a short time the articles appeared, and a hue and cry was set 
 up through the whole country, " Here is the irrepressible Professor 
 again!" Immediately a number of men in various Presbyteries, 
 smarting under the defeat they had so recently sustained, moved 
 their respective Presbyteries to approach the Commission with 
 reference to the case. They were successful in this move, although 
 it might have been possible to have sent in to the Commission 
 representatiohs from many other Presbyteries requesting it to do 
 nothing in the matter. The Commission met and appointed a 
 committee " maturely to examine" the writings of Professor Smith. 
 
26 
 
 "and the letter of Professor Smith, and to consider their bearing 
 upon the accepted behef and teaching of the Church;" and "to 
 report their opinion and advice to an /'// hunc cffcctum meeting of 
 Commission," &c. This C'ommittee of Commission appointed a 
 sub-committee to look more specially into the writings of Pro- 
 fessor Smith, and to report to the committee. The sub-committee 
 reported to the committee, condemning Professor Smith's writings, 
 and this report the committee adopted subject to the protest of 
 certain members of committee. The committee reported to the 
 Commission, and the Commission adopted the report, and after 
 hearing Professor Smith, passed a resolution condemning all his 
 views, and at the same time "instructing" him not to teach his 
 class during the approaching winter, which practically meant sus- 
 pension from his ofhce. 
 
 These are the general facts, and at first sight, and as stated in a 
 general way, as I have done, they seem to indicate a fair line of 
 conduct. But unfortunately, when we scrutinize them more care- 
 fully, we find that throughout the whole proceeding every ungener- 
 ous advantage was taken of Professor Smith whicli could be devised 
 by men who strained the forms of procedure for this purpose. 
 Instead of approaching the matter widi judicial fairness; instead 
 of the leaders of our Church suggesting the formation of a com- 
 mittee to investigate the articles complained of comprised of men 
 from all sides of the house — of men likely to represent various 
 shades of opinion regarding the matters under dispute, and of men 
 who, by their learning and training, were fitted to judge as experts 
 of their soundness or unsoundness— they showed the spirit of 
 bitter partisans from the first movement, and nominated as mem- 
 bers of committee men who were notoriously against Professor 
 Smith, and who would have had no difficulty in bringing in a 
 verdict of guilty in a quarter of an hour. No doubt Sir Henry 
 Moncrieff asked Mr. Smith's supporters to nominate members pre- 
 sumed to be favourable to Professor Smith, and this was to some 
 extent done. But I ask, sir, why was the matter entered on in this 
 spirit at all? Why was tlie jury, and I must say the bench, packed 
 in this way? Why did they not enter on this business with a desire 
 to get at the bottom of it, and to advise the Church after the fairest 
 and fullest deliberation? 
 
 But without going over all the steps of procedure, you will re- 
 member that this committee appointed a sub-committee, in which 
 there was no friend of Professor Smith's; that no opportunity was 
 given to Professor Smith to explain or defend his views; that no 
 conference was held with him in a spirit of brotherhood such as 
 should exist among Christian men; that when his friends dissented 
 from the finding of the sub-committee, the printing of the dissents 
 was refused; and that Professor Smith was furnished with the 
 report of the committee on the very morning of the day when the 
 Commission took up his case. Now, sir, I know that Sir Henry 
 Moncrieff and Dr. Wilson have attempted to explain away these 
 
27 
 
 facts. I do not think it worth while to enter into an examination 
 of their explanations, as they appear to me weak and insufficient, 
 and as I think a mere statement of wliat has been done carries its 
 condemnation with it. 
 
