The Libel against Professor William 
 Robertson Smith. 
 
 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 
 
 FEEE GHUECH PEESBYTEEY 
 
 OF ABERDEEN 
 
 FEBKUAKY 14, TO MAKCH 14, 1878. 
 
 WITH FOI^M OF LIBEL. 
 
 ABEEDEEN: 
 
 ALEXANDER MUEKAY, 216 UNION STEEET. 
 
 EDINBURGH : MACLAEEN & MACNIYEN. 
 
 > GLASGOW : D. BRYCE & SON. 
 I 
 
 ' 1878. 
 
^^ Pres 
 si The 1 
 
 BX 9084 .L69 1878 
 Free Church of Scotland. 
 Presbytery of Aberdeen. 
 The libel against Professor 
 "iam Robertson Smith 
 
The Libel against Professor {^^^^^(^ j955 '^ 
 Robertson Sinitk. ^^g/cal stw^v^ ' 
 
 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 
 
 FEEE CHUECH PEESBYTEET 
 
 OF ABERDEEIT, 
 
 FEBEUAEY 14, TO MAECH 14, 1878. 
 
 WITH FORM OF LIBEL. 
 
 ABEEDEEN: 
 
 ALEXANDEE MUEEAY, 216 UNION" STEEET. 
 
 EDINBURGH : MACLAEEN & MACNIVEX. 
 
 GLASGOW : D. BRYCE & SON. 
 
 1878. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 The present reprint is made from the newspaper report of proceedings during the eight 
 days on which the Presbytery were engaged in (1) discussion of the relevancy of the 
 main charge of contradicting or being opposed to the Confession of Faith under the 
 eight particulars stated ; and (2) discussion of the general relevancy of the second 
 charge of dangerous and unsettling tendency. The prior proceedings had re- 
 ference only to matters of form. In order to keep the reprint within reason- 
 able limits it has been found necessary so far to condense the speeches on both 
 sides in the Presbytery, retaining the line of argument sufficiently in every case to 
 bring out the points. The object of the reprint being to bring before the Church as 
 clearly as possible the opinions of Professor Smith on aU the points raised, his speeches 
 — with, of course, the omission of remarks during incidental discussions on mere 
 matters of form — have been reproduced, without any material abridgment, from the 
 fullest available report — that in the Daily Free Press. The Draft Form of Libel is 
 prefixed to enable the reader to follow the course of the argument intelligently at the 
 different stages. 
 
^PIIIIIUL., 
 .( fi£C. SEP \m\ 
 
 TIISOLOC: 
 
 DRAFT rOEM OF LIBEL. 
 
 THE FREE PEESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 MR. WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH. 
 
 Mr. William Robertson Smith, Professor of Oriental Languages and Exegesis of 
 the Old Testament at Aberdeen, you are indicted and accused, at the instance of the 
 Free Presbytery of Aberdeen : — 
 
 That whereas the publishing and promulgating of opinions which contradict or 
 are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures, or any part or parts thereof, as set forth in the 
 Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith, and to the doctrines of prophecy 
 and angels therein set forth ; as also, the publishing and promulgating of opinions 
 which are in themselves of a dangerous and imsettling tendency in their bearing on 
 the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of 
 the Holy Scriptures, or any part or parts thereof, as set forth in the Scriptures them- 
 selves and in the Confession of Faith, and in their bearing on the doctrines of pro- 
 phecy and angels therein set forth ; as also, the publishing and promulgating of 
 ■writings concerning the books of Holy Scripture, which ^vritings, by their neutrality 
 of attitude in relation to the said doctrines, and by their rashness of statement in 
 regard to the critical construction of the Scriptures, tend to disparage the Divine 
 authority and inspired character of these books, as set forth in the Scriptures them- 
 selves and in the Confession of Faith, are severally offences, especially in a Professor 
 of Divinity, which call for such censure or other judicial sentence as may be found 
 adequate ; and more particularly : — 
 
 Privw : — Albeit the opinion that the Aaronic priesthood, and at least a great 
 part of the laws and ordinances of the Levitical system, were not di\anely instituted 
 in the time of Moses, and that those large parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, 
 which represent them as having been then instituted by God, were inserted in the 
 inspired records long after the death of Moses : — 
 
 Secundo : — Albeit the opinion that the book of inspired Scripture called Deutero- 
 nomy, which is professedly an historical record, does not possess that character, but 
 was made to assume it by a writer of a much later age, who therein, in the name of 
 God, presented in dramatic form, instructions and laws as proceeding from the mouth 
 of Moses, though these never were, and never could have been uttered by him : — 
 
 Tertio : — Albeit opinions which lower the character of the inspired writings to 
 the level of uninspired, by ignoring their divine authorship, and by representing the 
 sacred writers as taking freedoms and committing errors like other authors ; as giving 
 explanations that were unnecessary and incorrect ; as putting fictitious speeches into 
 the mouths of their historical characters ; as giving inferences of their own for facts ; 
 as describing arrangements as made use of in their complete form at a certain time 
 which were not completed till long afterwards ; and as writing under the influence of 
 party spirit and for jiarty purposes : — 
 
Quarto : — Albeit the presentation of oi^inions which discredit the authenticity 
 and canonical standing of books of Scripture by imputing to them a fictitious charac- 
 ter ; by attributing to them what is disparaging ; aiid by stating discrediting opinions 
 of others, without any indication of dissent therefrom : — 
 
 Quinto : — Albeit the opinion that the portion of Scripture knowni as Canticles, 
 although included among the books which in the Confession of Faith are declared to 
 have been immediately inspired by God, is devoid of any spiritual significance, and 
 only presents a high example of virtue in a betrothed maiden, without any recognition 
 of the Divine law, and that its deletion from the canon was providentially prevented by 
 the prejudice in favour of an allegorical interpretation, to the effect that " from verse 
 to verse the song sets forth the history of a spiritual, and not merely of an earthly 
 love " : — 
 
 Sexto : — Albeit opinions which contradict or ignore the testimony given in the 
 Old Testament, and also that of our Lord and His Apostles in the New Testament, 
 to the authorship of Old Testament Scriptures, upon wliich authorship most momentous 
 teaching was sometimes based : — 
 
 Septimo : — Albeit opinions which disparage prophecy by representing its pre- 
 dictions as arising merely from so-called spiritual insight, based on the certainty of 
 God's righteous purpose, and which exclude prediction in the sense of direct super- 
 natural revelation of events long posterior to the prophet's own age : — 
 
 Octavo : — Albeit the opinion that belief in the superhuman reality of the angelic 
 beings of the Bible is matter of assumption rather than of direct teaching ; and that 
 angels are endowed with special goodness and insight analogous to human qualities 
 appears as a popular assumption, not as a doctrine of revelation : — • 
 
 Albeit that all these opinions, or one or more of them do contradict or are opposed 
 to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of 
 the Holy Scriptures, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession 
 of Faith as aforesaid, and to the doctrines of prophecy and angels therein set forth ; 
 as also are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in their bearing on 
 the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority 
 of the Holy Scriptures, as set forth in the Sci-iptures themselves and in the 
 Confession of Faith as aforesaid, and in tlieir bearing on the doctrines of 
 prophecy and angels therein set forth ; as also that the writings containing these 
 opinion,! do exhibit neutrality of attitude in relation to the said doctrines, and rash- 
 ness of statement in regard to the critical construction of the Scriptures, tending to 
 disparafj'e the divine authority and inspired character of the books of Holy Scripture, 
 as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith as aforesaid : — 
 
 Yet, true it is, and of verity, that you, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, are 
 guilty of tbe said offence of publishing and promulgating opinions which do contradict 
 or are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible ti-uth, and 
 divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or part or parts thereof, as set forth in the 
 Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith, and to the doctrines of prophecy 
 and angels therein also set forth : or otherwise of the said offence of publishing and 
 promulgating opinions which are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency 
 in th.jir bearing on the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and 
 divinti authority of the Holy Scrijjtures, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and 
 in the Confession of Faith, and in their bearing on the doctrines of prophecy and 
 angels also therein set forth ; or otherwise of the said offence of publishing and pro- 
 mulgating WTitings concerning the books of Holy Scripture, which writings, by their 
 neutrality of attitude in relation to the said doctrines, and by their rashness of state- 
 ment in regard to the critical construction of Holy Scriptures, tend to disparage the 
 di'V'ine authority of these books, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in 
 the Confession of Faitli, in so far as you, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, have 
 published and promulgated or concurred in the pubUshing and promulgating the 
 following articles and remarks, of which you are the author, videlicet : articles 
 ''Angel," "Bible," "Canticles," and "Chronicles," in the ninth edition of the Ency- 
 chpredia Britannica ; also, ai-ticle "The Sixteenth Psalm," in The Expositor, number 
 XXIII., of November 187G ; and article "The Question of Prophecy in tlie Critical 
 
Schools of the Continent," in the British Quarterly Rcvie^o of April 1870 ; also, " Re- 
 marks" by Professor \V. R. Smith on a memorandum of the sub-committee on the 
 article "Bible" in the Encydopccdia Britannica, published in the College Committee's 
 report to the General Assembly ; all which publications being to be used in evidence 
 against you, are lodged in the hands of the Clerk of the Presbyteiy, that you may 
 have an opportunit}' of seeing the same ; of which articles and remarks you have 
 acknowledged yourself to be the author, to the said Free Presbytery of Aberdeen, at 
 its meeting held there on the twelfth day of April, eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 seven ; in which articles and remarks you, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, 
 express ojiinions which do contradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate 
 inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authoiity of the Holy Scriptures, or part or 
 parts thereof, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith, 
 ■and to the doctrines of prophecy and angels also therein set forth : or otherwise you 
 express opinions which are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in 
 their beai-ing on the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the 
 Confession of Faith, and in their bearing on the doctrines of prophecy and angels 
 therein also set forth : or otherwise the said articles and remarks, of which you are 
 the author, exhibit neutrality of attitude in relation to the said doctrines, and rash- 
 ness of statement in regard to the critical construction of the Holy Scriptures, tending 
 to disparage the divine authority and inspired character of the books of Scripture, as 
 set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith. Slore par- 
 ticularly and without prejudice to the said generality :— 
 
 Primo : — You, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, in the article " Bible," pub- 
 lished in the foresaid edition of the Enci/dopcedia Britannica, and at the pages thereof 
 aftei-mentioned, expressed yourself as follows, vidclicit, page 638a : IF " If then the 
 Deuteronomic legislation is not earlier than the prophetic period of the Sth and 7th 
 centuries, and, accordingly, is subsequent to the elements of the Pentateuchal history 
 which we have seen to be known to Hosea, it is plain that the chronology of the com- 
 position of the Pentateuch may be said to centre in the question whether the Levitico- 
 Elohistic document, which embraces most of the laws in Leviticus with large parts of 
 Exodus and Numbers, is earlier or later than Deuteronomy. The answer to this ques- 
 tion turns almost wholly on archaeological inquiries, for there is, perhaps, no quite con- 
 clusive reference to the Elohistic record in the Prophets before the Exile, or in Deu- 
 teronomy itself. And here arises the great dispute which divides critics, and makes 
 our whole construction of the origin of the historical books imcertain. The Levitical 
 laws give a graduated hierarchy of priests and Levites ; Deuteronomy regards all 
 Lev-ites as at least possible priests. Round this difference, and points allied to it, the 
 whole discussion turns. W^e know, mainly from Ezekiel xliv., that before the Exile 
 the strict hierarchical law was not in force, apparently never had been in force. But 
 can we suppose that the very idea of such a hierarchy is the latest point of liturgical 
 development ? If so, the Levitical element is the latest thing in the Pentateuch, or, 
 in truth, in the historical series to which the Pentateuch belongs ; or, on the opposite 
 view, the hierarchy theory existed as a legal programme long before the Exile, though 
 it was fully carried out only after Ezra. As all tlie more elaborate symbolic obser- 
 vances of the ritual law are bound up with the hierarchical ordinances, the solution 
 of this problem has issues of the greatest importance for the theology as well as for 
 the literary history of the Old Testament" : Pages 634b and 635a : il "A just in- 
 sight into the work of the prophetic party in Israel was long rendered difficult by tra- 
 ditional prejudices. On the one hand the predictive element in prophecy received un- 
 due prominence, and withdrew attention from the influence of the prophets on the 
 religious life of their own tijne ; while, on the other hand, it was assumed, in accord- 
 ance with Jewish notions, that all the ordinances, and almost, if not quite, all the 
 doctrines of the Jewish church in the post-canonical period, existed from the earliest 
 days of the theocracy. The prophets, therefore, were conceived pai-tly as inspired 
 preachers of old truths, partly as predicting future events, but not as leaders of a great 
 development, in which the religious .ordinances as well as the religious beliefs of the 
 Old Covenant advanced from a relatively crude and imperfect to a relatively mature 
 and adequate form. *[ The proof that this latter view, and not the traditional con- 
 ception, is alone true to history depends on a variety of arguments which cannot here 
 be reproduced. That the religious ideas of the Old Testament were in a state of 
 
6 
 
 growth during the whole prophetic period became manifest as soon as the laws of 
 grammatico-historical exegesis were fairly applied to the Hebrew Scriptures. That 
 the sacred ordinances were subject to variation was less readily admitted, because the 
 admission involved a change of view as to the authorship of the Pentateuch ; hut here 
 also the facts are decisive. . . . But perhaps the clearest proof that, during the 
 period of prophetic inspiration, there was no doctrine of finality with regard to ritual 
 law any more than with regard to religious ideas and doctrines, lies in the last chap- 
 ters of Ezekiel, which sketch at the very era of the Captivity an outline of sacred 
 ordinaoces for the future restoration. From these and similar facts it follows indis- 
 putably, that the true and spiritual religion which the prophets and like-minded priests 
 maintained at once against heathenism and against unspiritual worship of Jehovah as 
 a mere national deity without moral attributes, was not a finished but a growing 
 system, not finally embodied in authoritative documents, but propagated mainly by 
 direct personal efforts. At the same time these personal efforts were accompanied and 
 supported by the gradual rise of a sacred literature. Though the priestly ordinances 
 were mainly published by oral decisions of the priests, which are, in fact, what is 
 usually meant by the word law (Torah), in writings earlier than the Captivity, there 
 can be no reasonable doubt that the priests possessed written legal collections of greater 
 or less extent from the time of Moses downwards. Again, the example of Ezekiel, 
 and the obvious fact that the law-book foimd at the time of Josiah contained provi- 
 sions which were not wp to that time an acknowledged part of the law of the 
 land, makes it probable that legal provisions which the prophets and their priestly 
 allies felt to be necessary for the maintenance of the truth were often embocUed 
 in legislative programmes, by which previous legal tradition was gradually modi- 
 fied :" Page 6;35b : H " Previous reformers had been statesmen or prophets. Ezra 
 is a scribe who comes to Jerusalem anned, not with a fresh message from the 
 Lord, but with ' the book of the law of Moses.' This law-book was the Penta- 
 teuch, and the public recognition of it as the rule of the theocracy was the 
 declaration that the religious ordinances of Israel had ceased to admit of develop- 
 ment, and the first step towards the substitution of a canon or authoritative 
 collection of Scriptures for the living g-uidance of the prophetic voice : " Page 636b : 
 11 " But in its present shape the Pentateuch is certainly subsequent to the occupation, 
 for it uses geographical names which arose after that time (Hebron, Dan), refers to 
 the conquest as already accomplished (Deut. ii. 12, cf. ; Num. xv. 32 ; Gen. xii. G), 
 and even presupposes the existence of a kingship in Israel (Gen. xxxvi. 31). And with 
 this it agrees, that though there are marked differences of style and language within 
 the book of Joshua, each style finds its counterpart in some section of the Pentateuch. 
 In the subsequent books we find quite similar phenomena. The last chapters of 
 Judges cannot be separated from the book of Samuel, and the earlier chapters of 
 Kings are obviously one with the foregoing nan-ative ; while all three books contain 
 passages strikingly akin to parts of the Pentateuch and Joshua cf., (for example, the 
 book of Deuteronomy with Josh, xxiii., 1 Sam. xii., 1 Kings viii.) Such phenomena 
 not only prove the futility of any attempt to base a theory of authorship on the pre- 
 sent division into books, but suggest that the history as we have it is not one narra- 
 tive carried on from age to age by successive additions, but a fusion of several narra- 
 tives which partly covered the same ground and were combined into unity by an 
 editor." 
 
 Secundo : — You, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, in the foresaid article 
 " Bible," published in the foresaid Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, expressed 
 yourself, at page 637b, as follows, videlicet : IT " Now the Book of Deuteronomy 
 presents a quite distinct type of style which, as has been already mentioned, recurs 
 from time to time in passages of the later books, and that in such a connection as to 
 suggest to many critics since Gi-af the idea, that the Deuteronomic hand is the hand 
 of the last erUtor of the whole history from Genesis to Kings, or, at least, of the non- 
 Levitical parts thereof. This conclusion is not stringent, for a good deal may be said 
 in favour of the view that the Deuteronomic style, which is very capable of imitation, 
 was adopted by writers of different periods. But even so it is difficult to suppose 
 that the legislative part of Deuteronomy is as old as Moses. If the law of the kingdom 
 in Deuteronomy xvii. was known in the time of the Judges, it is impossible to com- 
 prehend Judges viii. 23, and above all 1 Samuel 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 Deutero- 
 nomic law is familiar to Jeremiah, the younger contemporaiy 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 tlie beginning of the theocratic development without 
 making the whole histoiy imintelligible. Beyond doubt the book is, as already hinted, 
 a prophetic legislative programme ; and if the author put his work in the mouth of 
 Moses, instead of giving it, with Ezekiel, a directly prophetic form, he did so not in 
 pious fraud, but simply because his object was not to give a new law, but to expound 
 and develop Mosaic principles in relation to new needs. And as ancient WTiters are 
 not accustomed to distinguish historical data from historical deductions, he naturally 
 presents his views in dramatic form in the mouth of Moses." As also, in your said 
 " Remarks on Memorandum of the Sub-Committee on the article Bible," expressed 
 yourself as follows, videlicit, page 20 : H " When my position is thus discriminated 
 from the theories of those who like Kuenen ascribe the origin of Deuteronomy 
 to a pious fraud, I do not think that it will be found to involve any more serious in- 
 novation in om- conception of the method of revelation than this — that the written 
 record of the revelation of God's will which is necessary unto salvation makes use of 
 certain forms of literary presentation which have always been thought legitimate in 
 ordinary composition, but which were not always understood to be used in the Bible." 
 And at page 21 of the said Kemarks you expressed yourself thus : H " It is asked 
 whether our Lord does not bear witness to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. 
 If this were so, I should feel myself to be on very dangerous and untenable ground. 
 But it appears to me that only a very strained exegesis can draw any inference of 
 authorship from the recorded words of our Saviom-." 
 
