'• ; :■ ■■=■ '■■•■■•■ sKkMbI -■'.-•■■:•:'•••>.•• v: -v- --•;--.*■ .: \ '•••■■'••'•' - ' ■•'■■ 10 - X Sco P- 33 - THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. 35 ' that though there are marked differences of style and lan- ' guage within the Book of Joshua, each style finds its counter- 1 part in some section of the Pentateuch. In the subsequent ' books we find similar phenomena.' Criticism of this kind is very easy, and very worthless. Diversities of style in the writ- ings of a single author are often produced by diversity of sub- jects; and resemblances in the works of different autkors are easily accounted for, if the earlier is the literary model of the later. But Mr Smith says : — ' Such phenomena not only prove ' the futility of any attempt to base a theory of authorship on 1 the present division into books, but suggest that the history, ' as we have it, is not one narrative carried on from age to 1 age by successive additions, but a fusion of several narra- ' tives which partly covered the same ground, and were com- ' bined into unity by an editor. This view is supported by ' the fact that, even as it now stands, the history sometimes ' gives more than one account of the same event, and that the ' Pentateuch often gives several laws on the same subject. . . . 1 Thus the legislation of Exod. xx.-xxiii. is partly repeated in ' chapter xxxiv., and on the Passover and Feast of Unleavened ' Bread we have at least six laws, which, if not really discord- 1 ant, are at least so divergent in form and conception, that ' they cannot be all from the same pen. (Exod. xii. 1-28; ' xiii. 3-10, xxiii. 15, xxiv. 18 ; Lev. xxiii. 5-14 ; Deut. xvi). ' Of historical duplicates, the most celebrated are the two-fold ' history of the Creation and the Elood. . . . The same kind of ' thing is found in the later books; for example, in the ac- ' count of the way in which Saul became king, where it is ' scarcely possible to avoid the conclusion that 1 Sam. xi. 1-11, ' should attach directly to ch. x. 16 (c/. x. 7).' The value of that vaunted ' higher criticism ' Of the Ra- tionalists on which Mr Smith so much depends, and the value of his own critical judgment, may be fairly tested, — and some- thing more may be also tested — by this last instance. It is not a case in which scholarship and learning are requisite ; it is one of which any intelligent reader of the English Bible can form an opinion as w T ell as the most accomplished Hebraist. It is a question simply if the narratives in 1 Sam. x. 1-16, or rather in 1 Sam. ix. i.-x. 16, and 1 Sam. x. 16-27, can be both true, or if one of them must be rejected as fabulous, because inconsistent with the other. The conclusion which Mr Smith deems it hardly possible to avoid, is, however blind he may be to it, one necessarily fatal to all confidence in Old Testament history. But, apart from all such considerations, let every one judge for himself if there is anything in the one narrative iur consistent with the other. When the history of the Creation and the history of the Flood 36 • THE ARTICLE ' BIBLE.' are represented as exliibiting instances of historical duplicates, or twofold histories — if this is to be understood as implying any discrepancy or incoherency in the narratives, which is the sense naturally to be attached to the words used by Mr Smith in the connection in which they occur, — an assumption is made, with- out proof or warrant-, of the soundness of an opinion which has found great favour among Rationalist critics, whose purpose it suits, bat has not met with general or unqualified acceptance am >ng any others, except infidels, who adopt it as suiting their purposes. In the case of the history of the Flood, very acute critical eyes are needed to discern any appearance of a twofold character. And even if it be admitted that there is such repeti- tion in the account of the Creation as to suggest the possibility that the writer of Genesis made use of two old documents, there is nothing in this to militate against the belief that Moses was that writer, or to lead to the opinion that the book is a mere composite production of a comparatively late age. If ' the legislation of Exod. xx.-xxiii. is partly repeated in ' chapter xxxiv.,' a reason for it is at once apparent in the re- newal of the tables, which had been broken, and the recall of the people from the idolatry into which they had lapsed, to the true worship of God. What could be more natural than such a re- petition at such a time ? As for the six laws regarding the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, of which Mr Smith hints a suspicion that they are discordant, and asserts that they are ' at least so divei- 1 gent in form and concejjtion, that they cannot be all from the ' same pen ; ' neither discordance nor divergency is really to be found in them. The first of them (Exod. xii. 1-28) stands by itself, as relating to the institution of the Passover in Egypt ; and the subsequent repetitions of the law, in Exod. xii. 43-49, which Mr Smith has omitted in his enumeration, Exod. xiii. 3-10, etc., are so naturally and appropriately introduced, that, instead of suggesting the idea of diverse authorship, they may be confid- ently referred to as affording proof of unity of authorship. They occur when Moses calls upon the people ever to remember their deliverance from Egypt, and that night ' much to observed unto ' the LORD,' on which the first Passover was eaten; or, in con- nection with laws concerning the keeping of the other great annual leasts, the mutual relations of which with the Passover are still a profitable subject of study for those who desire to know the things of the kingdom of God; or, in prospect of and with special reference to the new conditions in which the Israelites were to be placed after their entrance into the pro- mised land. In no instance is anything enjoined contrary to any former law, nothing is repealed, very Little addition is made, and addition is certainly not divergence. But it is divergence THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. 37 ' in form and conception ' only, of which Mr Smith speaks. This, if it is not intended to convey the idea of essential difference, is ridiculous as a ground for concluding that these laws ' cannot be ' all from the same pen.' And who can fail to see that this con- clusion affects far more than the authorship of the Pentateuch ? The laws are there set down as divine laws, and if they were so divergent that we could not suppose them to be all from the same pen, how could we suppose them to be all from the same lawgiver ? And how could we any longer regard the Pentateuch as a faithful record, fairly setting before us the divine legisla- tion ? Mr Smith seems not to be at all aware on the edge of what an abyss he is treading. The whole argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews rests on the divine authority of the law contained in the Pentateuch, and in that argument it is constantly represented as having ' given 1 by Moses.' This has not been adduced as a proof of the author- ship of the Pentateuch, on which point it does not directly bear ; but it is conclusive against the post-Mosaic origin of the Pen- tateuchal legislation ; or, the alternative is presented of reject- ing the Epistle to the Hebrews as uninspired. One general remark may be made concerning all Mr Smith's arguments in support of his opinion, that the Pentateuch is of post-Mosaic date. They are individually worthless, and no ac- cumulation of worthless arguments can have any worth ; yet they make a fine shew, which may have some effect on the minds of those who do not test and weigh them. Mr Smith adopts unhesitatingly, as one of the results of Biblical criticism, the opinion that the historic books of the Old Testament are in great part composed from older writings, frag- ments of which it would seem have been not very artistically put together, as the difference in style can be distinctly perceived, and the portions derived from particular authors dissected out. He has not thought it necessary to take any notice of the rejection of this opinion, as concerning the historic books gene- rally, by Biblical critics at least as eminent as any who hold it, although this was certainly requisite to a fair representation of the actual state of the question. A few sentences must be quoted. * ' But the extent to which the historical books are made up ' of parallel narratives, which, though they cover the same period, f do not necessarily record the same events, was first clearly * seen after Astruc (1753 a.d.) observed that the respective uses * of Jehovah (Lokd) and Elohim (God) as the name of the Deity, < afford a criterion by which two documents can be dissected out of < the booh of Genesis. That the way in which the two names are < used . can only be due to difference of authorship is now * The italics in the sentences quoted are not Mr Smith's. 38 THE ARTICLE 'BIBLE.' generally admitted, for the alteration corresponds with such important duplicates as the two accounts of the creation, and is regularly accompanied throughout the book by unmistakeable peculiarities of language and thought, so that it is still possible to reconstruct the Elohim document with a completeness which makes its original independence and homogeneity matter of di- rect observation. The character of this narrative is annalistic, and where other material fails, blanks are supplied by genealogical lists. Great weight is laid on orderly development, and the name Jehovah is avoided in the history of the patriarchs, in order to give proper contrast to the Mosaic period (cf. Gen. xvii. 1 ; Exod. vi. 3) ; and, accordingly, we find the unmistakeable se- condary marks of this author run through the whole Pentateuch and Joshua, though the exclusive use of Elohim ceases at Exod. vi. . . . It is clearly made out that the author has strong priestly tendencies, and devotes a large portion of his space to liturgical matters. . . . Many of the finest stories in Genesis, especially great part of the history of Joseph, agree with the Elohim document in the name of God, but are widely divergent in other respects. Since the researches of Hupfeld, a third author, belonging to northern Israel, has been generally postulated for these sections. His literary individuality is sharply marked, though the limits of his contributions to the Pentateuch are obscure. . . . Three currents of influence run through the Old Testament development — the traditional lore of the 2^i^sts, the teaching of the prophets, and the religious life of the more en- lightened of the people. . . . From the time of the Judges . . . sections marked by projrfietic pragmatism, and others, which, though distinctly religious and even theocratic, are, so to speak, written from a layman s stand-point. . . . It is with sincere regret that %oe pass at 1 Kings xi., to a division of the history of which the chief sources . . . treat almost exclusively of the outer political life of the nation. In striking contrast to the uniformity of this narrative are the interspersed histories of Elijah and other northern prophets. These histories are very remarkable in style and even in language, and containing some of the noblest passages of the Old Testament, form one of in << a y proofs of the unusual literary genius of the kingdom of Ephraim, . . ! The unusual literary genius of the kingdom of Ephraim ! As if the histories of Elijah and Elisha were works of fiction ! But if this may seem to be too strong a view of the character of the extraordinary sentence about them, at least it must be con- demned as inconsistent with a due remembrance of the inspira- tion of the Old Testament. And the same maybe said of many of the other sentences just quoted. How, with the doctrine of inspiration present to his thoughts, could any one write of THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. 3 9 blanks being supplied by genealogical lists when other material fails, or of regret in passing from one portion of the sacred history of another ? But worse than this are the assertions of tendencies and currents of influence discernible in the Old Testament histories, as if they were the mere productions of fallible and corrupt men, influenced in writing them by their own lusts, — priests desirous of exalting their office in the estimation of the people, and so forth. To what does all this tend but to the overthrowing of all confidence in the teaching of these Old Testament books ? Indeed, it is overthrown al- ready, for every one, not strangely illogical and inconsistent, who admits some of Mr Smith's propositions. It is also worthy of notice how Mr Smith speaks of opinions as generally received, winch are very far from being so except by Eationalists, to whose works it would seem, as the only pos- sible explanation of such assertions, that his reading has been very exclusively confined. A notable instance of this kind is his statement, that it is now generally admitted that the use of the two names of God, Elohini and Jehovah, in different parts of Genesis, is due to difference of authorship, although he ought to know that not only is this denied by many, but another way of accounting for the facts has been suggested. Still more extraordinary is the statement, that a third author has been generally prostulated since the researches of Hupfeld. The gene- rally here must be confined to a comparatively small section of Biblical students. The notion that Moses perhaps made use of ancient docu- ments in writing the history of times long prior to his own — a notion not without appearance of probability, and not in itself conflicting with the highest views of revelation — was entertained by some before Astruc, as by Yitringa, but Astruc developed it more fully, depending upon the use of the names Elohim and Jehovah ; and after him Eichhorn extended this notion from Genesis to the whole Pentateuch, and essayed to mark off the passages belonging to the two authors respectively, for the third author had not then been dreamt of. The Rationalists in general hailed the new discovery with delight, for they could make use of it to lower the credit of Moses and of the Old Testament, and some of them set themselves earnestly to the task of prosecuting it further. They differed, however, rather seriously in the results of their researches. Astruc divided Genesis into 81 sections, Eichhorn into 89, Ilgen into 386, and Gramberg reduced the number to 59. Some difficulties which occurred were solved by supposing that in some places the one divine name had been substituted for the other. But besides this Document Hypothesis, there was proposed by Vater, in view of the absurdities to which he saw it carried out, a modification 40 THE ARTICLE ' BIBLE.' of it, a hypothesis of composition by collection of fragments, — the Fragment Hypothesis; and then followed the Complement Hypothesis of Tuch and De Wette, a hypothesis of revision and supplementation ; and the Crystallisation Hypothesis of Delitzsch. — of fragments revised and variously moulded, and brought into their present form by the author of Deuteronomy ! These are amongst the results of the Biblical criticism that gives loose rein to fancy, and boasts its superiority to all restraint of external evidence in its scientific researches, and particularly to all regard for the ' witness of our Lord, and the testimonium Spiritus 1 Sandi.' 