 Now, sir, if there is anythini:; of which we arc proud in this 
 country, it is the unspotted purity of our systems of judicial jjro- 
 ccdure. Our judges are men above suspicion, and our legal forms, 
 which represent the accumulated experience of past and present 
 generations, are all designed to give the accused a fair trial. Whilst 
 the majesty of the law is held over us, and to it we must give 
 obedience, we can with confidence appeal to it if we feel aggrieved. 
 The greatest criminal, the man who may commit a crime the 
 mention of which sends a thrill of horror through the community, 
 has justice meted out to him. There is no haste in bringing about 
 his trial; he is served with the accusation in proper form, and in 
 proper time; he is furnished with a list of the witnesses who are 
 prepared to testify against him; he is asked to make any personal 
 statement or explanation in his own defence; he is held to be inno- 
 cent until he has been proved to be guilty; he is tried by an im- 
 partial jury, and condemned or acquitted by a righteous judge. 1 
 ask the question, has the same justice been shown to Professor 
 Smith? Certainly not. Such a high-handed method of dealing 
 with an accused person as has been carried out by the Commission 
 could not have happened in an ordinary court of justice; and more 
 than this, I feel confident that if a civil court were appealed to in 
 this case — a proceeding which, of course, would be inconsistent 
 with our position as Free Churchmen — the verdict would be given 
 against the Commission. It w^ould be held that the terms of the 
 contract between the Church and Professor Smith had been violated, 
 and that he had not been fairly tried. 
 
 But, sir, there is still another aspect of the matter to w-hich I 
 draw your attention. We are Presbyterians. We are so because 
 we think the form of Church government called Presbyterianism is 
 in conformity with the Word of God, and because consequently it is a 
 system likely to secure order and justice in the Church, ^\'hen I first 
 looked into the matter of Church government, and compared one 
 system with another, I recollect well how I was impressed by the 
 fairness of the Presbyterian system. Here is a system, thought I, by 
 which a man will have a fair trial if he is accused of offending the 
 kxws of the Church, There can be no ecclesiastical tyranny on the 
 one hand, nor democratic tyranny on the other. His case will be 
 initiated in the humblest court, say in the kirk-session, and he can 
 carry it on by appeal, if he feel aggrieved, from session to Presby- 
 tery, from Presbytery to Synod, from Synod to Assemby. I con- 
 fess I quite overlooked the Commission, which is a court hitherto 
 known chiefly to ecclesiastical lawyers, and to those deeply inter- 
 ested in such affairs. Well, what seemed to me the essence of 
 justice in the Presbyterian system was that in it there could be no 
 
28 
 
 higli-haiidcd dealing. No i)ope or bishop could deal with us in 
 an arbitrary way ; if wc erred we should at least have a fair trial. 
 
 Now, if the proceedings of the Commission are homologated, 
 my faith in Presbyterianism will sustain a rude shock. Its pro- 
 ceedings have been most arbitrary; and if we fl'/r to have an arbi- 
 trary jurisdiction perhaps we might, after all, be better off with an 
 excellent and enlightened bishop, than with the dictation of a few 
 elderly gentlemen whose zeal on behalf of the Church has outrun 
 their discretion. Lut, sir, in the Free Church of Scotland we are, 
 in common with other Dissenting bodies, in a more special con- 
 dition. "We hold that we can settle our own ecclesiastical disputes 
 ajxirt from the Civil courts. Surely that is an additional reason 
 why we should be most careful in all our judicial proceedings, and 
 give not the faintest shadow of a ])rete.\t for saying that we cannot 
 be just. Had this case occurred in the Established Church of 
 Scotland, although this could hardly have been possible, as some 
 of our University Theological professors could probably not be 
 suspended from teaching by the Church Courts; but, I say, suj)- 
 posing it had hapi)ened, the procedure of our Commission would 
 never have been followed. Such unfairness, such a mixture of 
 delay and of haste, such arbitrary dealing, could not have occurred. 
 Professor Robertson Smith would there have had counsel to defend 
 him, and you may depend upon it that if counsel had been sup- 
 l)lied with a copy of the report of that committee only on the 
 morning of the meeting of Commission, he would have at once 
 craved for delay to prepare his defence, and it would have been 
 granted. 
 
 Now, sir, if wc take judicial procedure into our own hands, we must 
 show that we can follow it fairly and without hardship to the accused. 
 I feel strongly on this aspect of the case. I feel, sir, that our leaders 
 have done the Church a grievous wrong by exposing her to the 
 scorn of other Churches, and I think that in respect of their con- 
 duct they should be dealt with and admonished by the Presby- 
 teries of the bounds in which they live. There is not much chance 
 of that, I fear, but such is my oi)inion. 
 