 Tcrtio : — You, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, in the article " Chronicles," 
 in the foresaid Edition of the " Encyclopredia Britannica," and at the pages after- 
 mentioned, expressed yourself as follows, rideliret, pages 70Sb-709a : H " 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 parenetic and practical purposes. But on the other hand it is not to 
 be doubted that in shaping his narrative 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 vnth a view to distinguish in indi\adual passages between the facts 
 derived by the Chronicler from his wTitten sources and the literary additions, explana- 
 tions, and inferences which are his own. In particular : H 1. His explanations of 
 verbal and material difficulties must be critically considered. Thus even Keil admits 
 an error in 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37, Avhere the Tharshisli-ships, that is ships fit for a long 
 voyage, which Jehoshaphat built on the Red Sea (1 Kings xxii. 48), are explained as 
 ships voyaging to Tartessus in Spain. Such ci-iticism is especially necessary where 
 remarks are introduced tending to explain away the differences in religious observances 
 between early times and the period of the Chronicler. Thus in 1 Chron. xxi. 28, sqq., 
 an explanation is given of the reasons which led David to sacrifice on the threshing- 
 floor of Oman instead of going to the brazen altar at Gibeon. But it is certain that 
 at the time of David the principle of a single altar was not acknowledged, and there- 
 fore no explanation was required. In 1 Kings iii. 3, 4, Gibeon appears only as the 
 chief of many high places, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Clu'onicler 
 has simply infen-cd from the importance of this sanctuary that it must have possessed 
 a special legitimation, which could only consist in the presence of the old brazen 
 altar. ^ 2. A certain freedom of literary form was always allowed to ancient his- 
 torians, and need not perplex anyone who does not apply a false standard to the 
 narrative. To this head belongs especially the introduction of speeches like that of 
 Abijah in 2 Chron. xiii. This speech is no doubt a free composition, and 
 would be so understood by the author's contemporaries. By such literary de- 
 vices the author was enabled to point a lesson ■i\-ithout interrupting the tlu-ead of 
 his narrative by reflections of his own. Similar remarks apply to the psalm 
 in 1 Chi-on. xvi., which is made up of extracts from Psalms cv., xc^^., cvi. H 3. 
 A usage not peculiar to the Chronicler among Old Testament writers, and which 
 must be carefully taken into account by the historical critic, is that of giving statistical 
 
8 • 
 
 information in a narrative form A different application of the same 
 
 principle seems to lie in the account of the institutions of Levitical ser\^ce which is 
 introduced in connection with the transference of the ark to Jerusalem by David. 
 The author is not concerned to distinguish the gradual steps by which the Levitical 
 organization attained its full development. But he wishes to describe the system in 
 its complete form, especially as regards the service of the singers, and he does this 
 under the reign of David, who was the father of Hebrew psalmody, and the restorer 
 of the sanctuary of the ark : " Pages 706b-70ra : IT "What seems to be certain and 
 important for a right estimate of the book is that the author lived a considerable time 
 after Ezra, and stood entirely imder the influence of the religious institutions of the 
 new theocracy. This standpoint determined the nature of his interest in the early 
 history of his people. IT The true importance of Hebrew history had always centred 
 in the fact that this petty nation Avas the people of Jehovah, the spiritual God. The 
 tragic interest which distinguishes the snnals of Israel from the forgotten history of 
 Moab or Damascus lies wholly in that long contest which finally vindicated the 
 reality of spiritual things and the supremacy of Jehovah's purpose, in the political 
 ruin of the nation which was the faithless depositary of these sacred truths. After 
 the captivity it was impossible to ^vi-ite the history of Israel's fortunes otherwise than 
 in a spirit of religious pragmatism. But within the limits of the religious conception 
 of the plan and purpose of the Hebrew history more than one point of view might be 
 taken up. The Book of Kings looks upon the history in the spirit of the Prophets — 
 in that spirit which is still echoed by Zechariah (i. 5, 6) : 'Your fathers, where are 
 they ? And the prophets, could they live for ever ? But my words and my statutes, 
 which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers ? 
 so that they turned and said, Like as Jehovah of Hosts thought to do unto us . , 
 . . so hath he dealt with us.' But long before the Chronicler wrote, the last spark 
 of prophecy was extinct. The New Jerusalem of Ezra was organized as a munici- 
 pality and a Church, not as a nation. The centre of religious life was no longer the 
 living prophetic word but the ordinances of the Pentateuch and the liturgical service 
 of the sanctuary. The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national but ecclesi- 
 astical or municipal, and the historical continuity of the nation was vividly realized 
 only within the walls of Jerusalem and the courts of the Temple, in the solemn 
 assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast day. These influences naturally operated 
 most strongly on those who were officially attached to the sanctuary. To a 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. It even 
 seems possible from a close attention to his descriptions of sacred ordinances to con- 
 clude that his special interests are those of a common Levite rather than of a priest, 
 and that of all Levitical functions he is most partial to those of the singers, a member 
 of whose guild Ewald conjectures him to have been. To such a man the older de- 
 lineation of the history 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 misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and that 
 without condemnation, things inconsistent wdth the Pentateuchal law. The history of 
 the ordinances of worship holds a very small place in the older record. Jerusalem 
 and the Temple have not that central place in the book of Kings which they occupied 
 in the mind of the Jewish community after the Exile. Large sections of the old 
 history are devoted to the religion and politics of the ten tribes, which are altogether 
 unintelligible and uninteresting when measured by a strictly Levitical standard ; and 
 in general the whole problems and struggles of the prophetic period turn on points 
 which had ceased to be cardinal in the life of the New Jerusalem, which was no 
 longer called to decide between the claims of the Word of Jehovah and the exi- 
 gencies of political affairs and social customs, and which could not comprehend that 
 men absorbed in deeper spiritual contests had no leisure for the niceties of Levitical 
 legislation. Thus there seemed to be room for a new history, which should confine 
 itself to matters still interesting to the theocracy of Zion, keeping Jerusalem and the 
 Temple in the foreground, and developing the divine pragmatism of the history, not 
 so much with reference to the jirophetic word as to the fixed legislation of the Penta- 
 teuch, so that the whole narrative might be made to teach that the glory of Israel lies 
 in the observance of the divine law and ritual : " Page 707b : 11 " In the later 
 history the ten tribes p.re iiuite neglected, and political affairs in Judah receive 
 
attention, not in proportion to their intrint^ic importance, but according as they serve 
 to exemplify God's help to the obedient and His chastisement of the rebellious. That 
 the author is always unwilling to speak of the misfortunes of good rulers is not to be 
 ascribed Vvith some critics to a deliberate suppression of truth, but shows that the 
 book was throughout composed not in purely historical interests, but with a \-iew to 
 inculcate a single practical lesson. The more important additions which the Chron- 
 icler makes to the old narrative consist partly of statistical lists (1 Chron. xii.), partly 
 of full details on points connected with the history of the sanctuary and the great 
 feasts or the archceology of the Levitical ministry . . . and partly of narratives 
 of victories and defeats, of sins and punishments, of obedience and its reward, which 
 could be made to point a plain religious lesson in favour of the faithful obsen'ance of 
 the law .... The minor variations of Chronicles from the books of Samuel 
 and Kings are analogous in princijde to the larger additions and omissions, so that the 
 whole work has a consistent and well-marked character, jiresenting the history in 
 quite a different perspective from that of the old narrative. IT Here, then, a critical 
 question arises Is the change of perspective wholly due to a different selection of 
 items from authentic historical tradition ? Slay we assume that everything which is 
 new in the Clironicles has been taken exactly from older sources, or must we judge 
 that the standpoint of the author has not only governed the selection, but coloured 
 the statement of historical facts ? Are all his novelties new data, or are some of them 
 inferences of his own from the same data as lie before us in other Ijooks of the Bible ? " 
 
 Quarto : — You, the said ]Mr. William Robertson Smith, in the said article " Bible," 
 published in the foresaid Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and at the pages 
 aftermentioned, expressed yourself as follows, viddicft, page 639b : H " In the book 
 of Job we find poetical invention of incidents, attached for didactic pm-poses to a 
 name apparently derived from old tradition. There is no valid «■ priori reason for 
 denying that the Old Testament may contain other examples of the same art. The 
 book of Jonah is generally viewed as a case in point. Esther, too, has been viewed 
 as a fiction by many who are not over sceptical critics ; but on this view a book which 
 finds no recognition in the New Testament, and whose canonicity was long suspected 
 by the Christian as well as by the Jewish Church, must sink to the rank of an 
 apocryijhal production. H In the poetical as in the historical books anonymous 
 writing is the rule ; and along with this we observe great freedom on the part of 
 I'eaders and copyists, who not only made verbal changes (cf. Psalm xiv. with Psalm 
 liii.), but composed new poems out of fragments of others (Psalm cviii. with Ivii. and 
 Ix.) In a large part of the Psalter a later hand has systematically substituted 
 Elohina for Jehovah, and an imperfect acrostic, like Ps. ix., x., cannot have proceeded 
 in its i3resent form from the first author. Still more remarkable is the case of the 
 book of Job, in which the speeches of Elihu quite break the connection, and are 
 almost universally assigned to a later hand : " Page 640b : IT " In this sketch of the 
 projihetic 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 
 IMaccabee wars, presents so many points of diversity from ordinary prophec}' as to 
 require entiiely separate treatment. It is in jjoint of form the precui-sor of the 
 apocalyptic books of post-canonical Judaism, though in its intrinsic qualities far 
 superior to these, and akin to the prophets proper : " Pages 635b, 636a : H " The 
 miscellaneous character of the Ketubim " [embracing Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, 
 Kuth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles] 
 " seems, in fact, to show that after the Law and the Prophets were closed, the third 
 part of the canon was open to receive additions, recommended either by their re- 
 ligious and historical value, or by bearing an ancient and venerable name. And this 
 was the more natural because the Hagiographa had not the same place in the synagogue 
 service as was accorded to the Law and the Propliets." 
 
 Quinto : — You, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, in the afoi-esaid article 
 " Canticles," published in the aforesaid Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and 
 at the pages aftermentioned, expressed yoiu'self as follows, videlicet, page 32b : H " To 
 tradition, again, we owe the still powerful prejudice in favour of an allegorical inter- 
 pretation, that is, of the view that from verse to verse the Song sets forth tlie 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 interpi-etation. True 
 
10 
 
 allegories are never without internal marks of their allegorical design. The language 
 of sjonbol is not so perfect that a long chain of spiritual ideas can be developed with- 
 out the use of a single spiritual word or phrase ; and even were this possible it would 
 be false art in the allegorist to hide away his sacred thoughts behind a screen of 
 sensuous and erotic imagery, so complete and beautiful in itself as to give no sugges- 
 tion tliat it is only the vehicle of a deeiJer sense. Apart from tradition no one, in the 
 present state of exegesis, would dream of allegorizing poetry which in its natural sense 
 is so full of purpose and meaning, so apt in sentiment, and so perfect in imagery as 
 the lyrics of Canticles. We are not at liberty to seek for allegory except where the 
 natural sense is incomplete. This is not the case in the Song of Solomon. On the 
 contrary, every form of the allegorical interpretation which has been devised carries 
 its own condemnation in the fact that it takes away from the artistic unity of the 
 poem and breaks natural sequences of thought. The allegorical interpretation of the 
 Song of Solomon had its rise in the very same conditions which forced a deeper sense, 
 now universally discarded, upon so many other parts of Scripture :" Page 35a : If "The 
 heroine appears in the opening scene in a difficult and painfid situation, from which 
 in the last chapter she is happily extricated. But the dramatic progress which the 
 poem exhibits scarcely involves a plot in the usual sense of f'at word. The words of 
 viii. 9, 10, clearly indicate that the deliverance of the heroine is due to no combination 
 of favouring circumstances, but to her own inflexible fidelity and virtue. In accor- 
 dance with this her rSle throughout the poem is simply a steadfast adherence to the 
 position which she takes up in the opening scene, where she is represented as con- 
 centrating her thoughts upon her absent lover with all that stubborn force of will 
 which is characteristic of the Hebrews, and as fru5trating the advances of the king by 
 the mere naive intensity of pre-occupied affection : " Page 35b : H " We learn that 
 she was an inhabitant of Shulem or Shunem in Issachar, whom the king and his train 
 surprised in a garden on the occasion of a royal progi-ess through the north. Her 
 beauty drew from the ladies of the court a cry of admiration : " And page 36b : 
 ^ " A poem in the northern dialect, -vdth a northern heroine and scenery, contrasting 
 the pure simplicity of Galilee with the corrupt splendour of the court of Solomon, is 
 clearly the embodiment of one phase of the feeling which separated the ten tribes 
 from the house of David. The kingdom of Solomon was an innovation on old 
 traditions partly 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 Jero- 
 boam ^\as in great measure the work of the prophets, and must therefore have carried 
 vith it the religious and moral convictions of the people. An impoi'tant element in 
 these convictions, which still claims our fullest sympath}', is powerfully set forth in 
 the Canticles, and the deletion of the book from the canon, providentially averted by 
 the allegorical theory, would leave us without a most necessary complement to the 
 Judean view of the conduct of the ten tribes which we get in the historical books. 
 Written in a spirit of protest against the coui-t of Zion, and probably based on 
 recollections of an actual occurrence, the poem cannot be dated long after the death 
 of Solomon." 
 
 Sexto : — You, the said Mr. William Eobertson Smith, in the aforesaid article 
 " Bible," published in the foresaid EcUtion of the Encyclopasdia Britannica at page 
 638b, expressed yourself as follows, ridelicet : T " The assertion that no Psalm is 
 certainly David's is hyper-sceptical, and few remains of ancient literature have an 
 authorship so well attested as the 18th or even as the 7th Psalm. These, along with 
 the indubitably Davidic poems in the book of Samuel, give a sufficiently clear image 
 of a very unique genius, and make the ascription of several other poems to David 
 extremely probable. So, too, a very strong argument claims Psalm ii. for Solomon, 
 and in later times we have sure landmarks in the psalms of Habakkuk (Hab. iii.) and 
 Hezekiah (Isaiah xxxviii.) But the gi-eater part of the lyrics of the Old Testament 
 remain anonymous, and we can only group the Psalms in broad masses, disting-uished 
 by diversity of historical situation and by varying degrees of freshness and personality. 
 As a rule the older Psalms are the most personal, and are not written for the con- 
 gregation, but flow from a present necessity of individual (though not individualistic) 
 spiritual life. This current of productive jisalmody runs apparently from David down 
 to the Exile, losing in the course of centuries something of its original freshness and 
 fire, but gaining a more chastened pathos and a wider range of spiritual sympathy. 
 
11 
 
 Psalm li., obviously composed during the desolation of the temple, marks, perhaps, 
 the last phase of this development." As also in the same article " Bible," you ex- 
 pressed yourself in the terms already quoted under heads "Primo" and "Secundo." 
 As also in the same article "Bible," page 640b, in the said Edition of the Encyclo- 
 paedia Britannica you expressed yourself as follows, videlicet : H " In the period of 
 Exile more than one anonymous prophet raised his voice ; for not only the ' Great 
 Unnamed ' of Isaiah xl.-lxvi., but the authors of other Babylonian prophecies, are 
 probably to be assigned to this time." 
 
 Septimo .—You, the said Mr. William Robertson Smith, in the aforesaid article 
 " The Question of Prophecy in the Critical Schools of the Continent," published in 
 the British Quarter!// Revieiv, of AprD, 1870, and at the pages aftermentioned, ex- 
 pressed yourself as follows, ridelicet, page 326 : ^ " The prophets prophesied into the 
 future, but not directly to the future. Their duties lay with their own age, and only 
 by viewing them as they move amidst their contemporaries does the critic leam to love 
 and to admire them : " Page 323 : T " True prophecy is always ideal, seeking to grasp, 
 not the immediate future, but the eternal and unchanging principle which Jehovah, 
 the living God, is ever working cut more fully among his people. The critical study 
 of prophecy has done no greater ser\-ice than to point out how small a fraction of the 
 prophetic writings is strictly predictive." As also in the said article " Bible," pub- 
 lished in the foresaid Edition of the Encyclopjedia Britannica, at page 640a, you 
 expressed yourseK as follows, videlicet : f, " T^he prophecies contain — 1st, reproof of 
 present sin ; 2d, exhortation to present duty ; 3d, encouragement to the godly and 
 threatening to the wicked, based on the certainty of God's righteous purpose. In this 
 last connection prophecy is predictive. It lays hold of the ideal elements of the 
 theocratic conception, and depicts the way in which, by God's grace, they shall be 
 actually realized in a Messianic age, and in a nation purified by judgment and mercy. 
 But in all this the prophet starts from present sin, present needs, present historical 
 situations. There is no reason to think that a prophet ever received a revelation 
 which was not spoken directly and pointedly to his o-vra. time." As also in article, 
 "The Sixteenth Psalm," published in "The Expositor," No. XXIIL, of Nov., 1876, 
 at the pages aftermentioned you expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, page 369 : 
 IF " That the sixteenth psalm delineates an ideal which throughout the Old Testament 
 dispensation was never realized fully, — that is, in a whole Ufe, — but which only ex- 
 pressed the liighest climax of subjective conviction, was not felt to detract from its 
 religious truth. Nay, in religion the ideal is the true. The destiny of him who is admitted 
 into full fellowship mth God is life, and if that fellowship has never yet been perfectly 
 realized, it must be realized in time to come in the consummation of God's kingdom and 
 righteousness. This, like other glorious promises of God, is deferred because of sin ; 
 but, though deferred is not cancelled. Thus the Psalm, originally an expression of 
 direct personal persuasion, must necessarily in its place in the Old Testament liturgy, 
 have acquired a prophetic significance, and so must have been accepted as parallel to 
 such highest anticipations of eschatological prophecy as Isaiah xxv. 8 — ' He hath 
 swallowed up death for ever : " Page 370 : 1l ''We may say, then, that in the mouth 
 of the Psalmist himself our psalm did not set forth a remote prophecy or a religious 
 problem, but a tiaith of direct spiritual intuition. But accepted into the Old Testa- 
 ment litm-gy as an expression of the faith of Israel, and so confronted with that ex- 
 perience of sin and imperfect communion with God of which the Old Testament was 
 so sensible, it necessarily became part of a problem which runs through the whole 
 dispensation, while at the same time was a help towards the solution of the problem. 
 Like other psalms, in which the ideal is developed in the teeth of the empirical, it 
 came to possess a prophetic value for the Church, and it was felt to set forth truth 
 only in so far as it was transferred from the present to the future :" Page 371 : IT 
 " The psalm is fulfilled in Christ, because in Christ the transcendental ideal of fel- 
 lowship -nnth God which the psalm sets forth becomes a demonstrated reality. And 
 becoming true of Christ, the psalm is also true of all who are his, and in the Psalmist's 
 claim to use it for himself the soundness of his religious insight is vindicated ; for 
 Christ faced death not only for Himself, but as our Surety and Head." 
 
 Octa vo : — You, the said Sir. William Robertson Smith, in the aforesaid article 
 " Angel," published in the foresaid Edition of the Encycloptedia Britannica at the 
 pages aftermentioned, expressed yourself as follows, videlicit, page 27a : — " It is in- 
 deed certain, — to pass to the second side of the doctrine, — that the angelic figures of 
 
12 
 
 the Bible narrative are not mere allegories of divine pro\-idence, but were regarded as 
 possessing a certain superhuman reality. But this reality is matter of assumption 
 rather than of direct teaching. Nowhere do we find a clear statement as to the crea- 
 tion of the angels [Gen. ii. 1 is ambiguous, and it is scarcely legitimate in Psalm 
 cxlviii. to connect ver. 2 with ver. 5]. That they are endowed ^vith special goodness 
 and insight, analogous to human qualities, appears as a popular assumption, not as a 
 doctrine of revelation (1 Sam. xxix. 9 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 17, xix. 27) :" Page 28a ; "iT " The 
 angelology of the New Testament attaches closely to the notions already developed." 
 As also in the same article, page 26b : IT " The angelophany is a theophany as direct 
 as is possible to man. The idea of a full representation of God to man, in all his re- 
 vealed character, by means of an angel, comes out most clearly for tlie angel that leads 
 Israel in the very old passage. Exodus xxiii. 20, ff. This angel is sent before the 
 people to keep them in the waj' and bring them to Canaan. He speaks with divine 
 authority, and enforces his commands by divine sanctions, ' for my name [i.e., the 
 compass of my revealed qualities] is in him.' The question naturally arises, how the 
 angel who possesses these high predicates stands related to angels who elsewhere ap- 
 pear not representing the whole self-manifestation of God to his people, but discharg- 
 ing isolated commissions. The Biblical data for the solution of this question are very 
 scanty." 
 
 All which, or part thereof, being found proven against you, the said Mr. William 
 Robertson Smith, by the said Free Presbytery of Aberdeen, before which yoii are to 
 be tried, or being admitted by your own judicial confession, you, the said Mr. William 
 Robertson Smith, (night to be subjected to such sentence as the gravity of the case, 
 the rules and discipline of the Church, and the usage observed in such cases, may re- 
 quire for the glory of God, the edification of the Church, and the deterring of others 
 holding the same sacred office, from committing the like ofi'ences in all time coming. 
 
 Signed at Aberdeen, in name and presence and by appointment of the Free Pres- 
 bytery of Aberdeen this day of Eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 eight yeai-s. 
 
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 FREE PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 
 
 The Free Presbytery of Aberdeen met at Ten o'clock a.m., on 14th 
 February, in the Hall of the Free West Church — Professor S. D. F. 
 Salmond, Moderator — in order to resume consideration of the case of 
 Eev. Professor Smith. There was a large attendance of the members of 
 Presbytery as well as of the public. 
 
 The ]Moderator laid down the rules on which the debate was to be 
 conducted. 
 