'The Book of Deuteronomy/ Mr Smith says, 'presents a quite distinct type of style, which . . . recurs from time to time in passages of the later books, and that in such a con- nection as to suggest to many critics, since Graf, the idea that the Deuteronomic hand is the hand of the last editor of the whole history from Genesis to Kings, or at least of the non- Levitical parts thereof. . . . It is difficult to suppose that the legislative part of Deuteronomy is as old as Moses. If the law of the kingdom in Deut. xvii. was known in the time of the Judges, it is impossible to comprehend Judg. viii. 23, and, above all, 1 Sam. viii. 7. That the law of high places given in this part of the Pentateuch was not acknowledged till the time of Josiah, and was not dreamed of by Samuel and Elijah, we have already seen. The Deuteronomic law is familiar to Jere- miah, the younger contemporary of Josiah, but is referred to by no prophet of earlier date. And the whole theological stand- point of the book agrees exactly with the period of prophetic literature, and gives the highest and most spiritual view of the law, to which our Lord himself directly attaches His teaching, and which cannot be placed at the beginning of the theocratic development, without making the whole history unintelligible. Beyond doubt the book is ... a prophetic legislative programme ; and if the author put his work in the mouth of Moses instead of giving it, with Ezekiel, in a directly pro- phetic form, he did so, not in pious fraud, but simply because his object was not to give a new law, but to expound and de- velope Mosaic principles in relation to new needs. And as ancient writers are not accustomed to distinguish historical data from historical deductions, he naturally presents his views in dramatic form in the mouth of Moses.' The morality of such a proceeding as is here ascribed to the supposed author of Deuteronomy is flagrantly bad, and Mr Smith attempts in vain to give it a fair colour ; nor is it possible to suppose that any one adopting this view of the authorship of the book can look upon it with the respect which Christians in general have been accustomed to think due to Holy Scripture. THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 41 It is not easy to understand what is meant when Deuteronomy is described as ' a prophetic legislative programme/ which Mr Smith declares, more suo, that ' beyond doubt ' it is ; and any meaning which this obscure phrase might be supposed to have is at variance with the notion elsewhere clearly conveyed, that the novel legislation of Deuteronomy was enforced after the book was produced in Josiah's time. If the book said to be found in the temple by Hilkiah the high priest was not found at all, or was found only where it had just been hidden on pur- pose to be found, like the 'true Cross ' nine hundred years after- wards, and was not the ancient Book of the Law, as was pre- tended, but a newly-concocted law-book intended for the purpose of confirming and increasing the power of the priesthood, then certainly a fraud was committed, which cannot be excused by saying that the book was written with the object not of giving a new law, but of expounding and developing Mosaic principles in relation to new needs. What were the new needs ? it midit be asked ; and whence did they arise ? But no matter what may be said or conjectured of them. The moral aspect of the case cannot be affected by any such considerations. Either the Pentateuch was found, the old Book of the Law, or gross villainy was perpetrated. If the book was a new book, Josiah was most wickedly deceived, and along with him the whole people. ' And ' it came to pass when the king had heard the words of the ' book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king com- ' mandecl, . . . saying, Go ye enquire of the Lord for me, ' and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of ' this book that is found : for great is the wrath of the Lord ' that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not heark- 1 ened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that 1 which is written concerning us' (2 Kings xxii. 11-13). If the Book of Deuteronomy was a production of the time of Josiah, the whole narrative in the twenty-second chapter of Second Kings must be accounted no more worthy of credit than a legend of the Acta Sanctorum : and here, as well as in respect of the Pentateuch, Mr Smith's views infer consequences fatal to all confidence in the Scriptures as the Word of God. In connec- tion with such a hypothesis as he has adopted of the date and authorship of Deuteronomy, it is absolutely shocking to be told that this book ' gives the highest and most spiritual view of the ' law, to which our Lord himself attached his teaching.' Can anything be imagined more fitted to suggest low thoughts not only of the Jewish law, but of the teaching of our Lord ? Ba- tionalism paves the way for Infidelity, as Bitualism does for Popery. Mr Smith, however, thinks that ' as ancient writers are not ' accustomed to distinguish historical data from historical de- 42 THE ARTICLE ' BIBLE.' 1 ductions,' the author of Deuteronomy, living eight hundred years after Moses, ' naturally presents his views in dramatic ' form, in the mouth of Moses.' He might find some difficulty in establishing the truth of this general proposition regarding ancient writers ; and here again he ought to have thought of inspiration, as possibly affecting the application of it even if it were generally true. But what an abuse of language it is to speak of historic deductions in this case ! And there is nothing of a dramatic form in Deuteronomy. It is, in its form, as strictly a historic book as any of the other books of the Pentateuch, al- though consisting chiefly of the record of words spoken by Moses. It begins as a historic record, and maintains this character throughout. And the true nature of the case, the monstrousness of the supposition that it was written in the days of Josiah, and yet is an inspired book, very strongly appears from a consideration of some passages of the book itself — as the following : — ' Ye ' shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither 1 shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the com- ' mandments of the Lord your God which I command you ' (Deut. iv. 2). ' What thing soever I command you, observe to ' do it ; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it ' (Deut. xii. 32). ' And it came to pass when Moses had made an end ' of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were ' finished, That Moses commanded the Levites which bare the ' ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the ' law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the ' Lord our God, that it may be there for a witness against thee, ' For I know thy rebellion and thy stiff neck ' (Deut. xxxi. 24-27). What kind of man could we suppose him to have been who wrote these words, and put them into the mouth of Moses, although Moses never spoke them ? In a letter to the Daily Rcvieiv, in reply to some of the first published strictures on his article Bible, Mr Smith says: — 'It 1 seems to me plain that the author of Deuteronomy was at ' liberty to choose such a way of setting forth his inspired ad- 1 monitions. The use of literary forms is not fraudulent when ' the nature and object of the form are as transparent as they ' must have been to the first readers in the case before us.' But vain is the attempt to represent this case as at all parallel to that of the literary form used by Livy and other ancient his- torians, who put speeches into the mouths of generals and other personages. That, on Mr Smith's supposition as to Deuteronomy, the nature and object of the form must have been transparent to the first readers, is contrary to the whole tenor of the narra- tive in the twenty-second chapter of Second Kings. Had it been so, King Josiah would not have rent his clot lies, nor la- mented because of the wrath of God kindled against him and THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 43 his people, because their fathers had not hearkened to the words of that book. If such literary form was used, it is evident that king and people were deceived ; Huldah, the prophetess, helped the priests to carry out their scheme of daring imposture ; and the Book of Deuteronomy was the first and worst of that class of forgeries, some of which were long afterwards helpful to the esta- blishment and increase of the Papal power. Why Mr Smith has preferred this particular theory of the date of Deuteronomy to other theories equally fanciful and base- less, which have been put forth with equal confidence by German authors, does not very clearly appear. It is at the present moment the most fashionable among the men of that class so well de- scribed by Witsius long ago, ' whose chief glory lies here, that ' one will look for them in vain in that body of learned and pious 1 men who are well content to walk in the common path.' There is one remark made by Mr Smith about Deuteronomy, which deserves attention, as shewing how slight grounds suffice him for most important conclusions. Here is a difference pointed out between the legislation of Deuteronomy and that of the rest of the Pentateuch. 'The Levitical laws give a gra- ' duated hierarchy of priests and Levites ; Deuteronomy regards ' all Levites as at least possible priests.' Well may the reader open his eyes wide in astonishment. What, he is ready to enquire, can be the foundation for this assertion regarding Deuteronomy ? Mr Smith does not condescend to inform us ; but the whole book contains nothing which the most perverse ingenuity can twist to its support, except that in two or three places we read of ' the ' priests, the Levites,' — which we do also elsewhere in the Old Testament, and the priestly office is spoken of as exclusively belonging to the tribe of Levi, than winch nothing can be more consonant with what is to be found in the other books of the Pentateuch, and with the 'graduated hierarchy of priests and 1 Levites.' Eeferences to Deut. x. 8, 9, xvii. 18, xviii. 1-8, and xxxiii. 8-11, will put the reader in possession of the whole argu- ment, than which it is impossible to imagine anything more puerile. But Mr Smith has made a wonderful discovery, apparently since the article Bible was written, that he can claim the authority of Ezra in support of his opinion concerning the date of Deuteronomy. In his letter already noticed,* in reply to remarks made in the Commission, he says : — ' And while I ' have my pen in hand I may add that the earliest external ' evidence for the post-Mosaic authorship of at least a part of the 1 Deuteronomic legislation is that of no less a man than Ezra, ' who, in ix. 11, ascribes, not to Moses, but to the prophets ' (plural) a law, which, in its form of words, bears to be given 1 before the people entered Canaan, and which agrees with the * See p. 14. 44 THE ARTICLE ' BIBLE.' ' seventh of Deuteronomy. I have no doubt that this passage ' will be explained away. I sliall be told that the exact words 1 must not be pressed. But if words are not to be pressed, * where is Dr Stuart's argument for the Mosaic authorship, ' derived from the words of our Lord.' Mr Smith might pro- bably object to it as an explaining away of the passage on which he founds his argument, to say that the Scriptures collectively may be referred to in the words, ' Thou hast commanded by thy ' servants the prophets.' But it has been pointed out by more than one, that his argument utterly fails, because the law of Deuteronomy referred to by Ezra (there is no exact quotation) was repeated by Joshua when his death drew near (Josh, xxiii. 12), and therefore the word prophets exactly accords with the facts of the case. The additions to the older law which are found in Deuteronomy, and the changes made by new legislation there, as for example, in the laws respecting the central sanctuary, and the law re- specting the slaughtering of animals intended simply for food, have evident reference to the altered circumstances of the people, at the close of the wilderness life, when they were about to enter upon their settled residence in Canaan ; viewed in rela- tion to which they even afford not a little proof of its genuine- ness and authenticity. The existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch affords a very conclusive argument against all theories which assign a late date to the Pentateuch or any of its books. When we consider the antipathy between the Jews and the Samaritans, it seems utterly unreasonable to suppose that the Samaritans received their reli- gious law-book from the Jews in or after the days of Ezra or the days of Josiah. It is more natural to suppose that it was pre- served in northern Israel from the time of the separation of the Israelites into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah ; although this cannot be pressed so strongly as the argument of the ex- treme improbability of its being adopted by the descendants of the mingled people settled in Samaria after the Assyrians had carried the Israelites away into captivity. The existence of the Pentateuch as the acknowledged Book of the Law from the days of Moses downwards gives also the only satisfactory explanation of the religious ordinances of the Jews ; just as the existence of the books of the New Testament from the first Christian age can alone account for those of the Christian Church. Of the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Mr Smith says, that owing to the similarity of style, although in the latter books original memors of ' the two reformers ' are incorporated, ' critics are practically agreed in ascribing the whole to a single 1 author, probably a Levite.' He does not say how he has come THE PSALMS. 