 Sir, I have little more to say to commend the resolution to this 
 meeting. I have studiously avoided entering on the merits of the 
 ([uestion, but I wish to make an observation of a relevant kind. 
 I wish to ])Ut the questions seriously before our leaders: Can the 
 Church readily afford to exclude such a man as Professor Robertson 
 Smith? Have we so many such that we can aftord to lose him? 
 How would his exclusion affect not only our other professors, but 
 those men who tr}% however humbly, to discern the signs of the 
 times? 'I'here are questions pressing on all thoughtful men in the 
 Church and out of it, from the side of science and philosophy, 
 which are a])parently at variance with what we hold to be the 
 truth. It will not do to ignore these questions, and to treat as 
 castaways those who, in their silent moments, feci the pressure of 
 them and yearn for an answer; indeed, I go further, and I assert 
 
29 
 
 that such (jiiestions cannot l)e ignored. We must meet them 
 courageously, behcving that the (iod of Trutli, the Source of all 
 'I'ruth and the Fountain of all Knowledge, cannot contradict 
 Himself, and that the statements of revelation, and those given us 
 by science, and those which are the product of the best of human 
 thought cannot be irreconcilable, but that a true unity will be 
 found pervading them all. To discover this harmony, this unity, 
 and to reconcile men to acce[)t what, from their point of view, they 
 cannot at i)resent accept, is surely a noble task. So to put the 
 doctrines of our religion as to win over many noble and earnest 
 minds to their acceptance is surely work to be encouraged by the 
 ('hurch. 
 
 Now, sir, I know of few more likely to do work of this kind 
 than the man that some of our brethren would drive out of the 
 Church. He commands the esteem of scientific and literary men; 
 his splendid attainments and native power of mind, and I may add 
 his goodness of heart, have won their regard, and to many of them, 
 I daresay, it is a matter of surprise how he can be amongst us, 
 because they think we are narrow and unsympathetic in our views. 
 Professor Smith, and such men as he, were they only treated with 
 generosity by the Church, are the men likely to hel^) us in such 
 matters; and can the Church afford to cast such men beyond her 
 pale; nay, more, can the Church reconcile such an action with her 
 duty to her Head ? Not long ago Mr. Gladstone, in his address 
 to the students of the University of Glasgow, pointed out in words 
 of eloquence that in the settlement of some religious questions it 
 would need all the aid the wisest heads and best hearts amongst 
 us could give. With this sentiment I cordially concur, and I feel 
 that the loss of Professor Robertson Smith would, in this respect, 
 be a grave injury to the Church, not merely to our Church, but to 
 the cause of Christian thought and enlightenment. Why cut him 
 off from his moorings, and let him float away, we know not 
 whither? Surely it would be better to keep him, in the firm belief 
 that more mature scholarship will rectify what may be wrong in his 
 views, and that time will only confirm what may be right. 
 
 In conclusion, sir, I would express the hope that the leaders of 
 our Church will consider the meaning and import of this meeting. 
 We are here as a body of laymen, in the enjoyment of what we 
 hold to be our constitutional privilege in the circumstances, to 
 ])rotest against the injustice and unfairness of the Commission in 
 dealing with this case. We do not ask Professor Smith to be con- 
 demned or acquitted; we ask only that he be fairly tried. If his 
 \ iews are inconsistent with the Standards of the Church, it is fair 
 that he should leave us; but if they are not, as he has always 
 alleged, then upon what ground, do I ask, is he to be expelled? 
 Our leaders may depend upon it, that no high-handed measures, 
 and no measures of mere expediency for the supposed good of the 
 Church, will satisfy us. We wish justice to be done, and so long 
 
30 
 
 as \vc remain in llie Church we will do all in our power to see that 
 it shall be clone. 
 