 Principal Brown said — Xow that the Presbytery had reached the 
 stage Avhen they might consider the relevancy, he had a motion to submit. 
 As to the statement Professor Smith had given in in pamphlet form, his 
 first thought had been that as what he had previously written remained 
 absolutely untouched by that statement, he would just pause once or 
 twice . when an additional remark or two were suggested. On second 
 thoughts he would not even do that, but only in closing add a sentence 
 or two regarding that statement. Principal Brown then, in reference to 
 the form of his motion, went on to say that the Libel really meant one 
 charge in three diminishing degrees of gravity, the eight particulars being, 
 not charges, but so many examples or illustrations of the charge. What 
 he meant to do at present then, in order to find whether the general 
 charge was relevant, was to select the first two particulars, to dis- 
 cover whether an offence inferring censure was contained in them 
 as supported by the extracts, and so a relevant charge contained in 
 the major and minor. His feelings in undertaking this duty were such 
 as the Presbytery would not envy, but he did it under the compulsitor of 
 truth. The Libel Committee had acted wisely in not putting Deutero- 
 nomy in the fore front of the Libel, seeing the public had got it 
 into their heads that it was the only thing that they need care much 
 about. Well, as to the argument that the veracity of the writer and the 
 authenticity of his writing are of far greater consequence than mere 
 authorship or date, he could believe that the Pentateuch may have been 
 made public as a written document considerably later than its presumed 
 date, were there evidence to that effect. If its historical evidence were 
 abundantly attested, he had no greater interest in the question of date 
 than that referring to Biblical Introduction. But when we are told of 
 Deuteronomy, for example, that, being, as on the face of it it is, professedly a 
 historical record, it does not possess that character, but was only made to 
 assume it by a writer who lived many ages after ; that what is there re- 
 
14 
 
 lated in lengthened detail, of speeches made and things done by Moses — 
 filling nearly the whole of that book — is no history of actual occurrences 
 at all, but is merely a historical dress, " in dramatic form," put upon a 
 certain state of things in the Israelitish history, to give it additional 
 dignity and sacredness ; that when Moses, after rehearsing the chief points 
 in their history, and the great principles of their economy, is said to have 
 written it down and caused it to be put beside the ark, he did nothing of 
 the kind in point of fact, but is only represented to have done it ; and 
 that when he is said to have composed an extended song, recounting, in 
 lofty poetic strains, all their past fortunes and all theu' future prospects, 
 according as, they should act towards God, which the people were to learn 
 by heart, the Avriter of this book knew very well that Moses never did 
 so, but that he himself was only putting it into the mouth of Moses : — 
 what are we to say of such a book 1 I will not give a name to what it 
 is ; but I am safe in saying it is not authentic history • and if a pro- 
 fessedly historical record it is destitute of the first requisite of all history 
 — authenticity. Is it inspired history ; and if it is not, can it possess 
 divine authority 1 I trow not ; and therefore I conclude that should any 
 one in this Church hold and publish such a view of the book of Deuter- 
 onomy as his own, it would be a relevant charge. ISTow for Primo, the 
 subject of which is the whole Levitical legislation embodied in the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch, clearly the same remarks as on Deuteronomy 
 apply here. If that legislation was not divinely instituted in the time, 
 and under the direction of Moses, but was only inserted where we find ( 
 it many years after his death, if this is held and published by any ' 
 minister in this Church, I take it for granted that every court of our 
 Church would pronounce this a relevant charge. Dr. Brown quoted the 
 passage where Professor Smith says, " The Deuteronomic law is familiar 
 to Jeremiah," &c. (p. 7 of Libel), and proceeded : — The point I wish you 
 to note here is not the date assigned to this book, but the naked ad- 
 mission that the book is not history. And if not, pray Avhat is 
 it ? Dr. Kuenen calls it " a pious fraud " — a fraud, because he holds it 
 was given forth as genuine IMosaic history, which it was not ; but a pious 
 fraud, because done for a pious purpose. Professor Smith says, no, not 
 a fraud, because the generation to whom it was communicated knew what 
 it was, and because its object was not to impose as history what was not 
 such, but to " expound and develop Mosaic principles in relation to new 
 needs." This, sir, may be very ingenious, but if I had to choose between 
 Kuenen's view and this, I should say that Kuenen's was at least intel- 
 ligible, whereas I doubt whether any Englishman — looking at the 
 matter apart from our own case — would be able to comprehend how 
 Professor Smith's explanation explains anything at all. For of all 
 conceivable ways of " expounding and developing Mosaic principles 
 in relation to new needs" — supposing the author of Deuteronomy had that 
 for his object — the very last plan he would dream of, I should think, would 
 be to write a book of history, telling at great length, and in minute detail, 
 that Jehovah, the living Cxod — the (^od of truth — said to INIoses what he 
 never said to him, and bade !Moses do, and Moses accordingly did, what he 
 never bade him do, and never was done by Moses, and that this was 
 
15 
 
 quite well known to those for whom it was meant. And now you will 
 observe that the theory of the two critics (and that is what we have to 
 do with) is exactly the same — that Deuteronomy is not an authentic 
 history; the only difference being that Kuenen, believing that the religion 
 of Israel and its records have no sui^ernatural character, can say coolly 
 that the whole thing is a pious fraud, while Professor Smitli, happily 
 differing from him in this, and holding Israel's religion to be supernatural 
 and Divine, is driven to seek some other explanation of the theory con- 
 sistent with that view. That he does think it consistent with it, I have 
 not the shadow of a doubt ; but that it is not so, but the reverse, I believe 
 will be the verdict of this Church, and not only so, but the general body 
 of believers in supernatural revelation, looking at the matter in a purely 
 abstract liglit. I am constrained, therefore, to hold, in the light of the 
 second particular, that this Libel is relevant — both in the 7naJor and in 
 the minoi' — not only abstractly, but in respect of the particular case 
 before us. Coming next to Prlmo, Dr. Brown read that count and 
 relative extract (p. 5 of Libel), and said — The question here raised — as it 
 is one between the " critics " among themselves — meaning those of the 
 new school — is one we have only indirectly to do with. But I must 
 state what it is. Both sides, then, of the advanced school are agreed in 
 tliis, that the " hierarchical law " — meaning the sharp line of demarcation 
 drawn in the middle books of the Pentateuch between the standing and 
 functions of the jyriesfs and the Levites — was not in force before the Exile, 
 Professor Smith says, not only was it not in force up to that time, but 
 apparently it had never been in force. " We know " this, he says. And 
 pray who are the "we" who know thaf? I don't know it. I will 
 venture to say that, excepting himself, not a man in this Presbytery, if in 
 this whole Church, knows it. I thought all believing Christendom knew 
 just the reverse. But the '-'critics" know it, and when did they dis- 
 cover it? Why, but yesterday, when for the first time true criticism 
 would seem to have arisen. And how have even they come to know it 1 
 Why, says Professor Smith, " mainly from Ezek. xliv." Sir, I will not 
 be dragged into an exegetical Avrangle over that chapter. I had occasion 
 once —I rather think before Professor Smith was born — to go pretty 
 minutely into that darkest of all portions of Old Testament prophecy; 
 and, however little I may have made of it, were I to indulge my own 
 inclinations, I should undertake to show that there is not a vestige of 
 ground for such astounding conclusions. And is it to be the bo°st of 
 this modern criticism, that in seeking to establish the most startling of all 
 Biblical theories, it has to hunt for proof of it in that pre-emmently 
 difiicult portion of Old Testament prophecy, the last nine chapters of 
 EzekieU And, sir, is it learned criticism on that passage that yields 
 such conclusions ] Why, so far from that, nearly all their reasoning is as 
 accessible to the English reader of his Bible as it is to the scholars, Ixnd I 
 will venture to say that any intelligent reader of his English Bible is as 
 competent to decide on it as the most profound scholar. But, now, a 
 word on this " great dispute — (as Professor Smith calls it) — which divides 
 critics, and makes our whole construction — (mark that word 'our,' 
 makes our whole construction)— of the origin of the historical books un- 
 
16 
 
 certain." And what is it? Simply this, whether the whole Leviticali 
 legislation did exist before the Exile, but up to that time Avas not in, 
 force, apparently never had been in force, but lay in nubihiis ? or, on the 
 other hand, whether it never had any existence at all before the Exile. 
 The dispute, you perceive, then, is not between them and us ; it is not 
 between tlie " critics," as they style themselves, and those who, under the 
 not ver}^ respectful name of " traditionists," believe the Lcvitical legisla- 
 tion to have been — what the books recording it explicitly say it was — ■ 
 divinely instituted under Moses, and by him carried into effect while the 
 Israelites yet lay encamped on the great plateau of Sinai ; it is a dispute 
 between one class of the advanced critical school and another. Yes, for 
 they both hold that the Levitical legislation is not what the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch represent it to be — that the Lord did not say 
 unto Moses, " Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with 
 him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the 
 priest's office," &c. (Dr. Brown here quoted the words, in which the priest- 
 hood is expressly assigned to Aaron and to his sons). Now, I say all this, 
 related as matters of fact which then and there took place, is held to be 
 no historic reality at all ; and I suppose I may add that on the same vicAV, 
 though it is said that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, representing the 
 Levitical families, rebelled against ]\Ioses and Aaron, insisting that they 
 had as good right to burn incense as priests, as Aaron and his sons, this 
 never took place, the earth never swallowed them up, and the plague 
 which broke out, and was only stayed by Aaron standing between the 
 living and the dead, never did break out, and Aaron's rod never budded 
 as a token to whom the priesthood exclusively belonged, nor was there- 
 after deposited in the ark — I say, I suppose we must hold this — I will 
 not say as what, but at least as not history. And if not, pray how am I 
 to know, when I am reading a historical work, whether I am reading 
 history or no ; for if ever any book professed upon its face to be a plain 
 record of historical facts and nothing else, surely this is it. "Well, I was 
 saj'ing that the " critics " of the advanced school are at one as to its not 
 being history ; and the difference amongst them simply is, whether it 
 existed, but was not in force before the Exile ; or whether it first took 
 shape and saw the light after the Exile, when, Ezekiel having sketched 
 it out, Ezra came to Jerusalem armed with the Pentateuch in this new 
 form, with the whole middle books of it, embodying the whole Levitical 
 legislation newly and deftly Avoven into the heart of it ! This, sir, it 
 seems, is " the great dispute which divides critics, and so divides them as 
 to make our whole construction of the origin of the historical books un- 
 certain." Alas ! sir, for those who can accept either this pre-Exilic or the 
 post-Exilic construction of the Pentateuch, or those whose construction 
 of the origin of the historical books is rendered uncertain by such miser- 
 able speculations. What, then, is the conclusion to which I am driven, 
 in the light of statements on which I am commenting, but that this form 
 of Libel is relevant — relevant alike in the abstract and in its relations to 
 the present case, relevant alike in the major and the minor proposition. 
 Coming, in conclusion, to speak of Professtir Smith's statement of the 
 case in its general features, Dr. Brown said^ — If I have read that pamphlet 
 
17 
 
 ariglit, it is more far-reaching and cuts deeper than most of his friends, I 
 suspect, are prepared for. I refer to his views of what constitutes the 
 inspiration of tlie Scriptures and the latitude which it provides for the 
 aihnission of errors in the Bible, where its contents are thought not to 
 affect what is spiritual and saving. Eut whether these views are right 
 or Avrong in themselves, the attempt to make it appear that this is the 
 view taken of the Scriptures in our own Confession of Faith, is to me 
 the most amazing thing in the whole pamphlet. Those of us who are 
 old enough to have read the celebrated Tract XC. when it first came out, 
 in which Dr. John Henry jSTewman, ere he dreamt that he was fast 
 posting to Piome, endeavoured to show that nearly whole and total 
 Eomanism was recognised in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of 
 England, will remember the astonishment which that tract created in the 
 minds of Protestants and Eomanists alike ; and such will have some idea 
 of the feeling with which I read this part of Professor Smith's defence. 
 Still, T must not forget that it is the Libel itself, and not the statement 
 in defence of it, which we have to decide on to-day. At the same time, 
 if anything will tend to deepen the conviction of the Church that the 
 case before it involves far deeper matter than many have hitherto thought, 
 it will be the Defence he has now laid before us, and got us (I question if 
 to his own advantage) to receive as a paper in this case. They had, said Dr. 
 Erown, been accused of being the enemies of criticism; he ^vas only the enemy 
 of a criticism such as this, which outraged his common sense. He could 
 scarcely believe that he had read aright the words on the title page of 
 Dr. Candlish's pamplilet, " The Authority of Scripture Independent of 
 Criticism." He would not be accused of undervaluing the witness of the 
 Spirit, but to put it as a substitute in the place of criticism reminds me, 
 said Dr. Brown, unpleasantly of the sarcastic conclusion of Hume's 
 Essay on INIiracles, that it appears on the whole that the only safe ground 
 on which we ought to rest our belief in the Christian religion is, not 
 human reason, but faith, and he that believes in the Christian religion on 
 this ground is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which 
 overturns all the rational principles of his nature. No, sir, give criticism 
 its place as well as faith ; but let it not be a criticism such as I have 
 shown this to be in its results. Nor is it learned criticism at all. All 
 the difficulties alleged to exist in what is called the traditional views have 
 been seen and weighed by Jews and Christians alike from the very be- 
 ginning. There is absolutely nothing new in them. And nearly all — 
 certainly all of them that are of any moment — are as patent in our 
 English Bible as in the original. Whether they have been all rightly 
 met, may admit of question. Indeed, whether some of them admit of 
 such a solution as would satisfy every believer in Eevelation, may be 
 doubted. Eut the new critics admit that their solution is encompassed 
 Avith difficulties, and Professor Smith has professed himself willing to 
 recei/e new and better light — which, from the deepest bottom of my 
 heart, I hope and pray he may receive. For I could speak warmly of 
 liis qualities were this the time and place. Eut I cannot refrain from 
 expressing my conviction that if this style of criticism is to be recognised 
 as legitimate in tliis Church, it will revolutionise the whole Cliurch in its 
 
18 
 
 Biblical and Confessional theology. I shall not live to see it, but some 
 now liearing me will ; and knowing that " shortly I must put off this my 
 tabernacle," after more than 40 years' service as an ordained minister, I 
 have a dutj' laid upon me by my conscience, by my ordination vows, by 
 my position in the college where I have taught for 20 years, and where 
 I now preside. I have a duty to the whole professorial staff of the Free 
 Cburcb, of which I have lived to become the father — as, indeed (with 
 one venerable exception), of the whole Professorship of Presbyterian 
 Scotland — placed as those bodies are as special guardians of the Faith 
 fliat has done so much for Scotland — in view of all these things, I have 
 not been able to hold my peace nor keep in the background in a case which 
 I hold to be so vital as this, and so I have braced myself up to express 
 my mind as I have done, and to conclude with the following motion : — 
 
 The Presbytery having considered the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, and 
 heard him thereanent, resolve that the same, including its three charges in the major 
 proposition, and the corresponding averments and extracts in the minor proposition, 
 in their bearing upon these charges respectively, be found relevant as a Libel. 
 
 Mr. David Mitchell, elder, seconded. He quoted the words of the 
 Confession as to the judicial duties of synods, &c., to determine in con- 
 troversies of faith, " which determinations and decisions, if consonant 
 with the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission." 
 Now it thus appeared that in their judicial functions they were to be 
 guided, not by the principles of a higher criticism, or any criticism, 
 but by the Word of God and the Confession of Faith, and he might add 
 common sense, which enabled the ruling elder such as he and others to 
 take part in their procedure. Mr. Mitchell went on to say that there 
 were three charges which did not go under any legal name just because 
 they did not happen to possess one. The eight particulars enabled them 
 to comprehend the description of the charges. Professor Smith had, in 
 the abstract, admitted the relevancy of the first charge, but denied the 
 relevancy of the other two. With regard, in the first place, to Professor 
 Smith's argument that new offences in ecclesiastical as well as in civil 
 matters could not be punished unless they had been declared punishable 
 Ijy Act of Parliament, he quoted from one of Sir Archibald Alison's 
 works to the effect that by the common law every new crime as it arose 
 became the object of punishment, provided it was in itself wrong, and 
 hurtful to others ; and on the same principle he contended that every 
 new ecclesiastical offence as it arose was censurable and punishable by the 
 law of the Church, if it was in itself injurious to the faith and morals of 
 the people and the principles of the Church — and surely no one would 
 seriously maintain that opinions which were of a dangerous and un- 
 settling tendency to the inspiration and divine authority of God's Woi-d 
 were not injurious to the faith of the Church. As to the third charge, 
 while he admitted that it contained censurable matter, it did not itself 
 alone constitute an adequate expression of the offence contained in the 
 case, yet since it had been put in along with the others he quite agreed 
 to it being included in Principal Brown's motion. He therefore main- 
 tained that there was censurable and punishable matter in all the three 
 charges. As to whether the averments made in the niinor proposition 
 
19 
 
 amounted to the ollences, Mr. Mitclicll, after noting the points gone over 
 by Dr. Brown as to the Aaronic priesthood, &c., said, here a ques- 
 tion occurred to liis mind. What evidence did Professor Smith produce for 
 things so contradictory to the established principles of the Church for 
 so long a period 1 With such abilities as he (Mr. jNIitchell) possessed he 
 had looked for the evidence to be produced. It might be his blind- 
 ness — (applause) — but he had failed to tind any evidence except the 
 simple opinions and assertions of Professor Smith himself and kindred 
 critics. 'Now biblical criticism had its own place, and its own functions, 
 and its own uses, but it humbly seemed to him that when criticism set 
 itself to discredit the long-established rules of evidence, and to contradict 
 the opinions that had been believed for a long period, it was going out 
 of its place, beyond its sphere, and became misleading and dangerous. 
 Xor were they without illustration of what he had now stated. Some 
 years ago the critics of the " Book and its Story " maintained that 
 Genesis x. and 10 was unhistorical and incorrect when it stated that the 
 founders of Babel were the descendants of Ham. The critics said they 
 were descendants of Shem. In the providence of God the ruins of 
 Babel were exhumed and examined, and there were found the cuniform 
 inscriptions that formed the records of its ancient inhabitants. These 
 monuments proved that the critics were wrong and the Bible right. Thus 
 the higher criticism was not an infallible guide. The question they 
 were to consider there was had they an infallible guide 1 As believing 
 the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, he was obliged to answer 
 that they had. It set forth that the Word of God was to be received, 
 not because of the testimony of any man or any church, but wholly 
 of God who was the truth itself. It set forth the second rule, viz., that 
 the only infallible interpreter of God was Scripture. The Confession 
 said Holy Scripture was the infallible rule, but the Pentateuch was 
 part of Holy Scripture, and therefore the question relevantly arose, 
 what did the Pentateuch say of itself 1 — (hear, hear.) As a plain reader 
 of the Bible, he was led to believe what the Pentateiich said. Leviticus 
 concluded — " These are the commandments wliich the Lord commanded 
 !Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai." The Book of 
 ]^umbers concluded — " These are the commandments and the judg- 
 ments which tlie Lord commanded by the hand of Moses unto the 
 children of Israel." Deuteronomy began — ^' These be the words which 
 IMoses spake on this side Jordan." He had learned this week that it 
 should be the other side Jordan. JSTow, these w^ords were plain and unequi- 
 vocal to him as a common sense reader of the Bible. ^Ir. jNIitchell pro- 
 ceeded to refer to Professor Elliot's work, believing with him that the 
 Pentateuch contained internal evidence of its own authorship. He next 
 gave quotations from the New Testament, showing that our Lord and 
 1 lis disciples spoke of the law promulgated by jNIoses in the Pentateuch. 
 Alluding to the third head in the Libel, the lowering of the Books of 
 Scripture to the level of uninspired writings, he asked — Were such a de- 
 scription given to any uninspired human writings, what weight or autho- 
 rity could they possess, and were siich descriptions to be believed about 
 the Word of God, what weight or authority could they possess 1 
 
20. 
 
 In conclusion, ho asked what would be the effect in the Church 
 if the opinions of Professor Smith were generally to be believed 1 
 Would they have the effect of increasing reverence and regard 
 for the Word of God, or the very opposite ] or as Principal BroAvn 
 had pointed out, if they were to be generally believed would not the 
 Church in a short time fall to pieces 'i He seconded Principal Brown's 
 motion. 
 
 Eev. Mr. Anderson, Cults, moved — 
 
 That the Presbytery find the second charge in the major proposition, along with 
 the corresponding extracts in the minor in their bearing on that charge relevant. 
 
 He felt unable to vote for the relevancy of the first alternative, or to hold 
 that the whole Libel was relevant. On this point he was not sure, but 
 the original word " subvert " would have been better than " contradict 
 or are opposed to." The question, more especially in reference to the second 
 alternative, was — Is this a charge that can be legitimately brought 
 against a Professor? Opinions dangerous in themselves were on 
 tlie line of serious error, and Professor Smith might thus set young men 
 on an inclined plane, and though he might pull himself up at a certain point, 
 most of those adopting his theories might go to the bottom. After re- 
 ferring to Professor Smith's answer to various points in the second charge, 
 he said he questioned certainly whether the Church would be warranted 
 in deposing or even suspending a professor on proof of the matter in- 
 volved iir the second charge. But that was very different from remon- 
 strating or placing restrictions', or from sundry other ways of marking 
 disapprobation of a professor's conduct — (hear, hear). As for the Libel, 
 ho was of opinion that it had given Professor Smith the fullest 
 opportunity of having his opinions tested. If they could bear the 
 test of the first charge, he was no heretic ; if they could bear the test 
 of the second and third, better and better ! He believed that under 
 a charge like this, his interests would be duly guarded. Adverting 
 to Professor Smith's opinions on Deuteronomy, Mr. Anderson said, 
 Professor Smith did not go so far as to say that the book was a pious 
 fraud and a forgery ; but explain and guard his own theory as he might, 
 it was morally certain that most of those who would go his length wordd 
 go farther,, and hold that such a book could have been fabricated only 
 with intent to deceive. They must freely accept Professor Smith's ex- 
 planation as satisfactory to his own mind and as enabling him to reconcile 
 his theory with his belief in inspiration, but they must freely judge of 
 the natural effect of a theory like that on other minds than his. He 
 then went on to indicate what to his mind would be the " dangerous and 
 unsettling effect" of the other opinions expressed in the remaining 
 particulars, remarking that no one could wonder if some of the dis- 
 crepancies pointed out by Professor Smith in Chronicles should be 
 regarded by a youth who read the criticism otherwise than as specimens 
 of inspired blundering, or rather as destructive of the idea of inspiration. 
 He concluded by expressing sorrow if he had done the slightest injustice 
 to Professor Smith or shown the slightest unkindness, but he could not 
 possibly have conscientiously said less consistently with his convictions, 
 
21 
 
 ]\rr. Dalgarno seconded. 
 