45 to know about the original memoirs. That critics are practi- cally agreed to the effect he states, must be understood to mean nothing more than that a few Kationalists are so agreed, who have discovered also that the Books of Chronicles are the work of one who did not feel satisfied with the Books of Kings, be- cause not, in his estimation, sufficiently exalting the Levitical institutions. How does such a notion consist with a reverent acknowledgment of inspiration ? A sad want of proper reverence for the Holy Scriptures is manifested in a remark made concerning the 86th Psalm. To show that we cannot receive the titles prefixed to the Psalms as proof of their authorship or date — a point perhaps not of very great consequence in itself, and not deeply affecting any ques- tion of the canon or the inspiration of Scripture, Mr Smith says : — ' The author of the elegy on Saul and Jonathan could not ' possibly have written Psalm lxxxvi., which is a mere cento of ' reminiscences from other poems.' Such confidence of criticism would be unwarrantable, in the face of facts well known to every student of literature, if the subject of it were what the 86th Psalm is here said to be. But it is painful for any one who reverences and loves the Bible to read this glib deprecatory utterance concerning that Psalm, and painful to think of it as having proceeded from the pen of one who, before he entered on his present office, must have declared, in the most solemn manner, his acceptance of the books of the Old and ISTew Testa- ments as inspired Scriptures and the Word of God. Of the Psalms in general Mr Smith speaks very much as if he accounted them mere human productions. He says : — ' This 1 current of productive psalmody runs apparently from David ' down to the exile, losing in the course of centuries something 1 of its original freshness and fire, but gaining a more chastened 1 pathos and a wider range of spiritual sympathy. Psalm li., ' obviously composed during the desolation of the temple, marks ' perhaps the last phase of this development.' If there is any- thing not obvious to ordinarily constituted minds, it is what is here asserted to be obvious concerning the date of the 51st Psalm, everything in which so exactly accords with the occasion of its composition assigned in the title prefixed to it, that doubt on the point is almost impossible. And it may be observed that the attempt made to point out a change in the character of the Hebrew psalmody from the time of David downwards, in which the palm of merit is ascribed to the earlier Psalms in respect of freshness and fire, to the later in more chastened pathos and a wider range of spiritual sympathy, depends en- tirely upon a determination of dates proceeding on most arbi- trary canons of criticism — canons, the authors of which rejected all belief in inspiration and prophecy. Moreover, one who 46 THE ARTICLE ' BIBLE.' remembers that the words of the Psalms are quoted in the New Testament as the words of God and of the Holy Ghost, can hardly fail to be shocked, as by gross profanity, when he is told of the wider spiritual sympathy of the later psalmists. Worse, if possible, than all this is the account given of the Song of Solomon. It is, Mr Smith says, ' a lyrical drama, in which, ac- ' according to most critics, the pure love of the Shulamite for her 1 betrothed is exliibited as victorious over the seductions of Solo- ' mon and his harem. As the motive of the piece is political as ' well as ethical, it is most naturally assigned to the early period ' of the northern kingdom.' Here we have another instance of an opinion recommended to acceptance as being that generally adopted by those qualified to judge. This, as we have seen, is a common practice with Mr Smith in the article now under con- sideration, and it is a very common practice of teachers of error. One can hardly read a few pages of an infidel book without finding instances of it. Thus also we are often told of the most extreme Darwinian views being now the commonly accepted views of men of science. It is a poor expedient, yet doubtless it often serves the purpose of misleading the unwary. But is it in the present case true that the opinion set down and seemingly approved by Mr Smith is that ' of most critics ? ' Most assu- redly it is not ; and again, we can only account for his making the assertion he does, by supposing him to have confined his studies very much to the writings of one class of critics ; nor indeed does there appear in the whole article almost any proof of his having thought it worth while to look into any other. The view of the Song of Solomon, which alone he has presented to his readers, has long been well enough known to readers of continental books of Biblical criticism; but it has hitherto happily found few advocates in this country. A full exposure of its falsehood cannot be here attempted ; but there seems to be a wilful blindness in refusing to see that spiritual meaning in the Song of Solomon which Christian divines, the German Eationalists excepted, have commonly ascribed to it; whilst such interpretation of it corresponds with the only possible in- terpretation of the 45th Psalm, and with the figurative language used in many passages both of the Old and of the New Testa- ments. Of course, although Mr Smith does not say it, if the low view propounded by him, as if it were the only one worth mentioning, is to be accepted concerning the Song of Solomon, that book must disappear from the canon of Holy Scripture— any diffi- culties that stand in the way of a change of the canon of the Old Testament notwithstanding. But, indeed, the natural effect of much that has been already quoted is too plainly to deprive us of a canon altogether. And so it is with what follows : — ' In THE BOOKS OF JOB, JONAH, AND ESTHER. 47 ' the book of Job we find poetical invention of incidents, attached ' for didatic purposes to a name apparently derived from old ' tradition. There is no valid a priori reason for denying that 1 the Old Testament may contain other examples of the same 1 sort. The book of Jonah is generally viewed as a case in ' point. Esther, too, has been viewed as a fiction by many who 1 are not over-sceptical critics ; but on this view a book which ' finds no recognition in the New Testament, and whose canon- ' icity was long suspected by the Christian as well as the Jewish ' Church, must sink to the rank of an apocryphal production.' The reader will observe the statement made, without qualifica- tion or reserve, concerning the general opinion as to the book of Jonah. Can Mr Smith himself read over his own article, and say that he holds this statement to be true ? Is he prepared to maintain the truth of it ? If it is intended as concerning Biblical students in general, there need be no hesitation in de- claring its utter falsehood. And tins being observed as to the statement by which the opinion concerning Jonah is introduced, what of the opinion itself ? In the sentences just quoted we seem led pretty nearly to the conclusions that there is no historic truth in the book of Jonah, and none in the book of Esther, notwithstanding our Saviour's reference to the former, and the Jewish festival in commemoration of events recorded in the latter. It is a very destructive criticism, the results and some of the arguments of which Mr Smith here presents to us. But why does he not say plainly what he thinks on these important points ? He was surely bound to do so ; but he only goes the length of conveying to us the impression that he adopts and approves the views stated ; he refrains from a positive declara- tion on the subject. This is neither fair nor manly. As to the book of Job, we are told that ' the speeches of Elihu ' quite break the connection, and are almost universally ascribed ' to a later hand.' The ' almost universally' is only another in- stance of Mr Smith's wonted style. The statement that the speeches of Elihu break the connection of the book of Job must be met with an emphatic denial. But this dissecting of the books of Scripture, accompanied with depreciation of portions of them, and tending indeed to throw discredit upon all, is carried further. An arbitrary canon of criticism is laid down, which has been already noticed,* ( that there is no reason to think that 1 a prophet ever received a revelation which was not spoken 1 directly to his own time.' And on the strength of this canon — and as if Messianic prophecy, or prophecy concerning the glory of the latter days, could have no interest for the people of Isaiah's or Zechariah's time — the whole latter part of the book of Zechariah, from the ninth chapter, is unhesitatingly cut off, * See pp. 21-23. 48 THE ARTICLE ' BIBLE.' and the latter part of the book of Isaiah, from the fortieth chapter to the end, is assigned to an ' anonymous prophet' of the time of the exile — elegantly designed the ' " Great Unnamed" of ' Isaiah xl.-lxvi.' For, according to Mr Smith, these chapters 1 cannot be understood in a natural and living way, except by c looking at them from the stand-point of the exile.' Now, even if it should not be deemed a question of vital importance to the Christian faith whether the last twenty-seven chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by Isaiah the son of Amoz or by a later prophet, yet is a noteworthy fact that of the writers who have adopted the opinion of the later authorship of these chapters, there is hardly one who does not also hold many false and dangerous opinions ; so that any mention of the Pseudo-Isaiah may be regarded as a very sure indication of the character of a book. But it is important to note that those chapters of Isaiah, chapters xl.-lxvi., which Eationalists in general ascribe to an- other and later author, are in the New Testament quoted and referred to as having proceeded from Isaiah himself. Isaiah is expressly named as the prophet whose prophecies are quoted, so that it is impossible to call in question the testimony as to authorship, without a grievous shaking of confidence in the in- spiration and complete trustworthiness of the New Testament. The evangelist Matthew says of John the Baptist, ' This is he ' that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of ' one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, ' make his paths straight' (Matt. iii. 3). Luke quotes the same prophecy in the same way (Luke iii. 4). John tells us that John the Baptist quoted it with reference to himself, adding, 'As said the prophet Esaias' (John i. 23). Other instances of equally express mention of Isaiah as the prophet who uttered prophecies to be found only in these audaciously disputed chapters, will be found in Matt. viii. 17 ; Matt. xii. 17 ; Luke iv. 17; John xii. 38; Acts viii. 28, and Eom. x. 16, 20. Of the Book of Ezekiel, Mr Smith does not express himself in very high terms. Having mentioned that Ezekiel wrote in ' plain prose," he avers that in his prophecy ' no important new ' ideas are set forth, and even the tone of moral exhortation ' sometimes reminds us more of the rabbinical maxims of the 1 fathers in the Mishna than of the prophetic teaching of the ' eighth century.' This is monstrous ; but comment is unneces- sary. Before we pass from the Old Testament, it must not be omitted to notice a strange statement regarding the Book of Proverbs. ' Part of the collection was made by Hezekiah (xxv. 1), who can • have had no infallible, criterion of authorship In/ Solomon, and must not be credited with critical intent ions.' Again it seems to THE BOOK OF DAXIEL. — THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49 be forgotten that there is any such tiling as inspiration. And if Pro v. xxv. 1 is to be set aside as a mere title, and probably of later date than the book, as Mr Smith thinks the titles of the Psalms are, how. does it come to be accounted so trustworthy in what it says about Hezekiah, or ' the men of Hezekiah ? ' This Mr Smith does not explain, nor does he inform us why, in his critical judgment, ' the titles are far more trustworthy in the ' Pro- 1 phecies than in the Psalms.' For this we have only an ipse dixit. Notice must also be taken of what is said of the Book of Daniel. ' In this sketch of the prophetic writings we find no ' place for the Book of Daniel, which, whether composed in the * early years of the Persian empire, or, as modern critics hold, at ' the time of the Maccabee wars, presents so many points of 1 diversity from ordinary prophecy as to require entirely sepa- ' rate treatment. It is in point of form the precursor of the * Apocalyptic books of post-canonical Judaism, though in its ' intrinsic qualities far superior to these, and akin to the pro- 1 phets proper.' There is something extremely disagreeable and repugnant to the ordinary feeling produced by a belief that the whole Scriptures are the Word of God, in this judgment pro- nounced concerning the merits of a book expressly referred to by our Lord himself as inspired, ' the book of Daniel the pro- ' phet ; ' * and the painful sense of something wrong is not diminished by the ascription to the Book of Daniel of a great superiority over some of the most worthless productions of any age or country. Why are they mentioned at all ? But this is little in comparison with the manner in which the two conflict- ing opinions as to the date of the Book of Daniel are mentioned. It is too much in Mr Smith's usual way to say, ' as modern critics ' hold/ when he is only giving the opinion of a few of the most nearly infidel nationalists. But he might surely in this instance have been expected to give some hint that he disagrees in opinion from these modern critics. Or, can he seriously imagine it pos- sible to maintain a faith in Daniel as an inspired book or a true book, and yet hold it to have been written at the time of the Maccabee wars, centuries after Daniel's death ? Of the New Testament far less is said by Mr Smith than of the Old, and neither many quotations nor many remarks will be necessary. Some things that he says about the New Testament are very far from satisfactory, but they are not so bad as many of those we have had to consider with regard to the Old. Indeed, he does not proceed in such exclusive dependence on internet criticism, nor manifest the same readiness to adopt the arguments and conclusions of the most reckless and presumptuous modern critics. He seems to have been shocked at the ' results ' readied by the Tubingen school ; whose destructive criticism he con- * Matt. xxiv. 15, and Mark xiii. 11. D 50 THE ARTICLE ' BIBLE.' demns, although too mildly. But he does not seem to see that, with regard to the Old Testament, he has followed men who have applied to it the same kind of criticism which Baur and his fol- lowers applied to the New. It has been already pointed out concerning some of the opinions expressed by him as to the Old Testament, that they militate strongly against a reverent regard for the authority of the New. Indeed, every opinion or argu- ment inconsistent with the highest reverence for the Old Testa- ment tends to the subversion of faith in the New Testament ; for the New Testament is in a sense founded upon the Old, and presupposes its truth and inspiration. In the New Testament an It is written is always conclusive. Our Lord fully attested the authority of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and that without exception or limitation, setting His seal to the universally acknowledged canon of the Jews. Even in treating of the New Testament, Mr Smith contrives, however, to repeat one of his most erroneous notions concerning the Old Testament. ' It was our Saviour's part,' he says, ' to fill * up into spiritual completeness the teaching of the old dispen- ' sation, and herein He attached himself directly to the pro- ' phetical conception of the law in Deuteronomy.' We might have supposed that this sentence pointed to our Saviour as the antitype of the Mosaic types ; but from what we have seen that Mr Smith says about Deuteronomy, we must take a different view of it. ' It is a fair question,' he says, ' whether the second gospel * as we have it is not an enlarged edition of Mark's original ' work ' — an opinion not very favourable to a perfect confidence in its accuracy, or a high regard for its authority. He tells us that Papias says Matthew wrote Ta Logia, the oracles, ' an ex- ' pression which, though much disputed, seems to be most fairly ' understood not of a complete gospel, but of a collection of the ' words of Christ ; and if so, all the earliest evidence points to 1 the conclusion that the synoptical gospels are non-apostolic 1 digests of spoken and written apostolic traditions, and that ' the arrangement of the earlier material in orderly form took ' place only gradually and by many essays. With this the 1 internal evidence agrees.' It is unnecessary to point out the tendency of this. If Mr Smith can reconcile it with a full and confident belief in inspiration, probably few others can or Will. The idea that the synoptical gospels were made up in the form in which we have them, ' gradually and by many essays,' natu- rally leads to that of mere human effort with its liability to failure, to error, and to imperfection of results ; and he that still speaks of inspiration will certainly find difficulties thus created standing in the way of his obtaining a hearing, and would need to answer questions about the 'earlier materials,' and whether THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51 he predicates inspiration of them, or of the selection and ar- rangement of them by the evangelists, or of both, and to say what reasons he has for his belief. The natural tendency of the view given