 The leaders in the Church during the present crisis have a 
 grave responsibility, and I believe they act under it. For those 
 of them I happen to know my respect is sincere, and it has been 
 always a difficulty with me to understand how such men could 
 have acted as they have done. For example, the attitude of Dr. 
 Begg towards these questions has hidicrto been consistent. He is 
 an uncompromising oi)iionent; but uj) to this time one always 
 knew where he was. I heard him denounce the expediency 
 measure of last Assembly, and ask for probation or a fair trial of 
 the case on the merits, and I honoured him for the straightforward- 
 way in which he spoke. AVhat glamour has come over him now? 
 But the man to whom I looked for help in this emergency was Dr. 
 Rainy. Where is he, and what is he doing? I would earnestly 
 trust that after such expressions of opinions as have been made 
 to-night he will see it to be his duty to take up the position of 
 leader of the more liberal party in the Church, and guide us 
 through this jierilous crisis. At all events, on him there lies a 
 heavy responsibility, inasmuch as he is the man likely to clear up 
 this difficulty if he will only tr}'. But if he will not lead and 
 exercise the legitimate power of his authority he will lose his 
 great inlluence. and he will miss the opportunity of doing a great 
 service to the Church. Come what may, he and all those in our 
 Church who have taken a leading part in our affairs, now know 
 that we disapprove of the actions of the Commission, because the}"" 
 are oppressive and unfair to Professor Smith, because they injure 
 the reputation of the Church, and because they are fraught with 
 peril to ourselves. "^J'he position of every office-bearer, and, indeed, 
 of every member, is threatened if such proceedings are homologated 
 and used as a precedent- and I call upon the laity of the Free 
 Church of vScotland to rise as one man and repudiate the action of 
 the Commission. Our opponents may depend upon it that they 
 fight in a losing cause; they may be jubilant over a success in the 
 meantime in Presbyteries, l.)ut time and the advance of human 
 thought and enlightenment is against them, and they may rest 
 assured that at all events the principles of justice we contend for 
 in this resolution will ultimately be triumphant. Already there are 
 signs of this. Of such signs we ma\- say — 
 
 " They nii,<;lil iKit seem thy propliecics, 
 JJiit spiritual presentiments. 
 And such refraction of events 
 As often rises ere they rise." 
 
 Mr. James Millar seconded the resolution. 
 
 INIr. John Morison moved — "That this meeting resolves to 
 embody the foregoing resolutions with reasons in a memorial to 
 the General Assembly, to be signed by office-bearers of the Free 
 
31 
 
 Church in and around Glasgow, and appoint a committee for the 
 purpose of preparing the memorial, getting signatures, and securing 
 speakers to present and support the memorial at the bar of the 
 Assembly, and to watch over further proceedings in the case, and 
 take necessary action." He said— After the enthusiastic way in 
 which the previous resolutions had been received it might be sup- 
 posed that the ol)ject of the meeting had been accomplished; but 
 this resolution went a step further, and proposed to give practical 
 effect to them by taking prompt and decided action. They were 
 not there that night to give exjiression to the effervescence of a 
 mere passing excitement. The resolution committed them to keep 
 the matter steadily in hand and to bring it before the Assembly. 
 During the proceedings in the CHasgow Free Presbytery on the 
 previous day, he heard one of the leaders challenge the right, or at 
 least the propriety, of holding such meetings as this. Dr. Adam 
 asked why laymen were holding meetings over the country, and 
 why they were not content with the representation they had in the 
 Presbyteries. He heard that with amazement, and he wondered 
 if Dr. Adam had forgotten The History of the Ten Years' Conflict, 
 or if he was willing to throw aside this great instrument that had 
 been so powerful in former days in the hands of the leaders of the 
 Church in creating and guiding a sound public opinion on such 
 questions. He hoped the day was far distant when the laity of 
 the Free Church would abandon this manner of letting themselves 
 be heard, and ho])cd that in this instance they would make them- 
 selves heard in a very firm and emphatic manner. 
 
 Mr. G. W. Clark seconded the motion. 
 
 All the resolutions were carried by acclamation. 
 
 The following gentlemen were named as the committee to carr)- 
 out the terms of the fourth resolution: — Mr. James Campbell of 
 Tulliechewan; Mr. J. B. Mirriees (Lord-Dean of Guild); Mr. Jas. 
 Stevenson, Dr. Anderson Kirkwood, Dr. W. G. Blackie, Mr. John 
 M'Clure, Sheriff iMurra\', Mr. Jas. Arthur, Mr. A. S. Eaird," I^Ir. 
 Sam. Barclay, Mr. Gilbert Beith, Mr. Geo. AV. Clark, Mr. Campbell 
 Douglas, Mr. Jas. Drummond, Mr. AA^alter Duncan, ^ylr. Matthew 
 Fairiey, Mr. Alex. A. Fergusson, Mr. Peter Gardner, Mr. John 
 Hart, Dr. M'Kendrick, IMr. Geo. M. Kerr, Mr. Walter M'Farlane 
 Mr. Jas. Millar, Mr. Alex. Mitchell, Mr. Jas. L. Mitchell, Mr.' 
 John Morison, Mr. Robt. Mowat, Dr. Patrick. Dr John Pirie 
 Mr. Robt. Rule, and Mr. Alex. AVatt. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, of Tulliechewan, proposed a vote of thanks to 
 Dr. Blackie for presiding, which being heartily accorded, the Rev. 
 Mr. Scr}'mgeour pronounced the benediction. 
 