 Mr. Stephen said it should be loorne in mind that Professor Smith 
 in his writings had been dealing with the Bible in its literary asjDect ; and 
 questions of authorship and date chielly were involved. In this contro- 
 versy criticism and exegesis must both be allowed scope, though not to 
 the extent that faith give place to human reason. Still reason must have 
 place, and this may be denied to undue degree. As for instance on the 
 matter of judging, not once do the committee seem to have thought it 
 necessary to connect with any of Professor Smith's statements which seem 
 adverse to a due appreciation of the Divine authority of the Bible his 
 repeated assertion of his belief of the Divine authority of the Bible, and 
 also the mode of his arriving at this belief — viz., the witness of our Lord, 
 and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, though the testimony of the Spirit 
 is the essential element by which our Confession affirms, we arrive at the 
 full persuasion of the Divine authority. jNIr. Stephen moved that — 
 
 The Presbytery find that the proposed Libel, however excelleiit and appliccable as 
 a whole, is irrelevant in several respects, in respect that in the first premiss it is inap- 
 plicable, stating the opinion as applicable to Professor Smith's Avritings, that the 
 Aaronic Priesthood and the great part of the laws and ordinances of tlie Levitical 
 system were not instituted in the time of IMoses ; in respect tliat in the second premiss 
 the statement is unwarranted that it is maintained in Professor Smith's writings that 
 Deuteronomy is not a historical record, but was made to assume its character by a writor 
 of a later date, whereas his opinion applies to the legislative parts of Deuteronomy ; in 
 respect that in the third premiss the opinion is exaggerate, assuming the standard of 
 judging not compatible with the human agency employed ; in respect tliat in the 
 seventh premiss the opinion is inapplicable and exaggerate, that predictions arose 
 merely from so-called spiritual insight. The writings say it arose in spiritual intuition, 
 and the Divine Spirit might employ the human mind to the full extent in its percep- 
 tion of God's righteous purposes, while superintending and controlling it all. 
 
 Mr. Stephen's motion did not find a seconder, and it accordingly fell 
 to the ground. 
 
 Mr. jNIasson was about to address the Presbytery, when 
 
 Mr. Sloan said, they had been told that as soon as the Libel was found 
 relevant the case would be settled as far as the Presbytery was concerned,but 
 to-day it appeared that the relevancy and the proof were dissociated from 
 one another. He had fancied when he heard the motion read that they 
 were to be committed to holding the whole Libel as relevant, and that 
 virtually they were now called upon to serve it upon Professor Smith. If 
 it meant that the counts gave a legitimate ground of libel, then perhaps 
 he might see his way to agree to the motion, but he should like to under- 
 stand exactly its scope. 
 
 The point thus raised led to a general discussion on the form of 
 procedure, Avhen, various members having spoken, 
 
 'Sir. Laidlaw drafted a motion, which, however, was not pressed, to 
 the eifect that the Presbytery having found the first general charge 
 relevant, proceed to examine the relevancy of the particulars Primo to 
 Octavo. 
 
 Professor Smith pointed out that if they went to the vote upon 
 Principal Brown's motion and it was carried, then the case was finished 
 so far as the Presbytery wa* concerned ; and if it was lost, then the case 
 might also be considered as finished, although not in a direct manner. 
 
20. 
 
 In conclusion, he asked what would be the effect in the Church 
 if the opinions of Professor Smith were generally to be believed? 
 Would they have the effect of increasing reverence and regard 
 for the Word of God, or the very opposite"? or as Principal Brown 
 had pointed out, if they were to be generally believed Avould not the 
 Church in a short time fall to pieces 1 He seconded Principal Brown's 
 motion. 
 
 Eev. Mr. Anderson, Cults, moved — 
 
 That the Presbytery find the second charge in the major proposition, along with 
 the corresponding extracts in the minor in their bearing on that charge relevant. 
 
 He felt unable to vote for the relevancy of the first alternative, or to hold 
 that the whole Libel was relevant. On this point he was not sure, but 
 the original word " subvert " would have been better than " contradict 
 or are opposed to." The question, more especially in reference to the second 
 alternative, was — Is this a charge that can be legitimately brought 
 against a Professor? Opinions dangerous in themselves were on 
 the line of serious error, and Professor Smith might thus set young men 
 on an inclined plane, and though he might pull himself up at a certain point, 
 most of those adopting his theories might go to the bottom. After re- 
 ferring to Professor Smith's answer to various points in the second charge, 
 he said he questioned certainly whether the Church would be warranted 
 in deposing or even suspending a professor on proof of the matter in- 
 volved in the second charge. But that was very different from remon- 
 strating or placing restrictions', or from sundry other ways of marking 
 disapprobation of a professor's conduct — (hear, hear). As for the Libel, 
 he was of opinion that it had given Professor Smith the fullest 
 opportunity of having his opinions tested. If they could bear the 
 test of the first charge, he was no heretic ; if they could bear the test 
 of the second and third, better and better ! He believed that under 
 a charge like this, his interests would be duly guarded. Adverting 
 to Professor Smith's opinions on Deuteronomy, Mr. Anderson said, 
 Professor Smith did not go so far as to say that the book was a pious 
 fraud and a forgery ; but explain and guard his own theory as he might, 
 it was morally certain that most of those who would go his length would 
 go farther, and hold that such a book could have been fabricated only 
 with intent to deceive. They must freely accept Professor Smith's ex- 
 planation as satisfactory to his own mind and as enabling him to reconcile 
 his theory with his belief in inspiration, but they must freely judge of 
 the natural effect of a theory like that on other minds than his. He 
 then went on to indicate what to his mind would be the " dangerous and 
 unsettling effect " of the other opinions expressed in the remaining 
 particulars, remarking that no one could wonder if some of the dis- 
 crepancies pointed out by Professor Smith in Chronicles should be 
 regarded by a youth who read the criticism otherwise than as specimens 
 of inspired blundering, or rather as destructive of the idea of inspiration. 
 He concluded by expressing sorrow if he ha<l done the slightest injustice 
 to Professor Smith or shown the slightest unkindness, but he could not 
 possibly have conscientiously said less consistently with his convictions. 
 
21 
 
 l\rr. Dalgarno seconded. 
 
 Mr. Stephen said it should be borne in mind that Professor Smitli 
 in his writings had been dealing with the Bible in its literary aspect ; and 
 questions of authorship and date chiefly were involved. In this contro- 
 versy criticism and exegesis must both be allowed scope, though not to 
 the extent that faith give place to human leason. Still reason must have 
 place, and this may be denied to undue degree. As for instance on the 
 matter of judging, not once do the committee seem to have thought it 
 necessary to connect with any of Professor Smith's statements which seem 
 adverse to a due appreciation of the Divine authority of the Bible his 
 repeated assertion of his belief of the Divine authority of the Bible, and 
 also the mode of his arriving at this belief — viz., the witness of our Lonl, 
 and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, though the testimony of the Spirit 
 is the essential element by which our Confession affirms, we arrive at the 
 full persuasion of the Divine authority. Mr. Stephen moved that — 
 
 The Presbytery find that the proposed Libel, however excellent and applicable as 
 a whole, is irrelevant in several respects, in respect that in tlie first premiss it is inap- 
 plicable, stating the opinion as applicable to Professor Smith's writings, that the 
 Aaronic Pi'iesthood and the great part of the laws and ordinances of the Levitical 
 system were not instituted in the time of Moses ; in respect that in the second pi-emiss 
 the statement is imwarranted that it is maintained in Professor Smith's writings that 
 Deuteronomy is not a historical record, but was made to assume its character by a writ'jr 
 of a later date, whereas his opinion applies to the legislative parts of Deutei'onomy ; in 
 respect that in the third premiss the opinion is exaggerate, assuming the standard of 
 judging not comj^atible with the human agency employed ; in respect that in the 
 seventh premiss the opinion is inapplicable and exaggerate, that predictions arose 
 merely from so-called spiritual insight. The writings say it arose in spiritual intuition, 
 and the Divine Spirit might employ the human mind to the full extent in its percep- 
 tion of God's righteous 23urposes, while superintending and controlling it all. 
 
 Mr. Stephen's motion did not find a seconder, and it accordingly fell 
 to the ground, 
 
 Mr. Masson was about to address the Presbytery, when 
 
 Mr. Sloan said, they had been told that as soon as the Libel was found 
 relevant the case would be settled as far as the Presbytery was concerned, but 
 to-day it appeared that the relevancy and the proof were dissociated from 
 one another. He had fancied when he heard the motion read that they 
 were to be committed to holding the whole Libel as relevant, and that 
 virtually they were now called upon to serve it upon Professor Smith. If 
 it meant that the counts gave a legitimate ground of libel, then perhaps 
 he might see his way to agree to the motion, but he should like to u-nder- 
 stand exactly its scope. 
 
 The point thus raised led to a general discussion on the foi'ni of 
 procedure, when, various members having spoken, 
 
 Mr. Laidlaw drafted a motion, which, however, was not pressed, to 
 the effect that the Presbytery having found the first general charge 
 relevant, proceed to examine the relevancy of the particulars Primo to 
 Octavo. 
 
 Professor Smith pointed out that if they went to the vote upon 
 Principal Brown's motion and it was carried, then the case was finished 
 so far as the Presbytery wa« concerned ; and if it was lost, then the case 
 might also be considered as finished, although not in a direct manner. 
 
24 
 
 not by conviction as Dr. Brown desired, but by acquittal — (applause). 
 Dr. Brown's idea was this, that possibly under the first and second head 
 he (Professor Smith) had done something inconsistent with the 
 Confession of Faith. Some other members of the Court might think 
 that under the third head he had done something inconsistent with 
 the Confession ; some might think that he had done so under the 
 fourth head, and so all through the Libel. So that if they took a 
 slump motion or Libel, then all these people's ideas were slumped to- 
 gether, and he would be found guilty of having done something inconsis- 
 tent Avith the Confession, although there might not be a majority of the 
 Court in favour of the view that any one of his opinions were contrary 
 to the Confession — (applause). That was a fallacy, and a radical fallacy 
 — (applause). Dr. Brown must observe that it was no use to have 
 ten witnesses unless the ten witnesses not only said that they knew 
 the accused to be a thief, but that he stole some individual thing. 
 He thought that the common sense of the Court 
 
 Principal Brown said that the case about theft would not apply, 
 because there were three or four charges of theft, whereas this was one 
 charge and expressed in the major proposition. 
 
 Professor Smith said that that enabled him to show exactly where 
 the thing lay. It did not matter, it seemed, Avhicli of these particulars 
 might be viewed by any member of the Presbytery as convincing, pro- 
 vided he gathered from it the general fact that he had in something been 
 going against the general doctrine of the Confession, and that was just 
 the same thing as to say that ten different thefts had been proved against 
 him, because each of ten men thought that one different theft had been 
 proved. The contention that it was only necessary to prove generally 
 that he had been teaching against the Confession without proving the 
 particular and individual things which he had done contrary to the 
 Confession was one that, if adopted, would do him the gravest injustice, 
 and make the whole course of legal process absolutely ridiculous. 
 
 Mr. Laidlaw then moved — 
 
 That the first charge, namely, of " publishing and promiilating oiDinions which 
 contradict or are opposed to," &c., being truly a subject of Church censure, this 
 portion of the major where the offence is stated in its simple and abstract form 
 is relevant, and that the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 Mr. Bell seconded, and the motion was agreed to. 
 
 The Presbytery then proceeded to take up the particulars : — - 
 
 1. " Primo" — Views on the Aaronic Priesthood. 
 
 The Clerk having read Primo (see Form of Libel, ]). o), 
 
 After a considerable pause, 
 
 Professor Smith said — If no one moves that this is relevant, then I 
 cqiprehend it drops of itself 
 
 Principal Brown — No : I shall ratlier move that it bo held relevant. 
 I believe there are those who think with me, and after my statement in 
 the morning it behoves me to move it. He accordingly moved — 
 
That the Presbytery find the first particnlar under the major proposition of the 
 Torm of Libel against Professor Smith, with the corresponding averments and extracts 
 in tlie minor proposition, in their bearing upon the first charge to be relevant. 
 
 jNIr. IvERACH rose to move a counter motion, as follows : — 
 That, deferring for a moment the question of the relevancy of the abstract pro- 
 position under Prima in the major, the Presbytery find that the second proposition is 
 not brought home to Professor Smith's articles by the narrative in the minor. 
 
 He did not think Prima as stated in the Libel was a fair rej^resentation of 
 Professor Smith's opinion as stated in the articles. He would certainly 
 think it a grave thing if it were brought home, but he found in the 
 Answer that Professor Smith had given in that he distinctly stated it as 
 his opinion that he believed that the Aaronic priesthood was instituted in 
 the wilderness. 
 
 Mr. Masson said they were dealing with Professor Smith's previous 
 articles, and not with his Answer. 
 
 Mr. IvERACH said he was dealing with a paper in the case. 
 
 Mr. D. Mitchell said the Answer had only been given in a few days 
 ago. Since the time the articles were written Professor Smith might 
 have retracted every word he had said, and yet the Libel might have 
 been relevant in all the materials it dealt with. 
 
 Professor Smith rose and said it was certainly open to Mr. Masson 
 and Mv. Mitchell to prove that he had stated an untruth. He declared 
 as deliberately as he had done in his Defence that the opinion that the 
 Aaronic Priesthood was not founded in the wilderness, had never been 
 held by him, and was not expressed in the article. Ever since he was 
 able to hold such an opinion he had held and taught that the Aaronic 
 Priesthood and foundation, although not every detail of the Levitical 
 Priesthood, was instituted in the time of Moses, and he had also always 
 taught that that institution was under the direction of God himself — 
 (loud applause). 
 
 Mr. Selbie — What does Professor Smith mean by the Aaronic Priest- 
 hood'?— (" Oh, oh," and laughter.) 
 
 The iloDERATOR Said that question was irregular. He did not think 
 Professor Smith was there to be catechised by all the individual members 
 of the Presbytery. 
 
 ]\Ir. IvERACH said his object was really to get at the opinions of Pro- 
 fessor Smith. The)' had accepted his Answer as a j)aper in the case, and 
 if they wished to get at the truth of Professor Smith's opinions as to what 
 he holds now, and as to what he said he held, they must take the docu- 
 ment along Avith them. Under these circumstances, he thought it would 
 be seen that Professor Smith held that the Aaronic priesthood was 
 instituted in the time of Moses. There were unfortunate expressions in 
 the quotation, yet they should hold his opinions as stated in the Answer. 
 The Presbytery should be more anxious to get at the truth of his teach- 
 ing than to uphold the relevancy of the charge, and they should read his 
 articles in the light of the explanation he had now given. He con- 
 cluded by moving his motion. 
 
 jMr. Selbie contended that Professor Smith did, in the Bible sense of 
 the word, deny the Aaronic priesthood of Aaron. That being the case 
 
2G 
 
 the other rites and ordinances, as having been instituted in the time 
 of jMoses, were also necessarily denied, because these -were associated 
 M'ilh the Aaronic priesthood. In reference to Professor Smith's views 
 of the infallil:)ility of the truth of Scripture, Mr. Selbie maintained that 
 these views Avere not in accordance with those of the early Eeformers, 
 and in support of his contention read a long extract from Dr. Owen, 
 bearing on the objective as well as the subjective evidence of infallibility 
 to be found in the Bible. 
 
 Mr. Banxatvxe contended that the words of Scripture had to be 
 looked upon as inspired and from God, the same as the subject matter of 
 the books themselves, although Professor Smith seemed to deny this, as 
 was shown by his interpretation of 1st Corinthians ii 13. 
 
 Professor Smith, in reply, maintained that nothing that he had writ- 
 ten could be construed by the strictest use of language or the most vigor- 
 ous application of tests in construction, to mean that he had stated the 
 opinion that the Aaronic priesthood was not Divinely instituted in the 
 wilderness, although he admitted that his position might have been mis- 
 understood by those who were not thoroughl}'' acquainted with the sub- 
 ject. As to Mr. Bannatyne's argument. Professor Smith pointed out that 
 that gentleman had been basing his criticisms upon an expression incor- 
 rectly translated from the Greek. In the verse referred to by Mr. Banna- 
 tyne, the expression, " not in the ivords which man's wisdom teacheth, 
 but which the Holy Ghost teacheth," had to be read in connection with 
 the fact that in the original Greek the word used was not rhema, the 
 articulate spoken word, the vocable, but logos, which meant argument, 
 reasoning, not arguments and reasoning taught of men's wisdom, but 
 taught of the Spirit. Surely no one could say that there was anything 
 in his writings in the least degree inconsistent with that. Here was a 
 very jiractical instance of how unwise it was to tely too much on common 
 sense and the English version, and how it was possible to gain a little 
 light by looking sometimes at the original — (laughter and applause). He 
 thought that a person who was accustomed to use the original might 
 sometimes come nearer the truth than a person who always relied on 
 common sense and the English version. 
 
 Mr. Bannattxe — Who is doing that ? 
 
 Professor Smith — You are doing so. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — Indeed ! May I ask if Logos never means word? 
 
 Professor Smith thought Dr. Brown would admit he was right in 
 this matter. 
 
 Principal Brown said Professor Smith's grammatical exposition 
 was no doubt i^erfectly correct. 
 
 Professor Smith proceeded to say that he did not hold the doctrine of 
 the Entluisiasts, but he held that the doctrine of the infallible truth of 
 the Scriptures meant that in it we can find a complete and perfect guide 
 for the soul's salvation, and that an honest man holding that view would 
 not go far wrong on any point of that kind. Alluding to the observa- 
 tions which had been made by Mi-. Selbie as to Owen's opinions or. the 
 (;i^uestion of inspiration, he said Mr. Selbie Avas wrong, in the hrst 
 place, in supposing that Owen was one of the fathers of the Kcibrmation, 
 
seeing that he lived 100 years after that event — (laughter and applause) 
 — and, in the second place, Owen's theory of inspiration, Avhich Avent 
 the length of holding that the Hebrew vowel-points even must be held 
 to be inspired, was admitted by every man in Europe who knew anything 
 about these things to have been completely demolished by Walton. He 
 went on to say that he perfectly agreed with the brethren who had 
 spoken on the other side that we required a historical faith, that our 
 religion is a historical religion, and not a mere religion of enthusiasts 
 based upon individual spiritual illumination. He said the duty of the 
 prosecution was to put the opinions which they regarded as consti- 
 tuting an offence in language so precise that there could be no doubt that 
 he held them ; and he complained that Prima was not a correct represen- 
 tation of his views. Those who supported Principal Brown's motion 
 w^ere bound either to show that Primo exactly represented his views, or 
 else let him have the advantage of having it corrected, so that he might 
 know exactly what was taken exception to, and what he was to be censured 
 for. He was unable to see wherein Principal Brown objected to his 
 views. He said that he had given up all that was historical in the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch ; but it surely would not be j^retended that that 
 lay in his words. He held that there were certain portions of the system 
 Avhich were subsequent developments, and which were afterwards incor- 
 porated with what was original, but he contended that that Avas not in- 
 consistent with the Standards of the Church. He then went into a minute 
 examination as to the Aaronic Priesthood, combating the arguments of 
 Principal Brown and others, and challenging the Presbytery to disprove 
 the statements which he had made in his Answer and Defence. The 
 speech was loudly applauded at the close. 
 Mr. Laidlaw moved : — 
 
 That the first particular in the major proposition, with the cori-esponding aver- 
 ments and extracts in the minor, be held not relevant to support the first charge. 
 
 He said that at a later stage he might be disposed to place Pruiio, with 
 some other particulars, under the heading of tendency to disparage the 
 Divine authority and Divine character of Scripture, but in the meantime 
 he would content liiniself with moving the motion. 
 
 Mr. Sloan seconded, on the ground that Professor Smith had stated 
 that Primo did not accurately represent his viev/s. 
 
 Principal Brown replied at some length, and, in concluding, said they 
 were introducing into the Church a mode of dealhig with the Bible, which 
 although it was plausible at present, and was captivating to many, Avould, 
 in its eventual effects, be destructive of the historical authenticity, and 
 consequently of the Divine inspiration and authority of the Scripture — 
 (hear, hear, and hisses). 
 
 Mr. Iverach here Avithdrew his motion. 
 
 Professor Sjiith Avished that it should be distinctly stated that 
 this motion was AvithdraAvn on the understanding that it Avas ren- 
 dered unnecessary by Mr. Laidlaw's motion. He (Prof. Smith) Avould 
 certainly dissent from the Presbytery doing anything, and guard himself 
 against any attempt on the part of the Presbytery to find him guilty of 
 a charge Avithout giving him the precise Avords of his offence. 
 
The two motions were then voted on with the following result : — ■ 
 For Principal Brown's motion — Principal Brown, Messrs. W, L. 
 Mitchell, Arthur, Bannatyne, Selbie, Goodall, and Masson, ministers ; and 
 ^Messrs. Collie, W. W. MQne, D. JMitchell, Aberdein, Wildgoose, and 
 D. B. Murray, ciders — 14. 
 
 For Mr. Laidlaid's motion — Messrs. A. F, Moir, Johnstone, Laidlaw, 
 Anderson, Sloan, Low, Clark, Iverach, Semple, Innes, Macqueen, minis- 
 ters ; and Messrs. Paterson, James Moir, Barnett, W. Milne, W. Valen- 
 tine, D. McHardy, and J. Fleming, elders~\d>. 
 
 The result Avas received with loud applause. 
 
 Principal Brown craved leave to dissent and complain to the Synod. 
 
 The Presbytery then adjoiu-ned. 
 
 Aberdeen, l^th Fcbruavy, 1878. 
 
 The Presbytery met by adjournment on 19tli February — Kev. Professor 
 S. D. F. Salmond moderator, and there was a large attendance of members 
 of Presbytery, of students of the Free Church College, and also of the 
 general public. A number of clergymen of other denominations were 
 also present ; and after the business had commenced, Eev. Dr. W. P. 
 Smith, Keig-Tough (Professor Smith's father), entered the hall, and was 
 received with loud applause. 
 