by Mr Smith as the ' conclusion ' to which ' all the ' earliest evidence points,' is to shake men's confidence in the trustworthiness of the first three gospels as historical records, of the perfect exactness, for example, of their record of the words of our Lord. It is no light thing for a man to have any doubt raised in his mind if our Lord did really say, ' Come ' unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will 1 give you rest.' — And is it not so that this conclusion rests mainly, in the estimation of those who adopt it, on what is called internal evidence, or the results of internal criticism ? This evi- dence is not in this case worth much. It is curious to see what anxiety is shown to support it by the single shred of external evidence — ' all the earliest evidence ' — which needs much criti- cal examination and interpretation to make it serviceable. Worse still is the statement, that the Epistle to the Hebrews — which, as might be expected, is not ascribed to the apostle Paul — ' is plainly affected in some points by Alexandrian views.' Is not this to shew good cause, if it were true, why it should be accounted uninspired, and rejected from the canon ? It is impossible to read with satisfaction the following state- ment concerning John's Gospel. ' That the Gospel of John pre- ' sents a view of the person of Christ dependent on Philonic ' speculation, is not exegetically obvious, but is simply one ' side of the assertion that this gospel is an unhistorical product ' of abstract reflection.' If Mr Smith meant to condemn an opinion concerning the Gospel of John so utterly inconsistent with any respect for it as a portion of the Word of God, why did he not do so in plain and decided language ? It was not enough to mention it without any expression of his estimation of it ; and to say that it it is not exegetically obvious is very far from being a complete condemnation and rejection of it, such as cer- tainly might have been expected. Is not the natural effect of all this to cast doubt upon many of the most precious words of Jesus — words which have brought many a sinner to "Him, and that are the continual support and comfort of believers ? And what of the conversation of our Lord with Nicodemus, and His conversation with the woman of Samaria, and His raising of Lazarus, and His weeping at Lazarus' grave, and His washing of His disciples' feet ? Is it a light thing to have the idea suggested that these may be but ' the unhistorical product of abstract re- ' flection ? ' Surely if Mr Smith found it necessary to mention this extreme Kationalist notion, he ought to have done so in another way than he has. However, we are told that ' on the whole ... on the 52 THE ARTICLE ' CANTICLES.' * most cardinal points, the external evidence for the New Testa- ' rnent books is as strong as can fairly be looked for.' This is not a very strong statement. ' On the wJwle ' and ' On the most ' cardinal points' are qualifying expressions of much signifi- cance. Mr Smith also says : — ' The strength of the negative critics ' lies in internal evidence. And in this connection they have ' certainly directed attention to real difficulties, many of which ' still await their explanation. ... It is undeniable that ' the Epistle to the Colossians and the so-called Epistle to the ' Ephesians differ considerably in language and thought from 1 other Pauline epistles, and that their relation to one another ' demands explanation.' What good purpose can be served by thus suggesting the existence of difficulties, without even stating CO O ' o them that some notion may be formed of their magnitude and importance ? Proof enough has now been adduced, by an examination of the article Bible, to warrant the opinion already expressed con- cerning it. In the articles Canticles and Chronicles in the fifth volume of the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published many months after he was fully aware of the widely prevalent disquietude which his article Bible had produced amongst Chris- tians, and the exultation over it on the part of the enemies of Christianity, Professor Smith has given expression again to the same views as are expressed in that article concerning these books of Scripture, and proceeded in the same manner to set forth with approbation some of the worst conclusions of Eation- alist critics. This may be accepted as a proof of his honesty, as well as of his courage, but in no other respect can it be favour- ably viewed. It shews a strange want of respect for those to whose judgment much respect was due by him, and whose strong expression of their opinions and feelings ought at least to have made, him pause and take some time for reconsideration of the principles of criticism which he had adopted. He has even gone out of his way to do what lie must have known that those who condemned the article Bible could not but regard as an aggravation of his offence, ultroneously filling these new articles with this criticism and its results. They would have been more in accordance with the proper purpose of an encyclopedia if they had been mainly records of facts and not arguments in support of particular theories. "A record of existing theories, and a statement of the stage at which controversy has arrived, is essential to the completeness of such a work ; but to devote the DESIGN AND AUTHORSHIP OF SONG OF SOLOMON. 53 major portion of an article to the support of a theory, is going beyond the proper province of a contributor to an encyclopaedia. The articles Canticles and Chronicles are perhaps not quite so objectionable in their tone as the article Bible to those who regard the Bible with love and reverence ; but this is about all that can be said in their favour, or as appearing to shew that Pro- fessor Smith has profited in any degree by the criticism to which the article Bible has been subjected. In matter they are equally bad with that article ; the views which they express are sub- stantially the same, or of the same character, and present the same difficulty, or rather impossibility, of reconciliation with any view of inspiration which consists with a cordial reception of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, a true revelation and an all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. In the article Canticles the opinions expressed regarding that book of Scripture in the article Bible* are adhered to and repeated. A lower view of the meaning and purpose of the Song of Solomon it is almost impos- sible to imagine ; but the lowest view that has ever been taken of any portion of Scripture seems always to have peculiar attrac- tions for Mr Smith. That the motive of the piece is political as well as ethical is a recent discovery of the ' grammatico-histori- ' cal exegesis' and 'higher criticism' or 'inner criticism' of which the German Xeologians have boasted so much and so absurdly, and on which Mr Smith seems to place as much dependence as they ; although it is a curious fact, and might shake any one's confidence in this kind of criticism, that it hardly ever brings any two men to the same conclusions, and one profoundly learned professor is always to be found overturning those which another profoundly learned professor had but a few days ago declared to he established beyond controversy for ever, both professors having in fact only made guesses, and then exercised their ingenuity to find arguments in support of them. Yet, upon a baseless theory of ' the motive of the piece ' being - political as well as ethical,'t Mr Smith founds an argument as to its date and authorship, and is so thoroughly satisfied with the argument, that he has no hesitation in saying, ' it is most naturally assigned to the early { period of the northern kingdom.' It would not do at all for a profoundly learned professor — an adept in the higher criticism and grammatico-historical exegesis — to adopt the notion which ordinary readers of the Bible, whether in English or Hebrew, have derived from what stands in it' as the first verse of the Song of Solomon. ' To tradition,' says Mr Smith, ' we owe the ' title, which apparently indicates Solomon as the author, and ' not merely as the subject of the book.' The authority of tra- dition he rejects, and it were well he had done no worse ; nor would we be called to contend earnestly, as for the faith once * See p. 16. t See p. 4.6. 54 THE ARTICLE ' CANTICLES.' delivered to the saints, for the titles of the Psalms or of the Song of Solomon ; yet it seems not unreasonable to demand stronger reasons than have yet been shown for setting them aside. There is not much force of argument in the following sentences, in which Mr Smith gives us his reasons for his opinion of the ' northern origin ' of the Song of Solomon : — ' When judged ' by comparison with other parts of the Bible, and by its Aramaic * texture, the dialect points to the northern origin of the poem. ' It is to northern Israel, moreover, that the whole local colour- ' ing and scenery belong ; so that even those commentators who ' still make Solomon the hero and author of the book are com- ' pelled to represent him as laying aside his kingly pomp, to 1 wander with a peasant girl through the forests and gardens of * Galilee.' It may be questioned if there is a Hebrew scholar living who can draw a safe inference concerning the part of Palestine in which a book was written during all the times of Old Testament history, from its dialect or style. There are no such easily -observed differences as those between Attic and Ionic Greek ; and we have far too few remains of ancient and classical Hebrew for even the most skilful Hebrew scholars to found opinions with confidence upon apparent slight peculiarities. Nor will the argument from ' the local colouring and scenery ' bear examination much better. The whole land of Israel is not of very great extent ; and in the days of Solomon, it was not yet divided into two kingdoms, so that allusions to the mountain scenery of the north are not wonderful even on the supposition that Solomon himself is the author of the poem. It is worthy of observation, also, that in the latter part of the sentence last quoted, Mr Smith presents the whole question in an utterly false light. He seems to think it a strong proof of the soundness of his theory, that ' even those commentators who make Solomon the ' hero and author of the book, are compelled to represent him as ' laying aside his kingly pomp, to wander with a peasant girl 1 through the forests and gardens of Galilee.' But is this the fact ? Or, if it be the fact as to the very few commentators who, holding Solomon to be the author of the poem, see in it no refer- ence to One greater than he, is this of any importance in view of that other widely prevalent opinion concerning it, that it relates to the mutual love of Christ and His Church ? Only by the rejection of that interpretation have these poor commentators in their arid speculations been compelled to the adoption of the view mentioned by Mr Smith. But we are still plied with further arguments in favour of what Mr Smith is pleased to call the ' current theory,' and which, he says, is that of 'most critics.' In the following sentences, it is hard to say whether the arguments or the statements as to matters of fact are the most extraordinary. If the latter are NEW VIEWS OF JEWISH HISTORY. 55 correct, then readers of the Bible generally must be forced to acknowledge that they have hitherto mistaken the import of some of what seem to be among the plainest historic portions of it. One may be allowed also to wonder how Mr Smith came to possess such a perfect knowledge of the things he states so con- fidently. ' It is a special merit of the current theory that it at ' once places the authorship and purpose of the book in a strong 1 historical light. A poem in the northern dialect, with a nor- 1 them heroine and scenery, contrasting the pure simplicity of ' Galilee with the corrupt splendour of the Court of Solomon, it 1 is clearly the embodiment of one phase of the feeling which 1 separated the ten tribes from the house of David. The king- ' dom of Solomon was an innovation on the old traditions, partly 1 for good and partly for evil. But novelties of progress and ' novelties of corruption were alike distasteful to the north, ' which had long been proud of its loyalty to the principles of the ' good old times. The conservative revolution of Jeroboam was ' in great measure the work of the Prophets, and must therefore 1 have carried with it the religious and moral conviction of the ' people. An important element in these convictions which ' still claims our fullest sympathy is powerfully set forth in the ' Canticles, and the deletion of the book from the canon, provi- * dentially averted by the allegorical theory, would leave us ' without a most necessary complement to the Judean view of 1 the conduct of the ten tribes which we get in the historical ' books. Written in a spirit of protest against the Court of ' Zion, and probably based on recollection of an actual occur- ' rence, the poem cannot be dated long after the death of Solo- ' mon.' Here is historical light indeed. The kingdom of Solomon an innovation on the old traditions ! Did not Solomon succeed his father David, and did not David succeed Saul, no revolutionary movement in favour of older traditions being attempted during their reigns ? The revolt of the ten tribes under Jeroboam, a conservative revolution ! Conservative of what ? The Scripture history accounts for it in a very natural way, but does not sug- gest the idea of its conservative character. But wonders mul- tiply. It is new to be told that novelties of corruption were distasteful to the north. Is it so then that the north adhered to the true old faith and the pure old worship, whilst the south departed from both ? Are we to delete from our Bibles all the passages about the golden calves that were set up in Bethel and in Dan, and along with them all that we read in the historic books and the books of the prophets about the idolatries of Ephraim ? There can be no grosser perversion of a passage of history than to infer from the narrative of the message from the Lord de- livered by the prophet Ahijah to Jeroboam, that the revolt of 55 THE ARTICLE 'CANTICLES.' the ten tribes was in great measwre the work of the prophets — the plural may well be marked in reference to Mr Smith's argument about Deuteronomy from Ezra ix. 11* — and nothing more ab- surd thm to infer again from this that it must have carried with it the religion* and moral conviction of the people. To an ordinary reader of the Bible it seems very evident that religious and moral convictions had nothing to do with it. And on grounds such as these, and by inferences such as these, the con- clusion is supported, that the Song of Solomon is clearly the embodiment of one phase of the feeling which separated the ten tribes from the house of David ! That view of the Song of Solomon which alone ascribes to it a spiritual meaning, and which has generally been accepted by evangelical Christians, is utterly discarded by Mr Smith, and a considerable part of his article Canticles is occupied witli arguments against it. ' To tradition,' he says, ' we owe the still ' powerful prejudice in favour of an allegorical interpretation — ' that is, of the view that from verse to verse the Song sets forth 1 the history of a spiritual and not merely of an earthly love. ' To apply such an exegesis to Canticles is to violate one of the ' first principles of reasonable interpretation. True allegories 1 are never without internal marks of their allegorical design. c The language of the symbol is not so perfect that a long chain ' of ideas can be developed without the use of a single spiritual ' word or phrase ; and, even were this possible, it would be a ' false art in the allegorist to hide aw r ay his sacred thoughts ' behind a screen of sensuous and erotic imagery, so complete ' and beautiful in itself as to give no suggestion that it is only ' the vehicle of a deeper sense.' It is due to Mr Smith to men- tion that lie speaks of the ' purity ' and ' sanctity ' of the ' utter- ' ances of genuine human affection ' contained in the Song of Solomon, and of Herder as having ' triumphantly vindicated the ' native innocence and genuine delicacy of the love which the ' book displays ; ' but the canon of criticism on the strength of Which he maintains the inadmissibility of an allegorical inter- pretation cannot be accepted. Does it not amount to this — that the idea of allegory must be summarily rejected if the allegory i i perfect ? And it may be tested in another way. The Parable of the Prodigal Sou is an allegory, and the allegory is perfect. If Mr Smith's canon is not to be applied to it, why should it be applied to the Song of Solomon? It would be no sufficient reply to this to say that the one is much longer than the other. W there be a comparatively 'long chain of ideas' in the Song rif Solomon, they are ideas closely connected in their nature, and all connected with one leading idea — the same which is generally supposed to be presented in the 45th Tsalni, and in many pas- * .'ice p. 43. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 57 sages of Scripture both of the Old and of the New Testaments. How little account Mr Smith makes of any argument from such a source, appears from the following sentences : — ' The philo- ' logical difficulties of the book are, however, less fundamental ' than those which lie in the unique character of the Song of 1 Solomon in point of artistic form, and in the whole atmosphere ' of thought and feeling in which it moves. Even in these ' respects it is not absolutely isolated. Parallels to the peculiar ' imagery may be found in the Book of Hosea, in a few passages ' of the earlier chapters of Proverbs, and, above all, in the 45th ' Psalm ; but such links of union to the general mass of the ' Old Testament literature are too slight to be of material assist- 1 ance in the solution of the literary problem of the book.' But in this statement of it, or reference to it, he is very far from doing justice to the argument in favour of the allegorical and spiritual interpretation which he so summarily sets aside. It is strange that he should represent the instances which he here mentions as the only instances of their kind in the Old Testament, or seem unaware that there are any others such, in the face of the fact that the same idea of the relation between the Lord and His Church is often presented in the writings of the Old Testament prophets. And why does he make no refer- ence to the frequent occurrence of it in the Xew Testament — in one of the Epistles of Paul as well as in the prophetic visions of the Book of Eevelation ? Ought not the books of the Xew Testament to receive as much consideration as those of the Old from a Biblical critic enquiring as to the interpretation of the Song of Solomon ? Mr Smith's reference to the earlier chapters of Proverbs is very remarkable. It looks as if it were brought in on purpose to make the argument which he is trying to dis- pose of appear weak and contemptible ; for nothing of the kind of imagery or the idea in question will be found there at all, even when the conjugal relation is spoken of. But that idea and that kind of imagery will be found in the prophecies of Isaiah, of Jeremiah, and of Ezekiel, and sometimes throughout passages of considerable length. The leading idea of the Song of Solomon is presented to the mind in every instance in which the idolatry of the Israelites is described as adultery. And how could Mr Smith forget the words of the Lord to Israel by the prophet Isaiah, ' For thy Maker is thine husband ' (Is. liv. 5), or by Jere- miah, ' For I am married unto you ' (Jer. iii. 14) 1 how could he refuse to consider the bearing on the interpretation of the Song of Songs of the title given to the Church in the Apocalypse — • the Bride, the Lamb's wife ' (Eev. xxi. 9), or of such words as these, ' The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife has made ' herself ready ' (Eev. xix. 7), ' Blessed are they which are called 1 unto the marriage supper of the Lamb ' (Lev. xLx. 9) ? All 58 THE ARTICLE ' CANTICLES.' which being considered, it does not seem to be too much to say- that the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon is the natural one. ' If it be objected/ says Dr Moody Stuart, ' that within the ' compass of the book itself there is no key to its spiritual mean- ' ing, we have the ready answer that this allegorical song is only ' part of a book ; that the New Testament itself is but half a book, ' requiring the Old as another essential half; that this entire song ' is no more than one chapter in the Word of God, and that the ' other chapters furnish keys enough to open all its locks.' And upon any view of the meaning of the Song of Solomon other than this, what is there about it that is spiritual ? and why has it been put into the canon of Scripture ? Can a man find spiritual edification in contemplating the victory of ' the pure ' love of the Shulamite for her betrothed ' over ' the seductions of 1 Solomon and his harem ; ' or, in the utterances of mere ordinary human affection, however genuine and pure ? Then the Song of Solomon must be unique among the Books of the Bible, as Mr Smith tells us that it is, and even to a greater degree than he seems to suppose. Mr Smith seems to take pleasure in speaking of the Song of Solomon as erotic. He uses the word oftener than once. It is true that this word has not necessarily a bad sense ; but it is true also that in the common use of it, it seldom designates a very pure and highly moral kind of poetry ; and if we were to read in a review that a poem is full of ' sensuous and erotic imagery/ we w r ould probably be apt to think it far from being meant as a high commendation. Perhaps the worst thing in this article, however, is what is said of the way in which the Song of Solomon obtained its place in the canon of Scripture. ' The first trace of an allegorical view ' identifying Israel as the spouse, appears to be in the Fourth ' Book of Ezra, near the close of the first Christian century. Up ' to this time the canonicity of the Canticles was not unques- ' tioned ; and the final decision as to the sanctity of the book, so ' energetically carried through by Rabbi Akiba, when he declared ' that " the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song ' " of Solomon was given to Israel, for all the Scriptures (or 1 " Hagiographa) are holy, but the Canticles most holy," must be ' understood as being at the same time a victory of the allegorical ' interpretation over the last remains of a view which regarded ' the poem as simply erotic' Elsewhere we read of 'thedele- 1 tion of the book from the canon, providentially averted by the ' allegorical theory.' Now, as we have seen, Mr Smith holds the allegorical theory to be utterly erroneous ; so that, believing this book to have obtained a fixed place in the canon in the way he here narrates, he must regard it as being a canonical book in PROVIDENCE AND THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 59 virtue of a mistake. He holds this to be one of the books of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God ; he has solemnly declared this belief ; he still professes it ; but he tells us that if it had not been for the mistake of Eabbi Akiba and other Jewish rabbis as to the whole meaning of the book, it would not have held a place among the books of Holy Scripture ! The inconsistency is very extraordinary. Mr Smith seems to have done his utmost to make us think the book is not worthy to be reckoned a religious book at all ; he goes on to say, that it would not have been num- bered among the books of Scripture but for an error which he plainly holds up to ridicule ; and when we would expect him to say that the sooner it is deleted from the canon the better, he says its deletion was providentially averted ! What a view for a Christian teacher to present of Providence in relation to the oracles of God ! And are we to be taught to be piously thankful that, through a mistake, there has been given to us, as a book of Holy Scrip- ture, an erotic poem ? Will our Bibles thus be made more precious to us ? Will we regard them with increased reverence ? It would be interesting to know what is to be the nature of the sermons henceforth to be preached from texts in the Song of Solomon. As to the truth of the story about Eabbi Akiba and his fel- low rabbis, which Mr Smith accepts unhesitatingly, it is not necessary to inquire very particularly. It is of more importance to observe, that the canon of the Old Testament was fixed long before their time, that we have sure evidence of its having been in the days of our Lord the same that it is now, and that it was confirmed by Him in what He said of the Scriptures ; that term then including all the books w T hich we now call the books of the Old Testament, and them alone. The article Chronicles, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, is thoroughly of the same character with the articles Bible and Cant teles, but comparatively little need here to be said of it. A few quotations and remarks will be enough. Indeed, it contains little else than a more complete exhibition of the theory of the authorship of the Books of Chronicles set forth in the article Bible* which it is wonderful that any man should suppose to be consistent with a belief in inspiration or with reverence for the Scriptures as the Word of God. 1 After the captivity,' Mr Smith says, ' it was impossible to * See pp. 44, 45. 60 THE ARTICLE ' CHRONICLES.' 1 write the history of Israel's fortunes otherwise than in a spirit ' of religious pragmatism.' It may be observed that Mr Smith shews an unhappy fondness for Greekish words, the use of which does not always serve to make his meaning clear to his readers, in id may sometimes perhaps have had the effect of obscuring it to himself. And whatever may be the precise meaning of ' a ' spirit of religious pragmatism/ a statement so general and abso- lute as that made in the sentence just quoted, would be unwar- rantable, even in respect of mere human authorship, whilst it plainly leaves out of consideration, — nay, shuts out of view, — anything higher. The assumption that the whole of Chronicles was written after the captivity, seems to be founded partly on the style, from which some have inferred that all is the work of one hand, although this is by no means a conclusion irresistibly ing itself on any one ; and partly on the fact that the genea- logical tables in Chronicles are brought down to that period, a fact on which no argument can be founded, if the unity of author- ship is not to be regarded as established. But this slenderly supported opinion as to the date at which the whole of Chronicles was composed, is essential to the theory which Mr Smith propounds, and is linked with some of the false views which we have already seen that he expresses about the priests and the prophets.* f The Book of Kings/ he says, ' looks ' upon the history in the spirit of the prophets, . . . but long ' before the chronicler wrote the last spark of prophecy was ' extinct.' And the writing of the new liistory is thus accounted for : 'Toa Levite, even more than to other Jews, the history of ■ Israel meant above all things the history of Jerusalem, of the ' Temple, and of the Temple ordinances. Now, the author of ' Chronicles betrays on every page his essentially Levitical habit ' of mind. ... To such a man the older delineation of the his- ' tory of Israel, especially in the Books of Samuel and Kings, ' could not but appear to be deficient in some directions, while in ' other respects its narrative seemed superfluous or open to mis- 1 understanding, as for example by recording, and that without ' condemnation, things inconsistent with the Pentateuchal law ?' And therefore, a Levite is supposed to have written the Books of ( lnonicles, because he thought there was 'room ' for a new his- tory more in accordance with his views than the old ; just as a Whig might think, — and so it has been, — that as the most popu- lar histories of England delineated the history too much from a Tory point of view, it might be veil to write a new one that would do more justice to the Whig party and Whig principles. To every mind imbued with a proper reverence for the ll<»ly Scriptures, such a theory of the origin of the I looks of Chronicles must be revolting. It is the invention of men who refused to * See pp. 8, 9. ALLEGED DESIGN OF THE BOOKS OF CHEONICLES. 61 admit the idea of inspiration, and we cannot but marvel how a man holding Mr Smith's principles could adopt it from them, without perceiving that it belongs to their system of religion and not to his. When it is stated that the author of Chronicles ' betrays on ' every page his essentially Levitical habits of mind,' and that his doing so is indicated by the prominence which he gives to things concerning Jerusalem and the Temple and Temple ordi- nances, we wonderingly enquire what new view we are now called to take of the Jewish dispensation, and if we are no longer to suppose that the Temple and its ordinances were of prime importance in it. When it is pointed out, as one of the things which a Levite after the captivity might think objectionable in the Books of Samuel and Kings, that they record without con- demnation things inconsistent with the Pentateuch law, we find Mr Smith building one error upon another, and founding this false theory regarding Chronicles upon his error, already noticed, of assigning a late date of the Pentateuch and to some of its laws.* On reading this account of the origin of the Books of Chronicles, it is natural to enquire whence their supposed author, living after the captivity, got his information concerning events that occurred hundreds of years before. Eeferences to other writings are indeed made in the Books of Chronicles (1 Chron. xxix. 29 ; 2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15, xx. 34, xxvi. 22, xxxii. 32) ; but they are all to writings of i^ophets, and therefore these references are opposed to Mr Smith's theory of their origin. And indeed one reference made to the Books of the Kings (2 Chron. xxxii. 