The follo'.ving is copy of the Memorial prep.ired by the Com- 
 mittee appointed at the meeting: — 
 
 To the \'ener.il)le Tlio (joncral Assembly of tlic Krcc Church of Scotland. 
 
 Tlie Memorial of the uiicler.signe<l l-'lders and Deacons of the I'Vee Church 
 in and around Glasjjow, Humbly Siicweth : 
 
 That your Memorialists desire to record their gratitude for the settlement of the 
 case of Professor W. R. Smith at last (ieiieral Assembly, and view with great con- 
 cern the practical reversal of lliat settlement by a subsequent meeting of Com- 
 mission. 
 
 That while expressing no opinioi upon questions of Hiblical Criticism, your 
 Memorialists regard the actii)n of the Commission which met on the nth of August 
 aiul on the 27II1 of October, 1880, in connection with Prof. W. R. Smith as being 
 contrary to the principles of justice, and to the law and customs of the Church, in 
 respect of the following among other jiarticulars: 
 
 1. In respect they virtually ori^jinate-l a ])rocess against Professor \\'. R. Smith 
 
 or certain writings of his, and remitted these to a Committee in which he 
 had no standing, thereb\ ignoring the primary jurisdiction of the Presby- 
 tery of which he is a member, and where he could have availed himself of 
 his constitutional right of defence. 
 
 2. In respect the Committee so ap])ointed did not fairly represent the state of 
 
 opinion in the Church, and remitted the construction of its draft report, 
 notwithstanding ])rotest, to a sub-committee all the members of which were 
 known to be hostile to the writings of Professor Sniilli, and also refused 
 to print the reasons of dissent by the minority along with its report. 
 
 3. In respect they approved "generally" of a report from this Committee, 
 
 although it not only kept its proceedings secret from I'rofessor Smith, but 
 refused U> give him an opp(jrtunit\' of explaining statements in his writings, 
 about the meaning (;f wliicli members of the Committee were themselves 
 divided in opinion, and of which even the majorit)' could only report that 
 they were filled to ]:)roduce the "imi)ression " that Scripture is not true and 
 divine. 
 
 4. In respect they approved "generally" of a report wh'ch did not make direct 
 
 charges, but condemned tlie w ritings on the vague ground of being fitted 
 to produce certain impressions, antl did so without giving the members of 
 Commission time for the due consideration of the grave and difficult ques- 
 tions involved, or the accused a fair opportunity of explanation or defence. 
 
 5. In respect they proceeded without warrant and without form of judicial pro- 
 
 cess to "instruct" Professor Smith not to teach his classes, thereby prac- 
 tically reversing the decision of the .Assembly, though the Committee had 
 avowedly dealt only witli the writings as distinct from the author, and 
 though the .Assembly had fallen from a libel charging Professor Smith with 
 what are admitted to be "cognate views." 
 
 That by straining the constitution of the Church, as has been done in this ease 
 the position of every ofifice-bcarer has been threatened and rendered precarious, the 
 time-honoured forms of our Presbyterian Government have been brought into dis- 
 credit, while ground has been given for the reproach that a Church free from State 
 control is unable to conduct her aflfltirs in a grave crisis with due regard to the 
 principles of justice. 
 
 .May it therefore j^leasc your X'ener.ible Court, on these and other 
 grounds, which your .Memorialists crave leave to state orally to 
 the .\ssembly, to cxjiress your disajiproval of these proceedings 
 and take such other steps as ia _\our wisdom may seem meet. 
 
• btockton, Colif. 
 
BW5546 .S65R4 
 
 Report of the speeches delivered at a 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00038 7490 
 
 ^/a 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ¥. 
 
 i.J^ 
 
 -^ i^^^^Sli**Jii^* ■