 Principal Brown gave in his reason of dissent from the finding of the 
 Presbytery on the Primo charge come to at the evening sederunt last 
 Thursday, viz. : — 
 
 Because based aa it is upon the severance of the priesthood of Aaron and his 
 sons, for the separation of the Levites to be their assistants in the service of the 
 Tabernacle— the latter being represented as liaving no actual existence for many 
 centuries after the death of Moses, it compromises the histoi-ical authenticity, and 
 consequently the Divine inspiration and authority of a large and fundamental portion 
 of the Pentateuch, and ought to be resisted to the la.st. 
 
 Messrs. Laidlaw, Sloan, Yule, and Moir were ajipointed to answer these 
 reasons of dissent, and to appear at the bar of the Synod in support of the 
 judgment of the Presbytery. Messrs. Laidlaw, Iverach, and Johnstone 
 were appointed to answer Mr, Mitchell's reasons of dissent, and to support 
 the decision of the Presbytery as to the mode of procedure before the 
 Commission. 
 
 2. " Sccnndo" — The Age and Composition of Deuteronomy. 
 
 The Clerk having read Secundo (see Form of Libel, p. 6), 
 Principal Brown moved — 
 
 The Presbytery finds the second particular under the major proposition of the; 
 Form of Libel against Professor Smith, with the corresponding averments and 
 extracts in the minor proposition, to be relevant. 
 
 He intimated that in making this motion or any others that he might 
 s\ibmit or record, he reserved his right to bring forward his general 
 motion, and if it were rejected to uphold it before the other Church courts. 
 
29 
 
 Professor Smith said tliat lie also i-eserved his right to bring up the 
 question whether the larger motion indicated by Principal Brown was in 
 any sense competent — (applause). 
 
 Mr. D. Mitchell seconded Principal Brown's motion. 
 
 Mr. A. F. MoiR moved as an amendment : — 
 
 The Presbytery finds under Sccundo that this particular, and its corresponding 
 extracts and averments in the minor, are not relevant to sustain the first alternative 
 of the general major. 
 
 In moving his amendment, Mr. Moir said he was only the more em- 
 boldened to do so, that his views on the question involved Avere decidedly 
 adverse to those of Professor Smith. I hold his positions, in relation to 
 Deuteronomy, said Mr. Moir, to be for the most part contrary to fact, and 
 based, so far as I am qualified to judge, on very inadequate evidence. 
 What is more. Moderator, though I desire to speak very humbly, yet I 
 Avish to give expression to the conviction which I entertain, that it seems 
 very unlikely to me that the Church of Christ will ever permanently, at 
 least, take up the ground that I understand Professor Smith to occupy. 
 At the same time, I feel that the present crisis is a very important one for 
 the Church of which I am a member and office-bearer. I feel that this 
 Presbytery is called upon to decide in matters of a very delicate nature, 
 and which will more or less, accordmg to our decisions and the decisions 
 of our superior Courts, affect either favourably or adversely the liberty of 
 thought and investigation which every office-bearer of the Church may 
 justly claim. It is because I would not have the Church to which I 
 belong — would not have the Church of Christ indeed — to dogmatise 
 rashly, and merely by a popular vote in the Synods and Assemblies, in 
 regard to points that are not distinctlj'- and clearly and in so many words 
 defined in the Standards, that I have taken up the position which I have 
 held all along in the case. It was not, jMr. Moir went on to say, whether 
 Professor Smith's views concerning the literary history of the Bible were 
 true or false. It was not even whether the Divine authority of the Bible 
 is endangered. N'obody, whose opinion is worth listening to, thinks that 
 it is ; and it was with profound sorrow he heard that authority spoken of 
 as dependant on a man's receiving or rejecting these opinions. The only 
 question before this Presbytery at present is, said INIr. Moir, whether 
 Professor Smith's opinions contradict or are opposed to the Standards of 
 the Church. Moreover, Moderator, if I understand our position aright, 
 our Standards are not to be read in the light of recent or even present 
 controversies. That is to say, we are not entitled to import the ideas of 
 our own immediate age — the ideas born of our own immediate contro- 
 versies — into our interpretation of our Church Standards. Mr. Moir 
 went on to say that the Confessions of the Eeformed Churches, while 
 affirming in language that cannot be misconstrued their belief in the 
 Divine authority of Scripture and in its self-evidencing power, have yet 
 carefully abstained from committing themselves to any theory of the 
 nature or the extent of inspiration. It is well known to us all th;it our 
 own Confession has followed their Avise example. This is the more 
 remarkable, inasmuch as many of those points which have been so keenly 
 discussed in our OAvn day were mooted, and had become the subjects of 
 
30 
 
 controversy in the churches before the "Westminster Confession was drawn 
 up, and that makes it all the more noticeable that no attempt has been 
 made to define the nature of inspiration in the Confession. After 
 dwelling somewhat fully on this point, Mr. ]\Ioir said then- first 
 position was that the Standards of our Church, while affirming that 
 the canonical Scriptures contain the Word of God, do not in any 
 wise determine in Avhat manner the books of Scripture were collectecl, 
 or by whom or at what periods written. "VVe have the authority of the 
 College Committee, comprising some of the wisest and most competent 
 men in the Church for what we thus advance (Special Report, page 5, 
 near the bottom of the page.) The Confession of Faith abstains from 
 deciding such points (points involved in historical criticism), and it is 
 important that much liberty of judgment about them should be main- 
 tained. Our second position is that, in dealing with Professor Smith's 
 writings, you are dealing with writings that affirm both the Divine origin 
 and authority of the Eooks of Scripture. After referring to the attempts 
 that had been made to show that Professor Smith occupied the same 
 ground as the rationalistic critics, Mr. Moir said, I unhesitatingly affirm 
 and maintain that Professor Smith does not occupy the same place as is 
 occupied by such men as Gray and Kuenen. It would be most unfair to 
 compare him with these in any way. His position differs from theirs 
 toto ccelo. Professor Smith maintains the supernatural element in the 
 Bible from the beginning of his article. In his last paper laid on the 
 table of this Presbytery (page 52, near the bottom of the page), he main- 
 tains that the assumption that everything supernatural is necessarily un- 
 historical, makes all criticism impossible ; views so frankly stated both in 
 this paper and in his article "Bible," ( Encydopcedia Britannica, page 
 G34a), while his paragraph upon the " Popular Eeligion of Israel" has 
 always commended itself to me as unexceptionable in tone and expression, 
 {Encj/cJopoedia Britannica, page G35a). So far is Professor Smith from 
 occupying the same platform with those to whom he has been too often 
 likened, that lie stands upon that very place which was blessed by the 
 Apostle Paul, (Eph. vi. 24) — " Grace be with all them that love our Lord 
 Jesus Christ in sincerity." He is of that mind which was acknowledged 
 by John to be of God, in contrast to that other mind which he denounces 
 as the spirit of Antichrist, (1 John iv., 2) — " Every spirit that confesseth 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that 
 confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." There 
 is a very great diflerence between holding even reprehensible critical views 
 and belonging to the rationalistic school. And, however much we may 
 difl'er from Professor Smith, or even deplore some of his statements, we 
 have no right in the exercise of brotherly charity to name him in the 
 same day with writers of that class. But as we have shown that the Confes- 
 sion does not determine anything dogmatically bearing- upon critical 
 points ; as it advances no theory upon the inspiration of Scriptures, and 
 as Professor Smith maintains the supernatural element in the Bible — its 
 divine inspiration and autliority — it follows that before we can condemn 
 him under the first alternative of our general major, and this particular 
 in it, it follows, I say, tliat we must show by strict argument that the 
 
sentiments advanced by him in the extract, Spcnndo in our minor, are 
 logically inconsistent with the doctrine of our Confession Xow, that 
 certainly has not been done yet, and much as I dislike Professor Smith's 
 theory of Deuteronomy, I am convinced further that it cannot be done. 
 That is, that it cannot be shown by logical argument to contradict the Con- 
 fession, nor even, I think, to contradict the ideas which have prevailed 
 among us with more or less acceptance up to a certain point. I do 
 not think that there is one of us who would commit himself to the 
 opinion that the book of Deuteronomy as it now stands, is the Deu- 
 teronomy that Moses left beliind him. !N"o one can read the Book 
 intelligently without seeing in it traces of a later editor. Especially 
 is this true of the 34th chapter, for, I suppose, none of us are of the 
 opinion of the worthy elder, Avho being asked if he thought Moses 
 had written the account of his own death, made answer that he 
 saw no difficulty in believing that, if Moses were inspired to do it. 
 In this instance, there is very great virtue in that if. If this were ad- 
 mitted then it followed that the difference between them and Professor 
 Smith, was one of degree — a very great degree, no doubt — still it should 
 be kept in view that Professor Smith substantially admits that the 
 addresses which form the greater part of Deuteronomy were founded upon 
 genuine words of Moses. And though they might still hold his views 
 so far unsatisfactory, he was not prepared to say that they either had 
 made out, or logically could make out, the opposition of his views to 
 their Standards. Moreover, I am convinced, that unless we could make 
 out that contradiction clearly, we are bound to give Professor Smith, 
 holding as he does the Divine authority of Scripture, alongside of that 
 critical scheme of Deuteronomy which we condemn, the full benefit of 
 any doubt there may be in the matter. It has been assiduously main- 
 tained, both here and elsewhere, that Professor Smith's critical views 
 necessarily weaken the force of the internal evidence for the Divine 
 origin of the Bible, — the evidence which our Confession extracts from 
 the consent of all the parts. I confess that if I could receive the state- 
 ments of the critics, it would have an opposite effect on me. For if I 
 have adored the Wisdom which has made so many authors, -m-iting over 
 so many centuries in succession, to speak and write in such wise as to 
 manifest from beginning to end of their testimony that the one Divine 
 purpose and grace was being developed and expanded from generation to 
 generation, to a much profounder marvel am I moved if I adopt the 
 theory of the higher criticism, for then I have contemporaneous as well 
 as successive authors contributing each his quota to this truly unique 
 collection, and yet I find that through all its pages " One unfaltering pur- 
 pose runs." I beg to move the adoption of the amendment — (applause). 
 
 Mr. R A. Mitchell, of Gilcomston Church, seconded Mr. Moir's 
 motion. He said the question for the Presbytery to consider was 
 simply this — Has it been proved that Professor Smith's view of 
 Deuteronomy was an inadmissible view % Probably they might all be 
 agreed it was not a correct view. But he thought the attempt to prove it 
 inadmissible had entirely failed. If he had ascribed the origin of the 
 book to a pious fraud, it would have been entirely difft-rent. That was 
 
32 
 
 the view of the matter taken up by Kuonon and critics of his school ; 
 but it was a view with which Professor Smith had no sympathy what- 
 ever. They could not conceive of the God of Truth giving a fraud of 
 any kind. This Professor Smith held as firmly as he did. The whole 
 character of the book excluded such a hypothesis. To say that a later in- 
 spired writer had thrown his composition into the form of a speecli by Moses, 
 but that the writer had no intention to deceive, might seem not a probable 
 account of the Book to some. But God had, as a matter of fact, made 
 use of composition wliicli seemed very strange to them. Was it not a 
 strange thing, for example, to find a prophet saying that he was directed 
 by God to do certain things, which, in point of fact, God did not really 
 direct him to do 1 — 
 
 Mr. Masson — Name. 
 
 'Mv. jMitchell — Hosea ; and other prophets also. That is known to 
 everyone acquainted with such matters — (laughter). They explained 
 that by saying that the prophet was speaking figuratively. Very good ; 
 but his words looked very like literal history, and it required some 
 (jxercise of the critical faculty — a faculty which was possessed in some 
 measure by all men — to discover that they were not to be understood 
 literally, but only figuratively. "Well, the fact was that God had made 
 use of a great variety of forms of figurative composition for the purpose. 
 Was it not conceivable that ITe should have employed the particular 
 form of composition which Professor Smith supposed him on this occasion 
 to have employed. Why should he not have done so 1 He (jMr. Mitchell) 
 saw no reason which could warrant him in deciding a priori that the 
 thing was impossible. He would go further and say that it was no busi- 
 ness of theirs to determine a jviori what particular form of composition 
 God might have employed for the purpose of conveying to men a know- 
 ledge of Himself and of His will, and that it would be gross presumption 
 on their part to attempt determining in this off-hand fashion what it was 
 competent for God to do. He knew that those who were very keen 
 sighted in detecting rationalism in others did not like to have the charge 
 of rationalism brought home to themselves — (applause) — but he held that 
 those were chargeable with rationalism, and rationalism of the grossest 
 kind, who undertook to prescril^e to the Spirit of God the particular forms 
 of literary composition which He might employ. He hoped the Presby- 
 tery would give no countenance to the new fangled rationalism which 
 undertook to dogmatise what particular forms of composition the Spirit of 
 God might employ. And unless it was disposed to do so it would not 
 give its sanction to the statement contained in the Libel, that Professor 
 Smith's view regarding Deuteronomy was inconsistent with the inspired 
 character and Divine authority of the Book. 
 
 j\Ir Selbie argued that much that had been said by Messrs. Moir and 
 Mitchell had no bearing on the point at all. Professor Smith had com- 
 plained in his Defence of the expression in the Lil)el — "The book of 
 inspired Scripture called Deuteronomy, Avhich is professedly a historical 
 record," etc., as putting these words in his mouth. They entirely denied 
 that. Let Professor Smith say what he might, the book of Deuteronomy 
 does profess to be a historical record. Professor Sniith does not recoguist^ 
 
33 
 
 it as that, and therefore there was no other conclusion than that he be- 
 lieved it had been made to assume the appearance of a historical record. 
 He might think that this was not fraud, but how could they reconcile this 
 procedure of the writer, or writers, with honesty ] Those who supported 
 the Libel had never doubted that various forms of composition were 
 employed, but the question was whether the God of truth would really 
 employ forms of composition which seemed to be contrary 1 If this book 
 had not been intended to be a historical record the whole Church of God 
 had been deceived for many generations, and only now was the truth 
 becoming known — (hear, hear). Professor Smith had stated in his Defence 
 that it was only part of the book of Deuteronomy to which he referred, 
 but in his article " Bible " he did not make it clear that he was referring 
 to anything but the book. Mr Selbie having gone on at some length, 
 
 Mr. Sloan, after other interruptions^ said that all through Mr Selbie's 
 speech he had had the conviction that he was not speaking to either of 
 the motions before the House — (applause). They were not there for the 
 pui-pose of showing from Scripture that Professor Smith's views are 
 wrong, but to show whether Professor Smith's views on Deuteronomy — • 
 no matter whether they approved of them or not — were or were not 
 inconsistent with the inspiration of that book — (hear, hear). 
 
 Mr. Selbie said that if it were made out that Deuteronomy professed 
 to be one thing and was another, it must be inconsistent with inspiration. 
 That had been the purport of his speech, and he held it was perfectly to 
 the point. 
 
 Mr. Masson agreed with the statement of Mr Sloan, that the point 
 before them was whether Professor Smith's writings were logically consis- 
 tent with the Standards of the Church. The whole question before them 
 must be argued out on the bases that Professor Smith had laid down. 
 They did not want to lay down any particular way a xyrlori in which God 
 was to reveal His Word. But they held that the whole "Word of God was 
 written by Him, and that inspiration attached itself to the whole Word 
 of God. If, therefore, there was anything proved inconsistent with that 
 position, then necessarily by real true logical deduction they infringed 
 upon that position, and upon the inspiration laid down by the Word 
 of God. According to his view Professor Smith had put forth a persona- 
 tion theory, and the question came to be, in a book professing to be 
 historical on the face of it, in which it is stated that Moses uttered a 
 certain speech, could this theory be maintained, that these words were 
 put into Moses' mouth, and that he really did not utter them % 
 
 Mr. Yule said the point in hand was not the refutation of Professor 
 Smith, but to ascertain v/hether according to the Confession of Faith, he 
 was within his liberty — yea or nay. The charge was not whether these 
 views were dangerous and unsettling, but whether they were contrary to 
 the Confession. They were there to try the question as a question of 
 law, and nothing more. If they strained the law to reach a man, or if 
 they made a law at a time like this, instead of strictly interpreting the 
 law as it is, they were guilty of a great oftence against justice ; in fact, it 
 would be nothing more or less than tyranny. He was opposed to Pro- 
 lessor Smith's theory, but he was constrained by the justice of the case 
 
 
 
34 
 
 most heartily to support Mr Moir's motion. If there be any doubt as to 
 whether Professor 8mith had contravened the Confession he ought to get 
 the benefit of the doubt — (hear, hear). He did not plead for Professor 
 Smith alone. The whole question was this, whether this criticism was to 
 be permitted, or was to be shut out of the Free Church by the ultimate 
 decision in this question ; and therefore he felt that in deciding on a 
 question like this, which involved such world-wide issues, they should 
 not proceed on words in their Confession tliat were never meant to meet 
 such questions — (hear, hear). It was said that Deuteronomy was pro- 
 fessedly historical, but that was just begging the question. The question 
 at issue was whether it was professedly, throughout and in all respects, his- 
 torical. Professor Smith had not denied that Deuteronomy was historical; 
 he only said that the book as it now stood was a presentation in dramatic 
 form, and that raised the question whether there could be such a thing in 
 the Word of God, and at the same time that that Word could be infallibly 
 true and Divinely authoritative. He cited Hosea and Job as examples of 
 dramatic presentation of what appeared on the face of it as history. Then 
 there was the case of the parables of our Lord, some of which were mani- 
 festly parables and some were not manifestly such, and it was a question 
 of the intelligence of the people to whom it came as to what they 
 considered it to be — (applause). Such presentations as those argued for 
 here were common enough in ordinary literature, and the writers thereof 
 Avere not charged with fraud, and why should the charge of " pious fraud" 
 be brought against the Divine record 1 
 
 Mr. Banjsatyne, after giving an illustration with reference to the 
 views he took of relevancy and proof, said he had little difficulty with 
 Secundo of the major as it stood, less perhaps than with the particulars 
 under Tertio. He held it was no begging of the question to say that in 
 the contents of Deuteronomy itself they would find sufficient evidence 
 that it was a historical book. Again and again did Deuteronomy ex- 
 pressly assert that Moses was the speaker of the words and the divinely 
 appointed giver of the laws and iustructions it contained. Again and 
 again were the places where he spoke the words and gave the laws and 
 instructions designated. Again and again did the book profess to be a 
 true and matter-of-fact historical record. To compare the book of Job 
 with it in that particular seemed to him to go into a line which was very 
 much divergent from the matter in hand. There were grounds upon which 
 he thought they could not maintain the historical value of the book of 
 Job from beginning to end, but that was not before them now. N'o 
 element had been pointed out to show that Deuteronomy did not come 
 before them as a historical book. But to hold the supposition of its being 
 a drama, strung from fancy, with the express declarations of the book itself, 
 seemed to him so preposterous — seemed to him a heresy so detrimental 
 in essence, that he was shut up to the conviction that Secundo must be 
 maintained. Turning to the subject of inspiration, he said the theory of 
 Professor Smith was to his mind totally ditferent from that of the Con- 
 fession. He called the attention of Professor Smith to this fact, and also to 
 the fact that never once in his Answer, so far as he (Mr. Bannatyne) had 
 been able to find out, had Professor Smith intimated that he held him- 
 
35 
 
 4self in the eye of the Church bound to abide by the Bible itself as a rule 
 of faith and manners — ("Oh, oh.") He (Mr. Bannatyne) made that 
 assertion, and he should like any one to point him out anything to the 
 contrary. In the pamphlet Professor Smith did not own that ; in fact, 
 he declared virtually the opposite. 
 
 Professor Smith said perhaps he would be allowed at once to make a 
 decisive statement of his entire adherence to the Confe ssion of Faith, as 
 to the Bible being the one perfect rule of faith and life. And he had 
 stated so in the clearest language he had been able to find. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne said Professor Smith was not speaking to the point 
 lie (Mr. Bannatyne) was speaking about. 
 
 Professor Smith said he merely thought it would relieve Mr. Banna- 
 t-yme's mind to know that however bad he (Professor Smith) was, he was 
 not so bad as that — (applause). 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne, resuming, said he had remarlsed that Professor 
 ■Smith in no part of his pamphlet had intimated that he held himself in 
 the eye of the Church responsible in respect of having the Bible j;er se as 
 one of the Standards of the Church. 
 
 The Moderator suggested that Mr. Bannatyne should depart from 
 this line of argument. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne begged the Moderator's pardon. 
 
 The Moderator said he must rule then that Professor Smith be 
 allowed to meet this charge. 
 
 IMr. Mitchell said Professor Smith had used the expression "how- 
 ever bad I may be." Now, none of the members of the Presbytery had 
 ever said anything about him being good or bad. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne said it was at any rate offensive. 
 
 Professor Smith asked the Presbytery to look at what he had said about 
 the doctrine of their Standards. He had said over and over again that he 
 agreed with the doctrine of the Standards that Scripture was the only 
 and infallible rule of faith and life. He had said, too, personally about 
 himself — " If I am asked why I receive Scripture as the word of God, 
 and as the only perfect rule of faith and life, I answer with all the fathers 
 of the Protestant Church, ' Because the Bible is the only record of the 
 redeeming love of God, because in the Bible alone I find God drawing 
 near to man in Christ Jesus, and declaring to us in Him his will for our 
 salvation. And this record I know to be true by the witness of His 
 Spirit in my heart, whereby I am assured that none other than God him- 
 self is able to speak such words to my soid.'" 
 