32) is made in a way not at all accordant with that theory. But if we were to adopt it, what ground would be left us for confidence in the accuracy, or even the perfect truthfulness, of the writer of Chronicles ? On this last point, however, Mr Smith proceeds to reassure us; but those who go along with him up to this point may not perhaps find themselves quite reassured after all. He says : — 1 In general, then, it seems safe to conclude with Ewald, ' Bertheau, and other cautious critics, that there is no foundation ' for the accusation that the chronicler invented history in the ' interest of his paranetic and practical purposes. But, on the ' other hand, it is not to be doubted that in shaping his narrative 1 he allowed himself the same freedoms as were taken by other ( ancient historians, and even by early copyists ; and it is the ' business of historical criticism to form a clear conception of the ' nature and limits of these freedoms.' A high office this which is assigned to historical criticism in reference to books of the Holy Scriptures. No doubt, it is the office of historical criticism to detect the inaccuracies and mic- * See pp. 29-44 62 representations of a historian, when these exist. But can this be the office of Biblical criticism ? Can any one suppose so who believes the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God ? And from what source is the evidence to be derived, on the strength of which the critic is to point out the instances and extent to which the author of the Books of Chronicles has allowed him- self the supposed freedoms ? The attempt, when made, proceeds always and only on false assumptions, by which everything is tested. ' It is not to be doubted,' Mr Smith says, ' that the writer of 1 the Chronicles allowed himself certain freedoms.' He speaks confidently, as one who is ready to give a reason for his confi- dence. But he gives none. It is a strange thing indeed to find a Professor in a Free Church Theological College commending Ewald and Bertheau as cautious critics. What may not be the consequences if students proceed to read their works with minds favourably prepossessed by such a .commendation ? Ewald a cautious critic ! A critic who denies the supernatural, and accordingly treats the books of Scripture as mere human compositions, explains away all miracles, and denies the reality of the resurrection of Christ, re- presenting the story of it as a mere effort of His disciples to make His death on the cross the subject of perpetual admiration ! Had Mr Smith been guilty of no offence but this in all his published writings, he would have deserved severe censure for this com- mendation of Ewald, whose criticism he himself described, seven years ago, in the British Quarterly Revieiv, as often disfigured by ' waywardness and arbitrary self-reliance ' — although these are its least faults. The article Angel did not attract much attention when the volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica containing it was issued, some months before that containing the article Bible, It was not indeed at first very generally known to be from the pen of Mr Smith. It does not, perhaps, contain any statements so startling as some of those in Mr Smith's other Encyclopedia articles, but it is not less unscriptural in its purport, nor less inconsistent with a proper reverence for the divine teaching of the Holy Scriptures ; its omissions, which cannot be supposed uninten- tional, are very remarkable; and the impression which it is fitted to leave upon the mind of the reader who commits himself to its guidance, is one of doubt concerning the whole subject to which it relates — doubt which cannot but be suggestive of further doubts, especially as to the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. A few quotations and an indication of the most important omis- sions will justify the opinion thus expressed. SUPPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLICAL ' ANGELOLOGY.' 63 Mr Smith says : — ' The Old Testament belief in angels has ' two sides, being on the one hand, a* particular development of 1 the belief in special manifestations of God to man ; and on the 1 other hand, a belief of the existence of superhuman beings, ' standing in a peculiar relation of nearness to God. These two * sides of the doctrine are historically associated, and co-operate 1 in the later developments of Biblical angelology, but are not ' in all parts of the Old Testament fused into perfect unity of ' thought.' Here we seem to be asked to start with a principle to guide us in our study of all that we read in the Old Testament regard- ing angels. But the principle is false and misleading. There are no two sides of the Old Testament belief in angels as here stated ; it is not at all ' on the one hand, a particular develop- 1 ment of the belief in special manifestations of God to man ; ' it has a connection with this belief, but it is in no sense a develop- ment of it. It is a belief in ' the existence of superhuman beings, c standing in a peculiar relation of nearness to God,' and some- times employed in His service, in things affecting men, and in the communication of His commands and purposes to men. The existence of these superhuman beings, their nature, and their ministrations, form the subject of ' Biblical angelology.' When we are told that ' these two sides of the doctrine are ' historically associated, and co-operate in the later developments 1 of Biblical angelology, but are not in all parts of the Old Testament ' fused into perfect unity of thought,' it is hardly possible to avoid thinking that here some parts of the Old Testament are virtu- ally charged with imperfection ; and, at all events, it is evident that here is implied a doctrine of development in the Old Testa- ment ' angelology,' which is not that of an increasing fulness and clearness of revelation. We have here the germ, at least, of a most dangerous error, of which a somewhat fuller development appears in the article Bible* In accordance with and to sustain the notion, that one side of the Old Testament belief in angels is a particular development of the belief in special manifestations of God to man, reference is made to those passages of Scripture which have been very ge- nerally regarded by evangelical theologians as recording appear- ances of Him whom the prophet Malachi calls the Angel of the Covenant, and whom he also calls Jehovah ; the Divine Person who afterwards took upon him our nature, and by his advent ful- filled the prophecy, ' And the Lord [Jehovah], whom ye seek ' shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger [Angel] { of the Covenant, whom ye delight in : behold he shall come, ' saith the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts.' f But such a view of these passages Mr Smith is far from entertaining. He explains them * See pp. 7-10. f Mai. iii. 1. 64 THE ARTICLE : ANGEL. in a way that seems to imply a great mistake indeed on the part of those to whom the special manifestations of God were made, if not also on the part of the historians who record them, an identifying or confounding of a mere superhuman creature with the Lord himself. He tells us that sometimes the angel ' acts ' simply as the mouth-piece of God;' and that 'this is carried ' so far that in his mouth the pronoun / indicates Jehovah him- ' self; while the narrative passes, without change of sense, from ' the statement " the angel of Jehovah appeared, spoke," etc., " to ' " Jehovah appeared, spoke." ' The mind must be strangely con- stituted to which this can appear satisfactory, except on the sup- position, which no one who truly believes in inspiration can entertain, of the great mistake just spoken of. But as to the other view which has been stated, that he who is sometimes called the Angel of Jehovah and sometimes Jehovah, is not a created angel but a divine person, Mr Smith discards it in a very summary and ex cathedra manner. He says : — ' The notion ' (long current in dogmatic theology, and which goes back to the earliest controversies between Jews and Christians), that ' the angel of ' the Lord/ as contradistinguished from created angels, is the ' Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, has found defenders ' down to the present day (Hengstenberg, Kiel, etc.), but cer- * tainly does not express the sense of the Old Testament writers.' How he has attained Ins certain knowledge of the sense of the Old Testament writers, he does not condescend to explain ; but it is pretty evident that it was not by comparing the ancient inspired historians with Malachi. ' Taken collectively,' Mr Smith says, ' the angels form the ' hosts of Jehovah, or the host of heaven . . . The notion ' of angels as divine armies is not, like that of the " individual ' " messenger," closely connected with the theophanic history ' (yet compare Gen. xxxii. 1, 2 ; Josh. v. 13, sqq.), but belongs ' rather to the delineation of the majesty of God in poetry and 'prophecy. . . . With the development of the idea of count- ' less hosts of divine ministers is naturally associated, in place ' of the old angelic theophany, the conception of an invisible ' agency of angels.' The reference to Josh. v. I?, sqq., is somewhat strange in the connection in which it here occurs, and might rather have been expected on the part of Hengstenberg or Kiel in support of the opinion so absolutely rejected by Mr Smith. For in that passage there is no mention of any host of heaven, or of any angels but one, who says, 'As captain of the host of the Lord am I now ' come,' which is naturally to be understood of the leading of the Lord's people from victory to victory till tiny were settled in secure possession of the promised land ; and it is not easy to suppose that a created angel could say, 'Loose tnyshoe from off ' thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy.' * PLAY OF POETIC FAXCY.' 65 But it is more important to note how strongly the sentences just quoted favour the notion of change taking place during the progress of time in the Old Testament doctrine concerning angels. The idea of countless hosts of divine ministers is repre- sented as having been developed, and we are told that the con- ception of an invisible agency of angels is naturally associated with it, as if this conception may be supposed to have sprung up in the minds of men whilst delineating the majesty of God in poetry and prophecy, without being made known to them by revelation. Nay, this conception of the invisible agency of angels is represented as taking the place of ' the old angelic * theophamy/ as if that had been worn out and fit only to be cast aside, belonging to a comparatively crude and unsuitable for the comparatively mature form of the Jewish religion. — How- ever contrary it may be to Mr Smith's intention, the tendency of this article is to throw doubt over the whole doctrine of angels. Those who desire to assail the Christian belief on that subject, will here find weapons ready for their hand. Mr Smith goes very far in the assumption which he makes of the indulgence of their own imagination by the Old Testament poets, and it would probably be hard for him to shew what exact limits he would assign to this, or by what rule he would propose to determine them, so as to say where divine revelation ends and the mere fancy of the poet begins, and what therefore we ought to read with reverence as the Word of God spoken by His ser- vants, and what with mere admiration such as we accord to the noblest passages of Homer or Aeschylus. He says : — '.As the ' whole conception of the heavenly palace and throne is ob- ' viously symbolical, we must allow for conscious poetic art ' when the angels are represented surrounding God's throne in ' the form of an assembly or privy council of holy ones (eonse- ' crated servants), praising His name, and receiving His com- ' mands, and reporting their execution ; ' and in like manner he tells us that ' much must be allowed for the free play of poetic ' fancy,' when they are represented as taking part in the dread solemnities of the last judgment. Does he indeed mean then to record it as his deliberate opinion, that we have no revelation of the existence of holy hosts of superhuman beings, ever ready to execute the commands of God, and that all which we read in the Scriptures on this subject is to be referred to the mere play of poetic fancy ? He can find no fault with any one for so under- standing the words just quoted ; for this, in fact, is their plain purport, although it may be hoped that he yet would shrink from admitting it to himself. It would be well for him to say what precisely is that ' whole conception ' which he regards as ' ob- ' viously symbolical,' and what it is that he conceives it to symbolise.- And when he next writes on a subject so trans- E 66 THE ARTICLE ' ANGEL.' cendently awful and grand, it may be suggested to him to take care that he avoid expressions apparently intended to derogate from its dignity, of which we have a very offensive example in the use he has thought fit to make of the term privy council — offensive whether we view it with reference to the subject itself or to the scriptural representation of it. But Mr Smith goes further still in his exhibition of the sup- posed gradual development of the Old Testament doctrine re- garding angels. ' To the belief in the guidance of Israel by the ' Angel of Jehovah succeeds the belief in angelic guidance of ' individuals (Ps. xxxiv. 7), more or less poetically worked out ' (Ps. xci. 11) — Conversely, pestilence, and other judgments are ' angelic visitations (2 Sam. xxiv. ; 2 Kings xix. 35 ; Ps. lxxviii. 1 49, where the " evil angels " of the English version are not 1 wicked angels, but angels of evil). At length this is carried ' so far that all natural forces that serve God are viewed as His ' messengers (Ps. civ. 4), " He makes winds his messengers, flam- 1 " ing fire his ministers." This passage shews clearly the elas- 1 ticity of the whole conception. Similar is the way in which ' the stars, which share with angels the name " host of heaven " 1 appear associated with the latter (Job xxxviii. 7). Hence the 1 later elemental angels.' The last sentence is particularly audacious. Here the climax is reached, and the notions of the Jews about angels are shewn as advancing by gradual development till they naturally give birth to a superstition of post-canonical times. The whole pas- sage appears to have been written with the view of discrediting the Jewish beliefs about angels altogether, whether they are to be met with in the canonical Scriptures or in the Apocrypha. Mr Smith does not hesitate to speak of ' the elasticity of the ' whole conception.' Is this language which any one could use" who regarded the Bible as teaching any positive truth on the subject ? The references made to texts of Scripture as supporting or illustrating the views ad van eel, are very extraordinary, but the length to which this pamphlet has already extended makes it ne- cessary to pass them over for the present without further remark. ' Converse with angels forms,' Mr Smith says, • large part of ' the visionary setting of the later prophetical books (Ezekiel, ' Zechariah). But these visions, to which the prophets do not ' ascribe objective reality, illustrate rather the religious im- ' agination than the theology of the period.' Of what use, then, are the visions of the prophets for the teaching of the Church of God ? If they are the mere products of religious imagination, how can they have any value for us ? Might not these portions as well be at once cut out of our Bibles ? And, on this view, again, what becomes of Inspiration ? The assertion that the prophets themselves do not assign NO MENTION OF FALLEN ANGELS. 67 any objective reality to their visions of angels, is made as confi- dently as if its truth were self-evident. But is it true ? To the ordinary reader the words of the prophets convey an opposite sense. Why, it may here also be asked, did Mr Smith name Ezekiel and Zcchariah in particular in this connection ? Was there not at least as much reason- for mentioning Daniel ? It might have been inconvenient, however, in respect of the assertion that the prophets did not assign any objective reality to the visions of angels which they describe, to have called attention to Daniel's records of the questions he asked and the answers he received concerning the meaning of the visions which, pictured forth the future history of the world. And we have seen that in the article Bible Mr Smith does not express himself in a clear and confident manner about the right of the Book of Daniel to be esteemed as one of prophecy. The idea of distinction of ranks and classes among the angels, is naturally suggested, Mr Smith thinks, ' by the conception of 1 a host ; ' but he tells us that its development was mainly post-canonical, and is to be found in that apocalyptic literature, to which, notwithstanding its worthlessness, he seems fond of referring as often as possible. Of what the New Testament teaches concerning angels little is said, Mr Smith apparently feeling that he has exhausted his subject in dealing with the ' angelology ' of the Old. But how this could be — or how a Christian teacher, dealing," with such a subject, should fail to acknowledge his obligation to examine all that appears about it in Scripture, and to compare Scripture with Scripture — he does not explain. ' The angelology of the New Testament,' he says, ' attaches ' closely to the notions already developed.' It still appears as if all were ' notions,' ' conceptions,' ' religious imagination,' and so forth. And after reading the whole article, one cannot help wishing to ask Mr Smith if he believes that any angelic visitant ever really appeared to any human being — to Abraham, or Jacob, or Joshua, or Manoah, or Daniel, or the Virgin Mary, or the Apostle Peter, or our Lord himself. One other remarkable feature of this article claims attention. Nothing is said in it of the Fallen Angels. It might be doubted, for aught that appears in it, if the author had ever heard of the existence of Satan. How is this to be accounted for ? It is top certain how it would have to be accounted for on the part of many belonging to the critical and theological schools from which Mr Smith has derived almost all the opinions which make his position singular in the Free Church of Scotland. Let us now proceed to consider an Article on the Sixteenth Psalm, contributed by Professor Smith to the Expositor of Novem 68 ARTICLE ON THE SIXTEENTH PSALM. ber 1876. Like the articles Canticles and Chronicles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it was published after its author was fully aware of the excitement caused by his article Bible ; but it is in some respects very unlike any of his Encyclopaedia articles. They are to the last degree cold and passionless, but some pas- sages of this have a glow and fervency that are well fitted, as in Channing's Unitarianism, to blind the reader to the errors with which they are associated, or the absence of that truth without which there can be no genuine spirituality. Here, however, we find Mr Smith's criticism proceeding in its work as ruthlessly as in any of his other articles — proceeding on the same principles, and with the same disregard of consequences. He begins by setting aside, as of no authority, the title of the Psalm, which ascribes it to David. He does this without even bestowing a moment's consideration on the quotation of it as a Psalm of David by the apostle Peter on the day of Pente- cost. This is strange indeed. No one, who professes to believe in inspiration at all, can be supposed to doubt that Peter was inspired on the day of Pentecost. Yet the apostle not only in plain terms ascribes this Psalm to David, but reiterates the asser- tion of its authorship, and founds an argument upon it ; and in so doing gives an exposition of part of the Psalm, from which Mr Smith's is irreconcilably different. ' For David speaketh con- 1 cerning Him, " I foresaw the Lord always before my face ; for ' " he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore ' " did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad ; moreover also, 1 " my flesh shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my 1 " soul in hell [Hades], neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One ' " to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of ' " life ; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance." * Men and Brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch ' David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is ' with us unto this day : Therefore, being a prophet, and know- ' ing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit 1 of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ, 1 to sit on his throne ; He, seeing this before, spake of the rcsurrec- ' Hon of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell [Hades], neither ■ his flesh did see corruption ' (Acts ii. 25-31). That David is the author of the Sixteenth Psalm may be regarded as also im- plied, though not expressly declared, in the reasoning of the apostle Paul with the Jews at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. :; L >-:>7). But to every believer in inspiration, the evidence of Peter's words ought surely to be irresistible. Mr Smith passes it by as of no account whatever. Thus, also in his article Bible, having flung aside the titles of the Psalms generally, and having mentioned two, the 18th and the 7th, as appearing to him to be on sure grounds ascribed to David, and inferred the pro- TRUST IN GOD. 69 bability that other Psalms might also be by David, he takes no notice of the evidence of Peter's words concerning the 16th, nor of Peter's in the same discourse concerning the 110th (Acts ii. 34, 35), nor of those of our Lord concerning the last-named Psalm (Matt. xxii. 43-45). Surely he cannot think that only a strained exegesis will make them bear a meaning, which it may rather be pronounced impossible to strain away. Mr Smith's remarks on the first verse of the Psalm exhibit an extreme refinement of criticism, or an attempt at it, by which it is hard to see what purpose could be served, but the display of critical acuteness and Hebrew scholarship. He translates the verse, ' Preserve me, God, for I have committed myself to thee ; ' and says ' The Hebrew verb which the Authorised Version ' renders " In thee do I put my trust," does not indicate a subjee- ' tive frame of mind, but an objective relation of the Psalmist ' to God as his King and Protector;' further explaining the signification of the word as in a non-religious sense indicating a relation such as that of a vassal to his suzera n. Now, if we take for granted the correctness of this statement, which shall here neither be affirmed nor denied, does it affect substantially the import of the verse ? Is there no subjective trust implied in the relation of a vassal to his suzerain, especially when the vas - sal reminds the suzerain of it ? And when the Psalmist says, that he has thus committed himself to God, and therefore prays God to preserve him, does he not exhibit the very state of mind and heart which the uncritical reader of the English Bible natu- rally supposes to be expressed in the words, ' Preserve me, God, ' for in thee do I put my trust ? ' The idea of faith or trust is still the leading idea of the verse. And this idea the reader of this Psalm must carry along with him in his perusal of it, for all accords with it, and without it nothing is intelligible. It would be unwarrantable to say that the purpose of Mr Smith's criticism on the first verse of this Psalm, is to strike out of it a large portion of the religious element, without which Christians in general would not find it helpful, as they do, to their edification nor appropriate for use in their devotions. But it seems neither impossible nor unlikely that he has been in- debted here to some previous critic, of whom this could with perfect propriety be asserted. And his whole exposition of the Psalm brings down its interpretation, so that it accords rather with an elevated kind of natural religion than with Christianity. On some verses, indeed, his critical remarks are not only un- objectionable, but may be really useful as tending to elucidate the meaning of certain expressions. It is on the points of greatest importance that he ceases to be a safe guide. The ninth verse he translates thus : — ' Therefore my heart is glad, and my 1 glory rejoiceth ; yea, also my flesh shall dwell secure;' and he 70 ARTICLE ON THE SIXTEENTH PSALM. says : — ' The translation my flesh shall rest in hope, which is as ' old as the Septuagint, has led some Jewish and many Christian ' interpreters to understand this verse of the body resting after ' death in the hope of resurrection. But this translation is cer- ' tainly false. The sense is correctly given by Calvin, " Because 1 " God keeps our bodies as well as our souls, David is entitled to ' " ascribe to his flesh a share in this benefit, so that it shall dwell ' " secure " (cf. 1 Thess. v. 23).' And he goes on to say : — ' The ' Psalmist's hope would not be all-sufficient if it embraced the ' soul and excluded the body. Carry out this thought to its ' just issue, and we cannot logically stop short of the doctrine of ' the resurrection. But we must not therefore hastily assume ' that the Psalmist's hopes took so precise a form.' Then, on the tenth verse, which he renders 1 For thou ivilt not give up my soul to Sheol, c Neither wilt thou suffer thy beloved to see the pit* he says : — 'The rendering, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, 1 is followed by most of the versions. But this is certainly 1 wrong, and the Septuagint version, quoted in Acts ii. 27, ought ' also in all probability to be rendered, Thou ivilt not forsake my * soul to Hades — i.e., so that it fall into the power of Hades (compare Ps. xxxvi. [xxxvii] 33 lxx.).' And he declares his opinion, that the Hebrew word rendered corruption in the autho- rised version, as in the Septuagint, ought rather to be rendered the pit. Mr Smith's opinions about the precise signification and proper translation of the Hebrew words in these verses, as to which his version differs from the authorised version and from other versions in general, do not demand our particular attention at present. The interpretation of the Psalm depends far less upon them than he seems to think ; nor is it necessary to con- sider the question whether or not the adoption of the Septua- gint version by the apostles Peter and Paul (Acts ii. 26, 27, 31, and xiii. 35^ 37), affords evidence of its exact accuracy. Even the substitution of the pit for corruption would not vitiate the argument which these apostles found upon the last clause of the tenth verse — a change, however, for which Mr Smith has ad- duced no sufficient reasons, and the advocacy of which has been suspiciously connected with very dangerous errors. — 'Thou wilt ' not give up mi/ soul to Sheol,' really implies all that is implied in, ' Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol' [or Hades]. And so it is in the ninth verse, ' My flesh shall dwell secure* expresses all the hope that is expressed by 'My flesh shall rest in hope;' for, as Mr Smith himself says, 'Carry out this thought to its just issue' — this thought of a hope extending beyond death, and concern- ing the body as well as the soul — ' and we cannot logically stop THE HOPE OF RESURRECTION. 71 1 short of the doctrine of the resurrection.' Befusing, however, tf admit that we are warranted in holding the Psalmist's hope!* to have taken ' so precise a form/ he places himself in con- flict with the apostle Peter, by whom the hope of the Psalmist is, in plain terms, declared to have been a hope of the resurrec- tion of the promised Christ (Acts ii. 30, 31) — a hope therefore extending to all that is included in the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. It is marvellous that Mr Smith did not feel him- self called upon to shew how he could venture to expound this Psalm in a sense so entirely opposite to that put upon it by the apostle ; that he should not think it necessary to take any notice of the apostle's exposition ; and still more that any man professing to hold the doctrine of Inspiration, should treat that exposition as if it were unworthy of regard. And what hope could any man entertain concerning his body after death, if he stopped short of the hope of resurrection ? Here the attempt to reduce to a low amount the faith and hope of the pious Jews, miserably fails. And the making of such an attempt is strongly significant of evil To deny that the Jews of old knew that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, has been common with men holding other very erroneous opinions, and among such men only. It might be inferred from the way in which Mr Smith quotes Calvin in support of his rendering, My flesh shall dwell secure, instead of My flesh shall rest in hope, that Calvin agrees with him not only as to the precise meaning of the Hebrew words, but as to his interpretation of them, from which a distinct hope of resurrection is excluded. But this is far from being the case, and it would have been well if the Mr Smith had followed Calvin a little further ; who says, of the tenth verse, that in it the Psalmist proceeds to set forth more fully the doctrine already declared, and that hence Peter rightly infers that David must have looked, in prophetic spirit, to the promised Author of life, but that this did not preclude David from applying the pro- mise to himself, the eternal life of all Christ's people being made sure by His resurrection. On what principles Mr Smith proceeds in the interpretation of the Psalms, the following sentence too plainly shews ; and that it is utterly inconsistent with a belief in their inspiration, in a proper sense of the word, must be manifest to every reader. 1 The Psalter includes Psalms which express the whole gamut ' of Old Testament feeling on the subject of death ; and so bears ' witness, on the one hand, how little there was any fixed or \ settled doctrine on the topic ; and, on the other hand, how ' wisely the Old Testament Church refused to exclude from her 1 liturgy any expression of religious feeling which, however para- ' doxic'al it might seem, bore its own reason within itself.' What 72 ARTICLE OX THE SIXTEENTH PSALM. 1 reverence could a man have for the Psalms, who should accept this as a true account of them ? Would it be possible for him to receive them as portions of the Word of God ? If the Old Testament Church had no fixed and settled doctrine on the sub- ject of death, men may naturally infer that it had little fixed or settled doctrine on any subject Avhatever ; and what is here said plainly imports that the Psalms are expressive of feelings arising from different doctrinal beliefs, inconsistent one with another. Yet Mr Smith thinks the Old Testament Church did wisely in refusing to exclude from her liturgy these widely differ- ent expressions of religious feeling — each of which ' bore its own ' reason in itself ; ' though what is meant by this Mr Smith alone will probably ever be able to tell. It does not appear to occur to him that if the Psalms were products of inspiration, a higher wisdom than that of men must be acknowledged as having assigned them their place in what he calls the liturgy of the Old Testament Church ; and there must be among them a thorough doctrinal consistency in all their expressions of the various con- ditions of religious feeling, which have made them precious to believers in all ages, as suiting all the varieties of religious ex- perience. But from this low depth Mr Smith seeks to rise, by assert- ing, that ' in religion the ideal is the true,' an assertion such as might be expected from a rhapsodist setting forth his idle day- dreams under the name of religion ; and which, if it were ad- mitted to be true, might afford ground for plausible argument on behalf of some of the errors of Popery. He goes on to say — as if it were an illustration of this general proposition, which it is not, although itself true — that ' the destiny of him who is ad- ' mitted into full fellowship with God is life, and if that fellowship 1 has never yet been perfectly realised, it must be realised in time ' to come, in the consummation of God's kingdom and righteous- ' ness.' But this sound argument concerning the eternal life of God's people is no step towards the conclusion in progress towards which it is introduced : — ' Thus the Psalm, originally an expres- ' sion of direct personal persuasion, must necessarily, in its place ' in the Old Testament liturgy, have acquired a prophetic signi- ' cance, and so must have been accepted as parallel to such 1 highest anticipations of eschatological prophecy as Isaiah xxv. ' 8, " He Lat'i swallowed np death for ever." ' The apostle Peter gave a very different account of the matter, and evidently knew nothing of this change of significance which Mr Smith so confi- dently says the Psalm must hare undergone. It may be noticed in passing, that the expression ' highest 1 anticipations of eschatological prophecy' is by no means a satisfactory one. It might be used by one who held the fullest belief in direct revelation to and by the prophets ; and would IS THIS PSALM PROPHETIC ? 