 After some general discussion, 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne was proceeding to vindicate his line of argument, 
 when 
 
 The Moderator ruled that discussion should not proceed on that line. 
 
 Mr. Low supported the motion of ]Mr. Moh. When he found in the 
 statement of Professor Smith very deliberate declarations of his own 
 views that there was no fraud in the Book of Deuteronomy, it went far 
 to take him (Mr. Low) out of the difficulty. The very least they could 
 do was to accept Professor Smith's deliberate and clear and most honest 
 statement as to the value of his own words ; and, doing that, he did not 
 
3G 
 
 see liow iliej could come to the conclusion proposed in the motion of 
 Principal Brown. 
 
 Mr. Bell said he felt shut up to the view that, irrespective of what 
 Professor Smith believed his theory to amount to, the theory itself 
 involved on the part of the writer a pious fraud. He must therefore 
 vote for the motion made by Dr. Brown. 
 
 Mr. Johnstone, in a humorous speech, pointed out that such an 
 orthodox man as Dr. Chalmers had been condemned by some for writing 
 the article " Christianity," in the Encyclopjedia published in 1813. The 
 attack on Dr. Chalmers was contained in a pamphlet on the '• Principles 
 of Christian Evidence, illustrated by an examination of arguments sub- 
 versive of I^atural Theology and internal evidence of Christianity 
 advanced by Dr. T. Chalmers in his Evidence and Authority of the- 
 Christian Eevelation. By Duncan Mearns, D.D., Professor of Theology 
 in King's College and University, Aberdeen." In this publication Dr. 
 Mearns says — " It thus appears that the principles upon which Dr. 
 Chalmers' system of ' Christian Evidences' is constructed not only subvert 
 the conclusions of natural theology with the internal evidence, but destroy 
 also external proofs ; and that the various arguments he employs in 
 support of his system are destructive of each other and of the object at 
 
 which he aims When he makes common cause with the 
 
 sceptic — when he adopts his principles, or rather his negation of principles 
 — when, on the part of Christianity, he forms an alliance with Atheism, 
 the basest of her foes — and when, sacrificing the internal evidence as the 
 seal of this monstrous confederacy, he turns the arms of Christianity 
 against natural religion, her ancient and faithful ally, his proceedings no 
 longer possess the character of harmless inanity." That was what was 
 said about one of the greatest of their men, and Mr. Johnstone asked the 
 Presbytery to have a care what they were doing with Professor Smith — 
 (applause). 
 
 Mr. Arthur supported the motion of Principal Brown. He held 
 that both the Bible and the Confession of Faith were the articles 
 of the Church — first the Bible and second the Confession — and if they 
 destroyed the one they destroyed the other ; and similarly, if they de- 
 stroyed one part of Scripture they destroyed all. To tell him that 
 the God of truth inspired a man to tell a lie — (hisses) — in order to reveal 
 His will was a thing abhorrent to his reason and to his mind altogether. 
 Professor Smith in saying that Deuteronomy was not historical said there 
 ■was no intention to deceive, and Kuenen, who held the same view as to 
 liistoricity, said it was a pious fraud. To him Kuenen was the logical 
 man. 
 
 Mr. Anderson said he could not vote for Dr. Brown's motion. 
 
 Professor Smith, who was received with loud applause, said it was 
 not necessary that he should say much upon the merits of the case, be- 
 cause there had been no arguments advanced from the other side that had 
 not been very well covered by those who had supported iSlv. Moir's amend- 
 ment. Before going into the merits, however, he would refer to a remark 
 made by Dr. Brown, who seemed to hold that though it might not be 
 possible to make out that what he had said was inconsistent with the 
 
37 
 
 language of the Standards, tlie charge might yet be found relevant to im- 
 ply direct heresy by an argument based on the words of Scripture. This 
 view of the matter had not occurred to him at the time he drew up his 
 Answer, because it seemed to him to be entirely excluded by the language 
 of the Libel. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — Not a bit of it. 
 
 Professor Smith said that any reference to this had been too indefinite 
 to allow him to condescend upon it in his Answer, and if Dr. Brown was 
 prepared to take that line of argument then he should have had informa- 
 tion of that by a clearer wording of the Libel — (hear, hear). The three 
 items charged against him of promulgating " opinions which contradict 
 or are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible 
 truth, and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures," were items which 
 4id not occur in Scripture but in the Confession, and they could only 
 be understood in connection with the Confession. What he wished to 
 say just now was really as to a point of order. If Dr. Brown's argument 
 in the case rested on this supposition he certainly did not bring it up in 
 his speech on Thursday. They were there in a judicial capacity. They 
 Avere not discussing or trying to throw light on an abstract question, but 
 to do justice to an individual person according to the rules of law. It 
 Avas not allowed that an advocate for the prosecution in summing up in 
 Jiis final speech should introduce evidence or a line of argument which 
 liad not already been brought in in his previous speech — (hear, hear, and 
 applause). He therefore called upon the Court, through its moderator, 
 to give him protection ; and as Dr. Brown had unnecessarily waived the 
 right of speaking m introducing his motion, when he (Professor Smith) 
 would have had an opportunity of answering his argument, to confine him 
 in his reply to enforcing the arguments aheady used or replying to those 
 that had been advanced against his proposal ; and failing that, he claimed 
 that he, as the accused person, must have the opportunity of reply. 
 
 Principal Brown — I have not the least objection to that. 
 
 Professor Smith said he should now like to say a word as to what was 
 really covered by this charge. Gentlemen on the opposite side had been 
 very anxious to lay weight on the fact — which after all was a mere formal 
 fact — that he was not at present at the bar. He had followed Mr. Bannu- 
 tyne's remarks on the relevancy, he confessed without being exactly able 
 to understand what Mr. Bannatyne meant. The relevancy, as he under- 
 stood it, meant that the whole document was a consistent logical produc- 
 tion. If this charge were found relevant he did not know what remained 
 for proof, for finding the charge relevant was really finding it proven. 
 Therefore those who voted for Dr. Brown on this motion were voting prac- 
 tically for his deposition — (hear, hear, "No, no," and applause). He was 
 not charging Dr. Brown with having said so. He was pointing out the 
 natural consequence of the adoption of this motion ; for, if this particular 
 were found relevant, then it was found that what he had said of Deuter- 
 •onomy in those extracts came under the category of doctrine contrary to 
 the Confession, and the Court knew very well that, for teaching contrary 
 to the Confession, this Church had never recognised any other punish- 
 ment than that of deposition — (applause). 
 
38 
 
 iSir. Bell did not believe that that was at all a necessary conclusion. 
 He thought the Church might say that that was not a doctrine to 
 1)6 taught, and that might be censure enough. 
 
 Mr. Selbie thought that this line of remark was not in order. What 
 they had to consider was whether this particular were relevant or not, and 
 not the result of the voting upon that motion. 
 
 Professor Smith said he was making no appeal ad misericordiam, and 
 he had only gone into this line of remarlc because there was an ambiguity 
 as to the meaning of relevancy, and because it might conduce to simplifi- 
 cation if lie pointed out what this vote really meant. He had been sure- 
 that Mr. Bell did not know what it fullj'- meant, for if he had done so he 
 would have brought more clear and fully-considered arguments before 
 coming to the conclusion to which he had arrived on so grave and 
 important a case — (applause). He thought perhaps there had been two 
 points raised in this discussion which were real points of consequence. 
 The first was whether the doctrine of inspiration to which he had pro- 
 fessed his attachment was the doctrine of inspiration held by the Church. 
 The second was whether he was guilty of logical inconsistency — of logical 
 inconsistency so gross and palpable — that it could be made a ground of 
 Church action and ultimately of deposition, in holfling that certain views 
 of the book of Deuteronomy were consistent with the Standards. He 
 had not, he confessed, been able to gain a very precise view of tlie 
 nature of the test which had been raised on the other side of the house 
 as to his statements in his Answer. He quite understood that there 
 might be statements in that pamphlet which were not exhaustive, as ]\[r. 
 Moir had said. Bnt that Answer was not intended to be an explanation 
 of all that the Confession teaches, but upon such parts of Confessional 
 teaching as were covered by the language of the Libel. He took up the 
 Libel and he read that he was accused of promulgating doctrines and 
 opinions contradictory or opposed to the doctrine of the immediate in- 
 spiration, infallible truth and Divine authority of the Holy Scriptun-s, 
 and he had taken up those points part by part. He understood Mx. 
 Masson's difiiculty to be that he had not done full justice to the particu- 
 lar section which discussed infallible truth and Divine authoritj^ He 
 had understood Mr. Masson to say that Professor Smith's view was this — 
 that inspiration proper could only teach what of God's will was necessary 
 to salvation, and that tlie test of what was necessary to salvation Avas the 
 witness of the Holy Spirit. He was at a loss to understand how that 
 view of his testimony as to the Holy Spirit could have been formed. 
 The test of how much was necessary to salvation was what God had given 
 them. God knows that better than we. The testimony of the Holy 
 Spirit is that which convinces us that in a certain book we are not dealing 
 merely with subjective truths, and not dealing merely with spiritual 
 illumination^ but with certain things which are the personal dealings of 
 God with us, the personal dealings of God with the Church. Ho 
 (Professor Smith) understood the difficulty to be something like this 
 — that he put the Avitness of the Holy Spirit into such a position that 
 there could not be any line drawn between his views and those of the 
 enthusiasts. But he was in no such position. He had never said 
 
30 
 
 anything against the proofs which could be brought forward to satisfy 
 even a sceptic that there are things in the Bible which cannot be 
 understood by natural means. On the contrary, he said that if they went 
 to the history and wished to understand how the wondrous things therein 
 had originated, on the supposition that they were nothing but the outcome 
 of a natural process, then he had said he was convinced they could not ex- 
 plain the history in that way; and could not get a consistent sense out of it. 
 The whole history was the story of God manifesting Himself by His word, 
 and ultimately by His incarnate Word, Christ Jesus, and the external 
 evidences and this history was, he thought, full. No one said that in 
 order to prove the historicity of the scheme of salvation it was necessary 
 to go into the question of inspiration. The question was to deal with 
 Scripture as ordinary history. Let them take any passage away if it were 
 doubtful, let them take away a whole book if there was any dispute as to 
 its meaning. But still it would be found that in this Book they had really 
 a narrative of God's actings to man, different in kind from that given to 
 those outside that line of revelation, God had given us a very precious 
 record of that revelation, which serves to us not merely the purpose of 
 supplying adequate historical information that may be studied by historical 
 evidence, but which He, in His great grace, has made to appeal to every 
 heart. The simple believer does not require to go to the Church, which, 
 by means of its scholars, has discovered what the revelation is, but that 
 simple believer can take this Book in his hand and find God speaking to 
 him as clearly as to the people of old — (applause). In that sense the Ee- 
 formation fathers had always treated the witness of the Holy Spirit as an 
 absolutely indispensable and necessary thing ; as the one evidence which 
 can be brought forth against the impugners of this truth. He was rather 
 surprised that he should have to explain the relation of the Testimony 
 of the Spirit to the subordinate evidence. Many of t*he Protestant Con- 
 fessions did not mention the subordinate evidence at all, as for instance 
 the Gallican Confession. But let them look at Calvin. How did he 
 deal with that matter 1 He takes up the witness of the Holy Spirit and 
 discusses it at great length, and amongst other things he says — 
 
 We must hold that belief in the doctrine is not established till we have undoubted 
 persuasion that God is its author. 
 
 And further he says — 
 
 Unless this certitude be present, which is higher and stronger than human judgment, 
 it is vain to defend the authority of Scriptvire by arguments, or to confirm it by the 
 consent of the Church. 
 
 — (Applause). He did not think that Dr. Brown, as he spoke on Thurs- 
 day, would have passed that by, for if he would not accept his (Professor 
 Smith's) position, he must equally fall foul of Calvin — (laughter and 
 applause). There was one other quotation from Calvin which he would 
 give them — 
 
 There are other reasons, neither few nor weak, by which the dignity and majesty 
 of Scripture is not only asserted to pious hearts, but vindicated against the arts of 
 adversaries, but they are not in themselves sufficient to confirm the Scripture to faith 
 till the Heavenly Faiher frees the reverence for it from all controversy by showing 
 his Divinity in it. 
 
4U 
 
 — (Applause.) He held that this showed manifestly enough that he had 
 been following the line of Calvin by putting the witness of the Spirit in 
 the forefront, as the essence of the whole question. After a reference to 
 the views of Turretin, one of the post Eeformation fathers, on this sub- 
 ject, Professor Smith proceeded to take up the question of his being at 
 variance with the subordinate Standards. What was this wonderful sec- 
 tion of the Confession that he had overturned 1 — 
 
 v. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and 
 reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy 
 of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the 
 whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of 
 man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection 
 thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of 
 God ; yet, notwithstanding our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and 
 divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing -ivitness 
 by and with the word in our hearts. 
 
 Had he not " a high and reverend esteem" for the Scriptures 1 Could it be 
 said that one who valued Scripture because God in it had come down to 
 man would be insensible to the evidence of Scripture from " the heavenli- 
 ness of the matter 1" " The efficacy of the doctrine ! " Was that denied 1 
 Certainly never by him — (applause). " The majesty of the style." That 
 must be taken in the sense in which it was meant. It was not to be 
 supposed that by the phrase it was meant that the whole was equally 
 impressive, or that persons who read one of the genealogical chapters in 
 Chronicles would be struck with the majesty of the style as a proof of 
 Divine authorship — (laughter and applause). The jihrase must apply to 
 the Bible as a whole, and was there a word he had ever said that forbade 
 him from feeling as he did feel when he read Isaiah or the Sermon on the 
 Mount, or other portions of Scripture, that there was a dignity more than 
 human in the very expression 1 Surely there was nothing in his argu- 
 ment that went against that. Mr. Moir had effectively spoken to the 
 point as to the "consent of all the parts." That might be held on any 
 critical theory. It was one consistent scheme of Divine salvation that 
 was worked out from the beginning to the end ; and he did feel that tlie 
 whole scheme had been deepened in his heart by every step of progress 
 he had made in understanding the true meaning and construction of th'^. 
 Scripture — (applause). On the " entire perfection thereof," which was the 
 next clause of this section of the Confession, Professor Smith said that he 
 had been surprised, knowing as he did their feeling on the subject, that 
 tlie Libellers had not included that as one of the points of the Libel. It 
 seemed to him that they had carefully left that point out. That was a 
 large subject, and of course he could not go into it now. But this he 
 would say, that the entire perfection of Scripture would scarcely be denied 
 by any one who admitted the rest — the heavenliness of the matter, the 
 efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, 
 the scope of the whole, which is to give glory to God. Dr Brown had 
 represented him as wishing to put tlie witness of the Holy Spirit in the 
 place of criticism. Having had the misfortune to write his speech before 
 seeing the pleadings of the person accused, Dr. Brown was compelled to 
 refer to the pamphlet of Dr. Cahdlisli. But he might have made the 
 
41 
 
 same remarks vnih. reference to him (Professor Smith), so he would take 
 it as referring to himself. Dr BroAvn said it was very absurd to set up 
 the witness of the Spirit in the way which would allow them to overlook 
 the ordinary evidence on which must rest their belief in ancient records. 
 Suppose that the ancient records did not bear the test of criticism, then 
 of course when that test was applied to them they would disappear ; but it so 
 happened that his (Professor Smith's) position was this — that the docu- 
 ments of the Old Testament stood the test of criticism in such a way that 
 although it does modify the view about some of them, they had not to 
 give up their faith that these books were the word of God. External 
 evidence did not carry them to the doctrine of the Divine authority and 
 infallible truth of Scripture. Every apologist knows this, and Dr Brown 
 woidd never for a moment be supposed to hold anything else. The 
 external evidences do prove that it is impossible to explain away Scrip- 
 ture as a myth or a fiction. It occurred to him that the question in the 
 Libel was different, whether the document had certain specific characters 
 of its own different from other documents, and he thought he would not 
 be far wrong in putting in the forefront that, as this document professed 
 to be more than human reason can grasp, it must be the Holy Spirit 
 that manifests it as such. It might be said that criticism would lead 
 them to interfere with the canon ; but criticism must proceed by the 
 ordinary means of historical inquiry ; and the first principle of these is 
 that you must not make up your mind beforehand as to the result. On 
 this he was more conservative — far more conservative — than Dr. Brown 
 • — (laughter) — because he says that the process of historical inquiry must 
 be completed before applying the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Is''ow every 
 Christian Church must be ready to give a reason for its faith on historical 
 grounds. But there was a simpler method, which did not cover all the de- 
 tails, which left room for much investigation on difficult points, but which 
 nevertheless was satisfactory to the believer. There was that in this book 
 which could not be the imagination of men ; there Avas that in it which imme- 
 diately revealed itself to the soul as the Word of God. There was there, 
 above all, the personal Christ, a personality which men could not have 
 imagined, a personality which must be historical, and which must be 
 Divine — (hear, hear, and applause). Passing from the general question, 
 the exact point of all this discussion was whether his views were con- 
 sistent or not with the Confession. Dr. Brown had been very positive 
 on this point, but this very positive opinion was only a few weeks old — 
 (laughter). Dr. Brown had been a member of the College Committee ; 
 he had not been a silent member, and he had cleared his conscience on 
 one point by putting in his dissent. 
 
 Principal Brown asked Professor Smith not to enter on this delicate 
 subject, as he would have to follow his example if he did so. 
 
 Professor Smith said that he appealed to the printed document of last 
 Assembly, and proceeded to point out that the College Committee had de- 
 clared that his views were not inconsistent with the Confession, and that on 
 this point Dr. Brown had not dissented. Moreover, Dr. Brown still agreed 
 with the College Committee on this when the word " subvert " was re- 
 moved from the Libel, declaring that they could not prove that the opinions 
 
42 
 
 were contrary to the Confession. Passing to the details, Professor Smith 
 said that the discussion had brought one point into great clearness. The 
 position of those who supported Dr. Brown's motion was that, though he 
 (Professor Smith) would not believe it, his views really implied a pious 
 fraud, and that no man of ordinary sense could doubt this. Any one who 
 agreed with him as to the data on which his theory was built would, it 
 was argued, be more consistent in holding the book to be a pious fraud. 
 It Avas then not his theory that involved pious fraud, but the acceptance 
 of the exegetical data on which the theory rests. This point must be 
 made clear, for he had said all along that while no theory is final, the 
 facts forced them to seek some theory different from the ordinary one. 
 Were gentlemen so sure that his (Professor Smith's) facts were wrong 
 that they were prepared to exclude him and all who might share his diffi- 
 culties from the Church, for believing and trying to explain them in a 
 way consistent with the Divinity of the dispensation of Scripture. Fault 
 was found with him for urging that men should study the questions as 
 carefully as critics before judging of the exegetical facts. He did not 
 allude to his own study. Dr. Brown had said that he Avas studying and 
 had formed his views on these subjects before Professor Smith was born 
 • — (a laugh) — but during the last 30 or 40 years some hundred thoroughly 
 equipped scholars had been following out the subject, and it was not un- 
 reasonable to suppose that they had got some fresh light on it. After 
 some other remarks. Professor Smith alluded to the appeal to common- 
 sense made by Mr. Mitchell, and appealed to Hugh j\Iiller's " Testimony 
 of the Rocks," from which he quoted two passages, the latter of which 
 ran as follows : — 
 
 It has been well remarked that when.tvvo opposing explanations of extraordinary 
 natural phenomena are given — one of a simple and seemingly common sense character, 
 the other complex and apparently absurd — it is almost always safer to adopt the 
 apparently absm-d than the seemingly common sense one. Dr. Kitto's " plain man," 
 yielding to the dictates of what he would deem common sense, which, of com-se, in 
 questions of natural science is tantamount to common nonsense, would be sure to go 
 ^\Tong. 
 
 Professor Smith concluded by urging that the burden of proof did not lie 
 on him. In this country every one is held innocent until his position has 
 been proved untenable, and he thought he might say to the Court that no 
 proof had been offered to make it certain and absolutely clear that he had 
 made assertions regarding Scripture that were absolutely inconsistent with 
 these doctrines — (loud applause). 
 
 Principal Brown, adverting to the difficulty of following Professor 
 Smith's long speech, after returning from Edinburgh at a late hour the 
 previous night, and sitting for above five hours to-day, began by noticing 
 the challenge that had been thrown out to him as to introducing new 
 matter into the debate at this stage, and stating that he only meant to 
 follow up the arguments he had already brought forward, and went on 
 to discuss the point raised as to taking the Standards of the Church 
 and Scripture together. He could well remember two cases in which it 
 was laid down that liberty to appeal to the Scriptures in opposition to 
 what is laid down in the Standards, was properly refused until such time 
 
43 
 
 as the Church itself changed the Standards. But it was conceivable that 
 the foundations on whicn the Confession of Faith rests might be sub- 
 verted by interpretations of Scripture which it did not contemplate, and 
 it was quite warrantable for them to consider whether the foundations 
 were affected by the views brought forward. If they could show that the 
 views were inconsistent with what could possibly be the doctrine of the 
 Confession of Faith, then they had good ground to go upon, and it was 
 this ground he still took up, and not any new argument that he sought 
 to introduce. Coming to the merits of the question, he read extracts from 
 Professor Smith's writings, showing that he went a great deal further than 
 what he said in the Answer to the Libel. 
 