73 excite no suspicion if occurring in connection with a clear ex- hibition of sound views on this point ; but it accords too well with the idea of development of religion not due to such revela- tion.* ' In the mouth of the Psalmist himself/ Mr Smith says, ' our 1 Psalm did not set forth a remote prophecy or a religious pro- ' blem, but a truth of direct spiritual intuition.' This is in effect to say that the Psalmist did not mean what Peter says he did. And what, it may be asked, is ' a truth of direct spiritual 1 intuition V Is it a truth of revelation or not ? Mr Smith, however, has evidently not forgotten the apostolic exposition of tins Psalm as containing a prophecy of the resur- rection of our Lord, although he does not accept it for his guid- ance in his own ; and he makes an attempt, as it appears, to re- concile that exposition with the low Eationalistic views of the ' modern critics ' — a vain attempt, for they are irreconcilable. He says : — ' When he was manifested among men who bore un- ' broken through all his life the absolute consciousness of sinless 1 fellowship with God, He in whom man was indeed bound to ' God in bonds indissoluble, then the words of the Psalm were ' no longer an ideal of the future, but a present and abiding ' reality. " Him God raised up, loosing the cords of death, ' " because it was not possible he should be holden of it " (Acts ' ii. 24). The Psalm is fulfilled in Christ, because in Christ the ' transcendental ideal of fellowship with God which the Psalm * sets forth, becomes demonstrated reality. And becoming true ' of Christ, the Psalm is also true of all who are His.' There is a most disagreeable nebulosity in these sentences, which is not cleared away when their author proceeds to speak of the Surety- ship of Christ. A wish is only excited to hear him more fully concerning the Suretyship of Christ and the whole relation of Christ to His people. The view presented by Mr Smith of the way in which the Psalm is fulfilled in Christ and in all who are His, will not soon yield such satisfaction to any anxious in- quirer, as that which represents it as a prophecy of the resurrec- tion of Christ, in which the resurrection and immortality of all His people, from the first to the last, are secured. ' But now is ' Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them ' that slept.' The only other production of Mr Smith's pen which remains to be noticed, is an article in the British Quarterly Review for April 1870, on The Question of Prophecy in the Critical Schools of the Continent, and it will not be necessary to examine it so par- ticularly as any of those which have been already under our con- sideration. It is of older date than any of them, and as it was * See pp. 7-10. 74 ARTICLE IN BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW. published before his appointment to his professorship, a donbt has been expressed if anything contained in it could now be founded upon in a process affecting his position as a Theological Professor of the Free Church of Scotland. This it may be neces- sary for the Church courts to consider ; but it is a question which lias no relation to an enquiry into Mr Smith's views such as is the object of the present pamphlet. It may, however, here be observed that the article in the British Quarterly Revieiv was published anonymously, and that probably very few members of the General Assembly which appointed Mr Smith to the profes- sorship had ever heard of it, and fewer had read it. It is not quite so bad as Mr Smith's more recent productions, but still there need be no hesitation in saying that it is bad enough to have afforded strong reason, had it been brought under consideration of the General Assembly, against his appointment. It certainly could not but have been held to prove that he was one to whose guidance the Church could not properly commit the training of students in the exegesis of the Old Testament. Two brief extracts will suffice to shew that this opinion is not expressed without reason, ( The critical study of prophecy has by no means borne out ' the view that, in points of detail, especially in predictive de- ' tails, the prophets are fully at one. But precisely these discre- ' pancies bring out in stronger relief the substantial unity of ' the prophetic spirit. The unity did not lie in a system of ' dogmas. The prophets were familiar indeed with the old theo- ' cratic legislation and the writings of their own predecessors ; ' but their attitude towards both was perfectly free. They knew 1 that Jahveh * was guiding his people to a higher stand-point, in ' which even prophecy itself must fall away. It was not by a ' system of externals, but by participation in the spirit of Jah- ' veh, that the prophets felt themselves bound together. Nor was a man a prophet merely in virtue of his earnest faith in ' the God of Israel. The prophet felt the hand of Jahveh upon 1 him, impelling him in a course that he could not have chosen ' for himself; and in this course, his individuality was not obli- ' terated, bat absorbed and swayed by the one Spirit of all pro- ' phecy. He speaks and thinks, not his own thoughts, but the * thoughts of Jahveh, the living God, whose eternal purpose flows ' in every varying form, but ever in substantial unity, through ' all the history of his people. The man who, amid the tumult ' of the ungodly within, the impotent raging of the heathen with- ' out, can hear the voice of Jahveh pealing through history, he ' is of necessity a prophet.' * This form Mr Smith thought fit to use in this article instead of Jehovah, — an affectation of learned accuracy at once puerile, pedantic, and offensive. But he has had the good sense to relinquish the practice. MR SMITH'S VIEWS OF PROPHECY. 75 1 There never lived a true prophet whose hopes and aspirations ' were bounded by the circle of his own circumstances. True ' prophecy is always ideal, seeking to grasp not the immediate ' future, but the eternal and unchanging principles which Jah- 1 veh, the living God, is ever working out more fully among his ' people. The critical study of prophecy has done no greater 1 service than to point out how small a fraction of the prophetic ' writings is strictly predictive.' Here again we find the same difficulty as in the article Bible, of reconciling the views of prophecy presented by Mr Smith with the idea of inspiration or of revelation. A high view of prophecy seems for a moment to be placed before us, when the prophet is said to speak and think not his own thoughts, but the thoughts of Jehovah ; but in the next moment, we find that we are mis- taken, and that the view is really a very low one, for the voice of Jehovah is only heard ' pealing through history,' through which His ' eternal purpose flows/ and whoever so hears it ' is of neces- ' sity a prophet.' It was surely not anything like this which the prophets themselves meant by their ' Thus saith the Lord.' — The statement as to discrepancies among the prophets is in mani- fest contrariety to a belief in their inspiration. — We might smile when we are told of the great service winch criticism has rendered in pointing out how small a fraction of the prophetic writings is strictly predictive, if it were not for the solemnizing and sadden- ing view which we thereby obtain of the extent to which Mr Smith must have adopted the destructive criticism of the Con- tinental Eationalists. The length to which this examination of Professor Smith's published writings has extended, precludes the possibility of making more than a very few concluding remarks. Any attempt to sum up the evidence laid before the reader in the preceding pages, of the bearing of the writings examined on the Truth, Inspiration, and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, would involve an amount of repetition winch could serve little purpose. The examination has been fairly conducted; and if the conclusion reached is the painful one, that these writings are full of error, and of most dangerous tendency, it is only because no possibility is left of avoiding it. A more thorough and minute examination would only confirm that conclusion. It was impossible, without greatly increasing the size of the pamphlet, to take notice of every objectionable passage. The errors into which Mr Smith has fallen affect almost everything that presents itself to him in the wide field of Biblical Criticism ; and however he may refuse to admit their logical consequences in respect to doctrinal theology, they cannot fail to be soon carried out to these consequences by others. Already, indeed, tins may be seen too plainly illustrated 76 CONCLUDING REMARKS. in the new boldness with which men, nnsonnd on the most vital questions of theology, have within the last twelve months given utterance to their views, declaring their disbelief in much that is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which they solemnly professed to believe when they were ordained, and in virtue of their acceptance of which, as exhibiting their faith, they hold their positions and receive their stipends as ministers of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. Had the publication of Mr Smith's article Bible been promptly followed by such action on the part of the Free Church of Scotland as the serious nature of the case imperatively demanded, the effect would in all pro- liability have been beneficial to all the Churches, and to the cause of religion itself. It cannot be too deeply regretted that Mr Smith has been permitted to carry on his work as a Professor in Aberdeen, during a session which did not begin for months after the article Bible was published, as if he were one in the sound- ness of whose teaching the Free Church had perfect confidence. The harm done will not easily be repaired. But were the Free Church now, when the question is fully before her, to consent to such teaching in any of her colleges as is to be found in his writings, she would forfeit her claim to the respect she has hitherto enjoyed from all the evangelical Churches in the world, and could no longer be deemed the same with the Free Church of 1843, nor a true representative of the Scottish Church of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Once already, and only once, in her history, the Free Church of Scotland has been called upon to bear her testimony against deadly error proclaimed and maintained by one of her ministers, — in the case of Mr Scott (of Glasgow) in 1845, — and admirably was her duty then discharged. May she be guided now in a course of similar wisdom and faithfulness ! The errors of Rational- ism are certainly not less deadly than those of Morisonianism. There seems to be a fear, in some quarters, lest by any decided condemnation of Mr Smith's writings, or judicial proceedings against him on account of them, liberty of thought in the Free Church should be unduly restrained. Put, like the name of Charity, the name of Liberty has often been grossly abused. The claim of liberty was put forth by those who brought Arian- ism and Unitarianism into the Presbyterian Churches of Eng- land and Ireland in the early part of the last century, much as it is by the shallow and pretentious theologians who now pre- sume to speak contemptuously of the Westminster Standards ; the free thought of which they boast has a strong resemblance, in nature as well as in name, to what was then called free thinking, and moves in the same direction. Liberty has necessary limits in any Church; even as civil liberty has its limits, as essential as it is itself to the well-being of society. And when these limits CONCLUDING REMARKS. 77 are overpassed, then the claim of liberty of thought becomes a mere claim of liberty to uproot and destroy all that is most precious. The idea of a Church without a creed is absurd ; and for a Church to allow teaching contrary to her creed, is virtually to renounce it. And whatever liberty men may fairly claim in Biblical Criticism, it cannot be to treat the Holy Scriptures as if they were mere uninspired books. He that believes in Inspira- tion can never forget it in all his study of the Word of God. Doubtless, this belief imposes some restraint on his speculations. But so does every other true belief. It is only, however, a re- straint from error. He who is fully established in the belief of Inspiration, or of any other doctrine, is no more trammelled by it than the astronomer in his speculations and calculations is trammelled by his belief in the law of gravitation. But the liberty for which many now plead can only seem reasonable on the as- sumption that, in religion, there is no certain truth — an assump- tion which implies infidelity, and is a contradiction of his own profession on the part of any one who calls himself a Christian. CRAWFORD & ll'CABE, PRINTERS, QUEEK STREET, EDINBURGH. PAMPHLETS RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY JAMES GEM! t jL, 15 GEORGE IV. BRIDGE, EDINBURGH. Price Sixpence Each. Presbyter's Defence of Professor Smith, Examined by Eev. George Macaulay. Professor Smith's Obligations to Dr Kuenen Indicated, by Eev. George Macaulay. Observations on Professor W. R. Smith's Article ' Bible,' in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, by James Kennedy, B.D. The Gospels Prior in Point of Time to the Epistles, and therefore not the Products of a Past Apostolic Period, by the Rev. Eobert Williamson, Ascog, Rothesay. Creeds and Consistency : a Lecture, by James Begg, d.d. Without Wavering. A Lecture delivered in the Free High Church, Paisley, on the 25th February, and in the Free Church, Galashiels, on the 18th March 1877, by the Rev. Thomas Smith, Cowgatehead, Edinburgh. Fourth Thousand. The Bible on the Rock : A Letter to Principal Rainy, by the author of the ' Sabbath on the Rock.' The Price Fourpence. Confession on the Rock: A Complaint against the Rev. Fergus Ferguson, for Holding and Teach- ing Erroneous Doctrines, with Notes by the Author of the i Bible on the Rock, etc. Price One Shilling. An Examination of Articles Contributed by W. Robertson Smith to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Expositor, and the British Quarterly Review, in relation to the Truth, Inspiration, and Authority of the Holy Scrip- tures, by A Minister op the Free Church of Scotland. IB- Egg Date Due _ HB>f% ! j 1 ^ ■ fSmmm ; :^'' ;; ^;Xv; m • . ■■"' wa ■- " > • • • •'•'•■"■■• :'■■"*'■ ■"'"-■ X '■■■'; 111 '■:<■■■ *■ . ■-■••'••; '■>.--'■•: ■ •■■■•*.•■. ■'-<•'■•■''■■•:■ ■,•■«■■■■ ' : '■'• ; I " v '