 Professor Smith here pointed out that in one of the quotations the 
 phrase hook meant the legislative part of the book, as was abundantly 
 clear by an explanation that preceded. 
 
 Principal Brown maintained that an ordinary reader could only under- 
 stand it to mean the whole book, and Professor Smith had written in a 
 strange style if it means only the legislative part of the book. He 
 (Principal Brown) could not see how any man reading Professor Smith's 
 articles could read them in any other light, and his own defender had 
 understood him as he did. As to its not being a historical book, he argued 
 there was not a shred of argument used to show that it was not a historical 
 record. It was all very well to read pamphlets about it, but after reading 
 the book itself, he defied any man to come to the conclusion that it was 
 not a historical record. There never was a more nakedly professed history 
 than the book of Deuteronomy. Everybody could see that the legislation 
 was but part of the history, and he defied any man to read it naturally in 
 any other light than as a historical record. A great deal had been said 
 about coupling the name of Professor Smith with Kuenen, but he failed 
 to see very much distinction in their theories. It did not matter to him 
 whether it was three or five centuries, if the theory is that it was so long 
 after the death of Moses before these things were written. That was 
 sufiicient for them. There had been a great deal of special pleading on 
 the part of Professor Smith's friends, but he maintained that what he had 
 said on Thursday had not been answered, that the theory was utterly 
 inconsistent with any conceivable understanding of the book as it stands. 
 He did not differ from Professor Smith as to the right way of using 
 historical criticism, and the witness of the Spirit, in as far as he referred 
 to them to-day ; but he did hold that uhe way in which the witness of the 
 Spirit was introduced before, and in his Answer, was not compatible with 
 the view that he took of the subject. Principal Brown then went on to 
 defend his action in the College Committee, explaining that up to a certain 
 point he had earnestly hoped that he would not be compelled to take any 
 part in the proceedings. He anticipated the fearful condition of matters 
 that would arise, and it was his earnest hope that he would not have to 
 take part in the proceedings ; but as events emerged he found it impossible 
 to carry out this intention, and he finally made up his mind to throw 
 aside all delicate considerations, and to take the position he was now 
 doing, which was such as that he could not express to others. The things 
 he had uttered in this matter had been wrung from him. Would to God 
 
44 
 
 lie had been a thousand miles away ; but when he was here he could not 
 resile from the position he now occupied, and Vhich he occupied with 
 very much pain indeed — (applause). 
 
 The vote was then taken, with the following result : — 
 
 For Principal Broivn's Motion — Principal Brown, Eevs. Dr. Longmuir, 
 W. L. Mitchell, Leslie, Craven, J. Macdonald, Arthur, Hendry, Baunatyne, 
 Selbie, Bell, Goodall, and Masson — ministers ; Messrs. W. W. Milne, 
 D. Mitchell, Aberdein, Eitchie, Wildgoose, MuiTay, and Dr. Gordon — 
 elders— 20. 
 
 For Mr. Moir's Amendment — Eevs. Dr. Spence, Dalgarno, IMoir, 
 Yule, Johnstone, Anderson, Selkirk, Sloan, R. A. Mitchell, Low, Clark, 
 Iverach, Gage, Semple, Innes, M'Queen — ministers ; Messrs. Collie, G. 
 H. Paterson, Thorn, J. Moir, W. Gordon, Barnett, W. Milne, Valentine, 
 ]\IcHardy, and Taylor— 26. 
 
 The result was received with loud cheers, which Avere renewed on Dr. 
 Spence formally announcing the finding of the Presbytery. 
 
 The Presbytery then adjourned. 
 
 Aberdeen, 2lst Februai-y, 1878. 
 The Presbytery met on Thursday, 21st February, at ten a.m., t^ 
 resume consideration of the Libel against Professor Smith. Rev. Professo^ 
 S. D. r. Salmond was moderator, and the Court was crowded durmg the 
 day, 
 
 3. '' Tertio" — Lowering the CJiaracter of the Bible. 
 
 The Clerk having I'ead the particular under Tertio (see Form of 
 Libel, p. 7), 
 
 Mr Masson moved — 
 
 That the Presbytery find the third particular, under the major proposition, of the 
 Foi-m of Libel against Professor Smith, ^vith the corresponding averments and extracts 
 in the minor proposition, to be relevant. 
 
 After remarking that the expression, " the committing of errors like other 
 authors," very fairly raised the whole question, he said the points to be 
 decided to-day are — 1. How much the Confession of Faith really covers 
 when it claims for that written word divine authority and infallibility. 
 2. What list does the Confession of Faith really give us of what is in- 
 fallibly true and divinely authoritative 1 With regard to the first, we 
 liave the views of Professor Smith clearly laid down in his reply. If I 
 understand him aright, he holds that the Confession of Faith does not 
 bind him down to take all the Bible as the infallible record of God's mind 
 and will, necessary to salvation. He distinctly avers that, as to matter of 
 faith, the expression, "Knowledge of God and of His will, Avhich is necessary 
 to salvation," rules everything, and that that expression not being synony- 
 mous Avith, and covering all, the subject matter of the word of God, he 
 is left free to treat the other parts as he would do any other book, and if, in 
 that research, he finds errors, these not affecting his faith, don't in the 
 least touch upon infallibility. In other words, unless it can be proved 
 
45 
 
 that these errors affect in some way the perfection of the v/ord of God, as 
 the rule of faith and life, the Confessional position remains untouched. 
 Having read extracts from Professor Smith's Answer in proof of this, Mr. 
 M. continued — Now, the first question to be settled, if possible, is, what 
 does the Confession of Faith really cover by the expression, " Know- 
 ledge of God and of His will necessary to salvation 1 " Mr j\Iasson went 
 on to argue at length that the expression was actually synonymous with 
 acceptance of the whole canonical Books that form the Bible, as books 
 given by God, and so free from error. He distinctly denied that the 
 Confession attaches infallibility only to those matters which the witness 
 of the Spirit testifies to, these being what they might, if they pleased, 
 call the subordinate evidence to the perfection of the word. The Con- 
 fession of Faith, therefore, rightly sends every one who would know that 
 the Bible is what it professes to be, viz., God's Book — to the Bible itself. 
 And so we hear men acknowledging that, when looked at from this stand- 
 point, they are bound to receive this Book as divinely true and perfect. 
 Then the Confession goes on to say that, having the above evidence, if 
 one would in addition also possess in his own soul a full persuasion and 
 assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, then we 
 must have the work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the 
 Word in the heart. I contend, then, that the divine authority and in- 
 fallibility of God's word is based, first, on these former evidences, and 
 not alone on the latter, and if so, Professor Smith's claim to treat the 
 word of God as a book containing errors is not in accordance Avith the 
 Confession. 
 
 Mr Bannatyne seconded the motion. Subject to the appeal on " sub- 
 vert," he never thought there coirld be much difficulty in finding the 
 generality of the major relevant. The immediate inspiration, infallible 
 truth, and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures are, he held, directly 
 set forth in the Scriptures themselves in such words as " All Scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God ; " in the claims preferred by and on behalf 
 of the writers, as setting forth the words of God rather than the 
 words of man, and in the express assertions that the Holy Ghost 
 miraculously and infallibly moved and guided them, and that God 
 wrote or spoke by means of them. The Confession of Faith uses distinct 
 language on the subject, declaring that the Lord, after revealing Himself 
 and His will, which was necessary for salvation, was pleased to com- 
 mit the same wholly unto writing ; that the Holy Scripture has God 
 as its author and is the word of God ; and that it doth abundantly 
 evidence itself to be the word of God ; that some things abundantly 
 testify to this, but that the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the 
 word in our hearts, gives us full persuasion of the infallible truth and 
 divine authority thereof, and that the Supreme Judge, in whose sentence 
 about such things as religious controversies, and decrees of councils, and 
 opinions of men and their doctrines we are to rest, can be no other but the 
 Holy Spirit speaking by the Scriptures. He adverted to this for the 
 purpose of showing what he was interrupted in when supporting Principal 
 Brown's motion regarding Secundo on Tuesday, namely, one of the two 
 things in reference to which there is not agreement among the members 
 
46 
 
 of this Presbytery and the Presbytery itself ; of the existence of that dis- 
 agreement they must take note, or else they should carry on their present 
 and future discussions like men who unwittingly used terms with a 
 totally different meaning attached to them. 
 
 Professor Smith — I rise to order. I wish to point out that Mr. Banna- 
 tyne is asking the Presbytery to take it as an assumption that tliere is a 
 difference upon a subject in this matter between myself and the whole 
 of the Presbytery. I would point out that that is an attempt of IVIr. 
 Eannatyne to decide a matter which can only be settled by a vote of the 
 Presbytery. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne said that was not a point of order but an explanation 
 of something which he had said, which he could explain himself. He 
 proceeded — The Professor whose case was before them held a view of in- 
 spiration totally different from what he (Mr B.) made free to say the Con- 
 fession of Faith presented, and from what had been almost universally 
 till now attached to it throughout the Church. Mr Bannatyne quoted 
 a number of passages from Professor Smith's Answer to show that his 
 conclusion on this point was that it was only what in Scripture was 
 necessary to salvation, apart from the outward phraseology in which it 
 was conveyed, that secured for it the designation of the word of God. 
 That did not appear to be the view of the subject of inspiration given 
 cither in the Bible or in the Confession of Faith. The contents of the 
 Bible might be the soul, and the phraseology of the Bible might be the 
 body, but the life of the one was the life of the other. From this view of 
 inspiration he was not to be driven by any sneering reference to the distinc- 
 tion betwixt the Greek words, rliema and logos — (laughter). This distinc- 
 tion in the New Testament did not exist — (" Oh, oh "). You may lift 
 your hand, Professor Smith, but I make a fair challenge in the matter to 
 you. Jihema is not so often used as logos, but in proportion to the fre- 
 quency of their occurrence he would undertake to show that rhema means 
 as often the thing spoken of as logos ; that logos as often means the act of 
 speaking as rhema, and that the one as often indicates the words uttered 
 as the other. And so once more he referred to 1st Cor., ii. 11, 15, as con- 
 clusive on the point of the inspiration of the phraseology of the subject 
 matter of Eevelation and Scripture. Mr. Bannatyne next referred to what 
 was said at last meeting by Professor Smith about the Holy Spirit bear- 
 ing witness by and with the word in our hearts. The question was not 
 one betwixt Professor Smith's view and that of the mystics, nor was it a 
 question as to the views of any reformer or the Confession, as held by 
 Professor Smith or rejected by him. The question was exclusively one 
 as to tlie meaning of the 5 th section of chapter 1st of the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith — (hear, hear) — and as to the bearing of the first part 
 of the section upon the last part of it. After elucidating this point at 
 some length, ^Ir. Bannatyne said that Professor Smith's theory struck at 
 the root of the infallible truth and divine authority of the word of God, 
 as contained in the Westminster Confession. Professor Smith had been 
 far too long in unfolding that theory to them. Under it he could find 
 room for a great deal more than from Primo to Octavo. In conclusion, he 
 maintained that under the Standards none of the particulars charged 
 could be found irrelevant. 
 
47 
 
 Mr. Anderson, Cults, said he found that he had fallen into a mistake. 
 Dr. Brown and those who voted with him rightly voted that the par- 
 ticulars were relevant in general, though they confined the strength of 
 their pleading to establish the relevancy of the first charge. Mr. Laidlaw 
 and Mr. Moir both confined their remarks to the first charge, and on that 
 view he voted against the relevancy of the first two particulars. Had he 
 understood that the relevancy of these ^particulars took in the second 
 charge also, he would, of course, have supported them on both occasions. 
 He made this explanation very strongly and emphatically, because it bore 
 very decidedly on the position of others besides himself. 
 
 Mr. Mom, Woodside, said that was something new, as they understood 
 that Dr. Brown's Tuesday's motion had nothing to do with any other part 
 of the general major except the first charge. 
 
 Principal Brown said that Mr. Moir should have attended better to 
 the form of his motion. He had moved that the whole Libel be found 
 relevant. 
 
 Mr. IvERACH said their position was this. They had found the first 
 alternative in its abstract form to be relevant, and they were now going 
 on to consider whether these abstract charges. Prima to Octavo, sustained 
 the relevancy of the first alternative major. Then when they had gone 
 through all these they would begin anew and afresh to consider, first, 
 whether the second alternative was relevant ; and again, whether the eight 
 particulars bore out that relevancy — (applause). 
 
 In course of discussion on the point, Mr. Selbie and Mr. Masson 
 expressed disagreement with the view of Dr. Brown, Mr. Masson holding 
 that Mr. Iverach had given a clear explanation of the eS"ect of his motion. 
 Ultimately, Mr. IMasson agreed to add to his motion the words, " under 
 the first charge of the general major." 
 
 Principal Brown said he had not been one of those who had prepared 
 this Libel, but, on looking over it, he had come to the conclusion that 
 some of the particulars were relevant in respect of the first charge, and 
 that others of them could not be made out clearly and satisfactorily to be 
 relevant under the first charge. He foresaw, according to the mode in 
 which the majority were proceeding, that their policy was to find all these 
 particulars irrelevant in their bearing on the first charge, and then it 
 would be contended that the second was not a legitimate charge, and that 
 the third charge Avas much less so. The consequence would be that the 
 whole would go up to the superior Courts in a defective manner. He 
 wanted the whole matter to come under the cognisance of the Church, 
 that Professor Smith and the truth should get the justice that the case 
 required, and therefore begged to move : — 
 
 That no motion bearing that this or that particular be found relevant as charged 
 is a competent motion. 
 
 He did not care though he stood alone, because he wished to preserve his 
 rights, and he should dissent and complain to the superior Courts. 
 
 Mr. Selbie thought Principal Brown was under a misapprehension, and 
 that his motion was quite unnecessary. Mr. D. Mitchell, elder, indicated 
 a similar view, but would second the motion rather than that his venerable 
 f 1 lend should stand alone. 
 
48 
 
 Mr. Sloan having assured Dr. Brown that he was under an entire mis- 
 take if he thought the other side had all seen their way to finding none 
 of the particulars relevant, especially under the second charge, 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne suggested that the proper course for Dr. Brown tO' 
 adopt was to move the original motion without the added words. 
 
 Principal Brown agreed to adopt that course. 
 
 Mr IvERACH rose to move : — 
 
 That the Presbytery find under Tertio that this particular, with its corresponding 
 averment and extracts in the minor proposition, is not relevant to sustain the first 
 alternative in the general major. 
 
 It was with extreme satisfaction that he saw that Mr. David Mitchell 
 was continuing his studies in the legal department. 
 
 Mr. D. Mitchell — I am not here on my trial, and I object to being 
 the subject of Mr. Iverach's notices. I hold them in contempt — (" Oh ! " 
 and applause) — but I have a right to be protected as a member of Court. 
 I will continue or discontinue my studies as I have a mind. 
 
 Mr. IvERAOH — I express my satisfaction, because at a previous meet- 
 ing Mr. David Mitchell made an astounding assertion about the word 
 " count," which was proof positive to me that he had never read these 
 things — (laughter) — for if he had read them he would never have made 
 such an assertion. 
 
 Mr. D. Mitchell — I repeat the statement that the word " count" is 
 an English term though sometimes used in Scotland. 
 
 Mr. IvERACH — I repeat that the word '*' count" is used in Scotch 
 ecclesiastical procedure — (laughter and applause). 
 
 Mr. A. F. MoiR — It was I who used the word " count," and when I 
 did so Mr. Mitchell called me to order ; but I think when he is so short- 
 tempered himself he might have left me alone — (laughter). 
 
 Mr. D. Mitchell — Mr. Moir has not touched me, and if he does I 
 will answer him — (laughter) — It is Mr. Iveracli I have to do with, and I 
 object to be the subject of his flattering notices. 
 
 Mr. IvERACH — 1 did not anticipate that I should have roused Mr. 
 Mitchell in this way. I certainly think, and I submit to the Moderator, 
 if when a statement is made regarding the use of the word " count," I am 
 not entitled to refer to it in my remarks, and to say that the statement 
 regarding the word " count " was such as to prove to me that Mr. Mitchell 
 had never read these cases ; and I submit I was not out of order — (hear, 
 hear). Mr Iverach went on to express his satisfaction that the abstract 
 charges Primo to Octavo, which really contained the whole pith and 
 marrow of the case, were now receiving the sustained attention their charac- 
 ter demanded. These charges had to fulfil two conditions, first, they must 
 state adequately, and express accurately the opinions held by Professor 
 Smith. When stated affirmatively they must embody a recognised 
 doctrine, law, custom, or, at all events, a principle of discipline of this 
 Church. And if they satisfy these conditions a further question arises, 
 What is the value of them 1 Supposing that as they stand they accurately 
 express Professor Smith's opinions and embody a principle of this Church, 
 do they amount to a contradiction of the Confession, or are they of a 
 dangerous and unsettling tendency, or are they rash and unguarded state- 
 
49 
 
 ments 1 Now, my contention is that Terfio does not accurately represent 
 Professor Smith's views, does not embody a doctrine of this Church, and 
 even if it did, it does not amount to a contradiction of the Confession ; 
 which for the purposes of the trial must be accepted as the Church's 
 interpretation of the Bible — they could not go to the Bible for a 
 fresh interpretation during a judicial investigation. It would be most 
 unsatisfactory and unsafe to attempt such a thing, and I regard the pro- 
 cedure of the opposite side, said Mr. Iverach, as one full of danger to the 
 interests they have most at heart. I regard with high approval the 
 refusal of Principal Brown to be drawn into an exegetical discussion as to 
 the meaning of a portion of Scripture on the floor of this Presbytery. I 
 heartily wish that both he and those who act with him had been consis- 
 tent, and had refused to be drawn into any exegetical discussion at all. I 
 refuse to enter on such a discussion. I say here is the formulated Creed 
 of the Church. I will try any case that arises in questions of doctrine by 
 this Creed ; but I refuse to take the responsibility of saying on the 
 strength of my own power and skill in the interpretation of Scripture what 
 opinions are consistent with the holding of office in this Church. The 
 Church has no right to cast such a responsibility on me. I refuse to 
 undertake so great a task. I will, to the best of my ability, judge what 
 opinions are inconsistent with the Confession. But when the Church has 
 not spoken in her Confession, I will not undertake to speak in her name, 
 I do not think so highly of myself as to do so. That is a safe position 
 for every minister and elder of this Church. It seems to me that minis- 
 ters on the other side have come to an opposite conclusion. Some 
 evidently think themselves competent to declare off-hand what the 
 meaning of Scripture must be, and some elders, under the light of 
 common sense, are equally prepared and ready to make their interpreta- 
 tion the basis of a judicial decision. If they feel themselves equal to so 
 great an honour, I congratidate them on the good terms on which they 
 are with themselves, and on the high estimate they have formed of their 
 own capacity. But I refuse to permit them to interpret Scripture for me, 
 or in the name of the Chm^ch in which I am a minister. I refuse to 
 accept their interpretation as the ground of judicial action. I judge of 
 these abstract propositions as I would judge of propositions about to be 
 added to the Confession of Faith. If we hold them relevant, we bind 
 this Church to them, we make them terms of office binding on the 
 ministers of this Church. But I regard the Confession as the charter of 
 my ministerial freedom, as defending me from assaults formed on every 
 private interpretation of Scripture. Proceeding to the examination of 
 Tertio, Mr. Iverach said, that agreeing with Professor Smith and Dr. 
 Candlish in the main, he had always held and taught his people that in all the 
 books of Scripture they would find the will of God for their salvation, hold- 
 ing the objective testimony of the Spirit, as a distinct thing from subjective 
 enlightenment of the Spirit, which made him in a sense independent of 
 criticism. A sarcastic allusion had been made to Dr. Candlish in this dis- 
 cussion, and a reference to Hume. I beheve, said Mr. Iverach, that Dr. 
 Candlish's position is that of our Scottish theology. He is really in the 
 full sweep of the richest and fullest stream of our Scottish evangelical 
 
 D 
 
60 
 
 tradition. His is the position of one who has the fullest confidence in 
 the glory and power of the Word of God. Historically his doctrine 
 has always been associated with the times and the people, who have 
 been most distinguished for vigorous faith and aggressive work. Coming 
 more directly to Professor Smith's view, he has asserted again and again, 
 that " if you eliminate the supernatural hand of a revealing God from the 
 Old Testament, you destroy the whole consistency of the history, you de- 
 stroy the very thing on which the possibility of a sound criticism rests." 
 Brethren should carry with them the undeniable fact that the aim of all 
 Professor Smith's critical labours has been to place the wonder of that 
 supernatural history in a more luminous light. That principle in all 
 fairness they must carry with them. Well let us look at Tertio, " Ignoring 
 their divine authorship, &c." The same charge can be brought against any 
 and every work on introduction with which I am acquainted. Ignoring 
 is an unfair word. Where you do not mention any belief of yours you 
 cannot be said to ignore it. I am amazed to find that JMr. Bannatyne 
 holds that Professor Smith has ignored the divine authorship of the Bible. 
 I have been here throughout the whole discussion, and I on the same 
 ground might bring a relevant charge against this Presbytery of ignoring 
 the doctrine of the atonement — (laughter). I have heard no allusion to 
 it in the course of all this discussion. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — There is no necessity. 
 
 Mr IvERACH — Very well ; there is no necessity for Professor Smith 
 to have said anything about it in his article. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — Question ] 
 
 Mr IvERACH — This is a charge that can be brought against aU persons 
 dealing with questions of introduction. It can be brought against Keil, 
 and it can be brought against Dean Alford, because in the introductory 
 sections to the Greek Testament he has not found it within the scope of his 
 commission to deal with such a question. Against any of us who ever 
 had to deal with these questions the same charge might be brought, and I 
 have no doubt that it could be brought against Dr. Brown too — (laughter 
 and applause). And then the Libel goes on to say that Professor Smith 
 has said that the sacred writers have taken freedoms, like other authors. 
 I did not like that phrase in Professor Smith's article, and I do not like 
 it in the Libel. But Mr. Bannatyne, in his speech, has conceded that a 
 certain measure of freedom was to be allowed to the inspired and sacred 
 writers. 
 
 ]\rr. Bannatyne — Under inspiration. 
 
 !Mr. Iverach — Of course under inspiration. The writer was to be 
 allowed to put the matter in the literary form that was most natural to 
 himself, and the " taking freedoms " meant by Professor Smith implied 
 no more than the matter of form. The next statement in the Libel is 
 that Professor Smith avers that the inspired writers " commit errors like 
 other writers." I submit that that is not a fair statement of what Pro- 
 fessor Smith says. Even such a man as Keil has admitted that errors 
 have been made, and I stand here to say that I will not commit myself 
 or my Church to a position which even Keil has abandoned as indefensible. 
 As to the possibility of errors in the Word of God, I cannot settle that ques- 
 
61 
 
 tion on the high d priori ground on which Mr. Eannat,yne and IMr. Masson 
 Lave taken it up. I cannot settle on any doctrine of inspiration and with- 
 out inquiry if there be any error in the Word of God. I shall demand great 
 and overw'helmning evidence for the proof of any error, but I refuse to say 
 beforehand, I refuse to commit the divine revelation of God to so hazar- 
 dous and perilous a position as to say that there is no error, grammatical, 
 historical, or scientific, in the "Word of God — (hear, hear). It is a question 
 of historical evidence, and the man who takes the opposite position, that 
 such errors in the letter are inconsistent with truth and humanity, goes 
 in the direction of rationalism of the grossest nature. I do not make 
 myself a judge of the literary form which it may please God to make the 
 vehicle of His revelations of Himself, but I would say whatsoever is con- 
 sistent with truth, and honesty of purpose, and purity of intention, in 
 purely human literature, is equally consistent with truth in the iJivine 
 Word of God — (hear, hear, and applause). Mr. Iverach then quoted from 
 Dr. Hugh Martin on this same subject, and, using the phrase of the Eev. 
 Doctor, said — " If He in His graciousness, not ill to please, but pleased 
 with reverential honest effort, should put speeches into the mouths of 
 others as Scrij^ture truth, why should we not be content % If He in His 
 graciousness should use this or that or the other literary form, the wonder 
 is not that He condescends to use it, but that He has condescended to use 
 human speech at all. When I go to the Bible I find that as matter of 
 fact He, in His graciousness, has used many forms, I had almost said all 
 pure forms of literature. I find He uses plain unadorned narrative, legal 
 forms, simple didactic statements, and the short sententious proverbial 
 mode of speech. I find Him condescending to use type and symbol, and even 
 ■dramatic symbolic action. I find that He uses the stately eloquence of 
 Isaiah, the plaintive monologues of Jeremiah, the dark splendour of Ezekiel, 
 or the abrupt rustic speech of Amos. I find also that all poetic forms 
 are used from the complex drama to a form which seems to us so utterly 
 artificial as that of an acrostic psalm. He, in his graciousness, not ill to 
 please, has used these forms, and I am content, humbly grateful, that He 
 has condescended to speak at all." But the Libel comes to me and says 
 here you must draw the line, here you must say is a literary form which 
 He cannot use. I refuse to draw that line. I am willing to inquire if 
 He has used it. It is a matter to be investigated. But I am not pre- 
 pared to affirm that this is a literary form which He in His graciousness 
 may not use. We are not competent to say in what form He may be 
 pleased to reveal Himself to men. We must humbly inquire what are 
 the forms He has graciously condescended to use. As to the last clause 
 of Tertio, " writing imder the influence of party spirit and for party pur- 
 poses," if I were to say that the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians is a keen 
 and a fierce polemic against the party to whom Paul was opposed, I 
 .should say what is distinctly true. If it was said of my statement that I 
 in using that statement accused the Apostle Paul of writing for party purposes 
 and under the influence of party spirit, I should be misrepresented; and 
 I hold that Professor Smith is misrepresented here. He has not represented 
 the writer of the Chronicles as writing from a party spirit or undei- a party 
 influence. He has simply said that a man writes best on the subject in 
 
62 
 
 ■which he takes the deepest interest. He has simply said that the writer's- 
 whole conception of the revelation of God is coloured by the standpoint 
 that he occupied. He has simply said that the chronicler being very 
 likely a priest, being very likely a Levite and a singer in the Temple — 
 and I have yet to learn that that is not a fair inference from what the 
 chronicler says — he naturally takes a deeper interest in all that concerns 
 the Temple, and I have yet to learn that He in his graciousness, not being 
 ill to please, may not make use of the idiosyncracies and deepest sympa- 
 thies of our common human nature to convey His will to men — (applause). 
 Mr. Gage, in seconding the amendment, said they were not there to 
 refute Professor Smith's views, but to determine whether they contra- 
 dicted or were opposed to certain parts of Scripture formulated in their 
 Standards. He did not think that he could be found guilty thus far 
 under Tertio of lowering the character of Scripture. If there has 
 been any point made plain in this discussion regarding Professor 
 Smith's position, and if there be one point more than another he 
 himself has emphasized again and again, it is this, that he believes 
 in the Divine authorship) of the Scriptures. That distinctively is 
 the differentiating factor between his whole standing and that of the 
 rationalists, who go to Scripture with an attenuated if not altogether ex- 
 tinguished belief in the supernatural. Coming to Professor Smith's mode 
 of dealing with Chronicles, then, he asked was a man not to be allowed 
 the liberty of acting in the way he thought best adapted to set the truth 
 in its real light, and for God's glory 1 We may think the Professor acted 
 unwisely in doing as he did in adopting the plan he chose in this specific 
 case, but to say that in adopting it he lowers the character of the in- 
 spired writings to the level of uninspired, is to say something totally 
 different from what his own explanations and reiterated statements admit 
 of. I^either under this nor the previous charge did Professor Smith 
 seem to him to have contravened the range of liberty allowed under the 
 expressions of their symbolic documents. After illustrating his position on 
 this point in some detail, Mr Gage said there must be toleration — such 
 allowance as is consistent with firm, loyal, and honest adherence to the 
 doctrine of Scripture as stated in our Standards. The' graver indictments 
 in this Tertio are in my judgment those where Professor Smith is charged 
 with making the inspired writers (1) give inferences of their own for 
 facts ; (2) give explanations that are unnecessary and incorrect ; and (3) 
 commit errors like other authors. On these points we must distinctly 
 understand that inspiration is not under Professor Smith's explanation of 
 his meaning an intermittent attribute of Scripture. He acknowledges 
 difficulties and manfully tries to face them. Some of them, I think, he 
 needlessly exaggerates. He appears to press too fiir also certain forms of 
 expression. Eut what he means he tells us (Answer, page 58, line 3, 
 " But I state," &c.) In view of all these considerations, and in our 
 earnest regard for truth, we shall do well to remember in present circum- 
 stances that there may be the danger of yielding to other worse "tyrannies" 
 (I adopt the words of my friend, Mr. Masson) than the tyranny of calm 
 scholarship, and to other worse "worships" than that of genuine and 
 devout learning. P)y coming to a finding really narrower than real argu- 
 
53 
 
 Bient constrains us to do in the interpretation of our Standards, we may 
 do injustice to the cause of that reverent and believing criticism, whose 
 objects are noble, whose services are often so valuable, whose results have 
 been largely recognised as so important, and whose lasting interests are in- 
 terests vital not only to our Free Church, but to the whole Church of 
 •God. It may be advantageous for us to remember at our present stage 
 the words of Dr. Schaff, in his admirable paper on the Consensus of Ee- 
 formed Confessions, read to the General Presbyterian Council at Edin- 
 burgh — "Luther and Calvin," says he, " with the profoundest reverence 
 for the divine substance of the Bible, had a very liberal view of its form." 
 While differing very far from several of the positions taken up by Pro- 
 fessor Smith in reference to the matters included under this Tart to, I can- 
 not see that our Confessional Standards declare such views as he advocates 
 inconsistent with and opposed to their definite teachings, and so support 
 the amendment. 
 
 ]\Ir. Selbie supported Mr. Masson's motion. He contended that ig- 
 noring divine authority in the article " Bible " was a serious matter, and 
 if Professor Smith started with the belief in a divine and human author- 
 ship, he failed to see how it was scientifically consistent to ignore the 
 former. With respect to the expression " fictitious speeches," he did 
 not think sufficient importance had been attached to it. 
 
 Professor Smith — Did I use the word fictitious % 
 
 Mr. Selbie said that Avas in the charge. He was about to allude to a 
 speech to which Professor Smith referred, which must be regarded as a 
 fictitious speech — and that was what was put into the mouth of Abijah in 
 the 13th chapter of Chronicles. Professor Smith, he understood, held 
 that some of the things that were uttered by Abijah Avere not historically 
 correct. 
 
 Professor Smith said he had not said so, and he had not proceeded on 
 that argument. 
 
 ]\Ir. Selbie said Professor Smith certainly stated in his article " Bible," 
 that the Deuteronomic age was the 7th or 8th century before Christ. He 
 also held at the same time that Deuteronomy made no distinction between 
 the Levites and the Aaronites as to the priesthood. 
 
 Professor Smith said that while he had stated that the distinction did 
 not exist at the time of Deuteronomy, he had not made up his mind as to 
 whether it had existed before, and had been obliterated. That, he thought, 
 -was one possible solution of the difficulty. 
 
 Mr. Selbie — That is something new. 
 
 Professor Smith said it was not. He had stated that in his article, 
 and had repeated it in all his speeches. He did consider it a little hard, 
 when he had contradicted things, that gentlemen should rise up and not 
 •only repeat them, but found a long argument upon them, and say that he 
 ■called a certain speech fictitious because he held certain things in it as un- 
 historical. The subject was one upon which critics were divided, and on 
 ■which he had expiessed no opinion. 
 
 Mr. Selbie said he was not satisfied — (laughter). Professor Smith 
 had raised a new question — whether the Levitical period was not older 
 than the Deuteronomic. "When speaking about Deuteronomy, he said 
 the Levites were all eligible to the priesthood 
 
54 
 
 Professor Smith — At the time of Deuteronomy. 
 
 Mr. Selbie — And one part of the article raised the question whether 
 the Levitical period was not after the Deuteronomic. 
 
 Professor Smith said that the author of Deuteronomy contemplated 
 this, that an ordinary Levite might, under certain conditions, become a 
 priest. The Levitical legislation did not contemplate that. It is an open 
 question whether the Deuteronomic state of things was the earlier. He 
 did not profess to know what was the relation of priests and Levites in 
 Abijah's time, and therefore could not argue on such grounds as to the 
 character of the speech. 
 
 ]\rr. Selbie said he would not press the question farther — (laughter) — 
 and he went on to refer to the portion of Professor Smith's Answer where 
 it was stated that, " according to the Confession, infallible truth and 
 divine authority go together," and " the two predicates are inseparable, 
 the one does not extend beyond the other, and both are proved by one 
 and the same evidence — namely, by the witness of the Holy Spirit, &c." 
 Now, he (J\rr. Selbie) could not understand that these two predicates- 
 were proved simply by the witness of the Holy Spirit. He held that 
 the infallible truth belonged to the word itself, and when the Spirit 
 brought that home to him he saAV the infallible truth. But it existed 
 whether it was brought home to him or not. 
 
 Professor Smith — Certainly, 
 
 ]\Ir. Selbie said with regard to the use made of the names of Luther 
 and Calvin, and what they had said, he wished to observe that Luther 
 wrote a great deal, and that there was reason to believe that things he 
 uttered in some of his earlier years he lived to regret. Now he thought 
 there was something in the heart of Professor Smith, that if spared a few 
 years longer a good many things he had written just now he would not be 
 inclined to stand to — (hear, hear). 
 
 Mr. Yule said they were certainly not there to refute or confute Pro- 
 fessor Smith, but to try and ascertain the law of the Church on this 
 particular subject which they were now called upon to decide. As to 
 the interpretation of the Scriptures they must appeal to the Confession of 
 Paith so far as it had pronounced, and matters on Avhich the Confession 
 had not decided they must be considered at liberty to discuss, until it 
 was shown from the word of God that they touched upon points of faith. 
 He proceeded to criticise the wording of Tertio, remarking with regard 
 to the charge against Professor Smith, of representing the sacred writers 
 as taking freedoms, that when they looked at the particulars, and kept in 
 view Professor Smith's explanation, it not only " became small by degrees 
 and beautifully less," but in fact vanished altogether — (applause). In 
 point of fact, where Kiel, an orthodox critic, as all knew, admitted an 
 error in Chronicles, Professor Smith does not go so far. In regard to this 
 whole matter he says — " It will, however, be noted that on all such 
 points I carefully avoid hasty conclusions, and am unwilling to go beyond 
 an admission that in some cases the evidence points to a possible, or, at 
 most, a probable error." Looking at the extract given from the article, 
 and looking at that explanation, they were certainly bound to admit that 
 explanation to be the mind of Professor Smith. As to the witness of the 
 
55 
 
 Spirit testifying to the infallible truth of Scripture, what the Con- 
 fession had reference to was what man was to believe concerning God 
 and what duty God required of man, and not to mere incidental matters of 
 history or science. All this and more was covered by Professor Smith's 
 teaching ; and he nowhere eviscerated the word of God of its worth as a 
 rule of faith and manners given us by Divine authority as infallible truth. 
 Passing to another point, he said that people who adopted the highest 
 doctrine of inspiration allowed that there were difficulties in Scripture, 
 such as that about the Tharshish ships, which had neither been solved by 
 the explanations of Keil nor of Dr. Douglas, of Glasgow. Calvin did not 
 scruple to say that a mistake had occurred in Matthew, by the name of 
 Jeremiah having got in instead of Zechariah, and were they to hold that 
 their Professor was a heretic because he said that in certain places similar 
 errors had been committed 1 As to the averment that a fictitious speech was 
 put into the mouth of Abijah, who was a historical character, he referred to 
 the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as atfording a parallel case, where 
 a speech is put into the mouth of Abraham of historical character. The 
 strongest and worst thing in the indictment appeared to him to be that in 
 which it was alleged that party spirit influenced the writers of Scripture, 
 and that they wrote for party purposes. These were not Professor Smith's 
 words, and the extracts did not bear out these words to any extent what- 
 ever. What Professor Smith said about the Chronicles was what any of 
 the members of Presbytery might say about other writers of Scrii:)ture, 
 and what they were accustomed to say about the New Testament writers. 
 It was the commonest thing imaginable to say that Matthew wrote for 
 one purpose and that the Apostle John wrote for another purpose, and 
 they had also to consider that the Apostle Paul wrote for one purpose and 
 the Apostle James for another, which was nothing more nor less tliau Pro- 
 fessor Smith said about the writers of Kings or the writer of Chronicles. 
 On the whole, he maintained that if they fairly and impartially viewed 
 this matter they would find that Professor Smith had not contradicted 
 the Standards of the Church under this head — (applause). 
 
 Mr. Johnstone referred to Dr Chalmers' position concerning Scripture 
 criticism. Dr Chalmers had said that he held " it as a sure and irresist- 
 ible position that it (Scripture criticism) must just be conducted on the 
 same principles and by the same methods with the criticism of all other 
 ancient authorship. To determine the genuine readings of any book in 
 the New Testament you must proceed on the very indications which 
 guide you in the genuine readings of Horace and Cicero, and to deter- 
 mine the sense of any Scripture passage, you employ the very instru- 
 ments which are wielded by linguists and grammarians when they try to 
 penetrate the meaning of any obscure or controverted sentence in the 
 poets or the historians or sages of Greece." In quoting further, Mr. 
 Johnstone cited a passage where Dr Chalmers referred to the divine and 
 human agency meeting together, and says " there is a grievous misunder- 
 standing, should the divine be thought to supersede the human ; instead 
 of which the one should stimulate the other to its uttermost " — (hear, 
 hear). He was very glad to see that some of the brethren on the oppo- 
 site side understood that — (laughter). 
 
56 
 
 Principal Brown — That is just the A B C of the subject. 
 
 Mr Johnstone — That is the very reason why I was surprised that it 
 was not attended to — (laughter and applause) — and I thought a word 
 from Dr Chalmers would have more etfect than anything I could say. 
 Though Professor Smith had written unadvisedly in some respects, he 
 did not sympathise with the alarmists who wished to make the very worst 
 of his position. He wished to say, in conclusion, that the discussion on the 
 other side had been conducted with a degree of mist and misunderstand- 
 ing and misstatement which was quite in keeping with Tcrtlo, which had 
 been proved to be a misstatement and a misrepresentation of Professor 
 Smith's position. He thought they should all be very glad to receive 
 this pamphlet of Professor Smith's, and he considered it strange that there 
 had not been a manifestation from all quarters of the House of thankful- 
 ness to God that their young friend had been led to state directly what 
 he held in connection with the points which had been raised — (applause). 
 
 Principal Brown said as he did not intend to vote on this point, he 
 would take the opportunity of making an explanation. From the time 
 that he had examined the Libel thoroughly, he had made up his mind 
 that the right course was to consider whether it was relevant as a charge, 
 it being understood that the charges, though three literally, were only 
 three different forms of one and the same charge. He also considered 
 that the question of relevancy was one thing, and after that was decided 
 the question of how they were to regard the three charges, was another 
 and a subsequent one. Accordingly he made up his mind that the course 
 agreeable to the tenor and intent of the Libel, and, he held, agreeable to 
 the way in which such matters were judicially handled, was either to move, 
 or second, or support, a motion affirming that these particulars were relevant 
 to infer church censure, but nothing further, all further action being 
 reserved for the future stage. But as he saw from the feeling of the 
 Court that he should stand alone if he moved that this third particular or 
 any other particular was relevant simply without reference to some one 
 of the three forms of charge, he was put in the position of not being able 
 to vote at all, and for this reason that although he thouglit this third 
 charge did border very closely upon the hrst alternative charge, he was 
 not prepared to say that it was relevant in its bearing upon the first por- 
 tion of the charge. He therefore thought it liis duty to give the benefit 
 of any doubt that he had on the subject to Professor Smith. He had no 
 doubt that Tertio was relevant to the second alternative charge, and when 
 they came that length he should support any motion that was made to 
 that effect, but he decidedly objected to goiu;^ along with a motion that 
 it was not relevant to the first charge. Tlie Answer of Professor Smith 
 to the Libel liad been repeatedly referred to by both sides, and lie could 
 not see how they could avoid referring to it provided it was distinctly 
 understood that they were not judging of the Answer but of the Libel 
 itself. He admitted the great ability that was displayed in the Answer, 
 but he could not refrain from saying that his judgment was that the view 
 of inspiration advocated in that pamphlet was not the view of iusi)iration 
 involved in the statements of the Confession of Faith. That might seem 
 to shut him up to the first form of the charge, and so it would, if he had 
 
57 
 
 to judge of the Answer. But since he had not to judge of the Answer, 
 but of the Libel, he was not prepared to say that there was in the aiticle 
 Tertio sufficient ground to hold that it was relevant in relation to the first 
 alternative. As to the dispute about the Greek words rhema and lorjos, he 
 had already stated, that Professor Smith's critical remarks were un- 
 doubtedly correct, but he had also stated that they had no bearing on the 
 .statement of Mr. Bannatyne. After illustrating this point, Principal 
 Brown, in reply to Mr. Iverach's contention, that they must not go out- 
 side the Confession, he said the Confession did not bear on such ques- 
 tions, because they were not raised up to the date of the Confession. Yet 
 as they shook the very foundations of the Confession, they must have 
 liberty to go outside it^ and not be limited by its ipsissima verba. He re- 
 ferred as in point to the judgment of the Court of Arches in the case of 
 the " Essays and Keviews," Avhich were found not to come within the 
 limits of the Thirty-nine Articles, the result leading to the doctrine of the 
 Church of England being undermined and subverted. Principal Brown 
 concluded by stating that, as he did not in his conscience believe that 
 Tertio was clearly relevant under the first charge, although it was very 
 close to it, he would decline to vote at all. 
 
 Professor Smith said that he now wished to say one or two words upon 
 what had been said in the course of the debate. Dr. Brown had alluded 
 to a point which he (Professor Smith) was very glad had been brought 
 under the notice of the Presbytery. The Doctor had said that the Free 
 Church would not consent to allow the question of doctrine to be decided 
 in the way in which the Court of Arches decided on the matter of the 
 " Essays and Eeviews." The Court of Arches, in deciding that case, had 
 been led very much by Lord Westbury, who was anxious to secure as 
 much freedom as possible, and who had almost gone as far as to say that 
 no action could be taken unless there was a verbal contradiction between 
 what was stated in the " Essays and Eeviews," and what was stated in one 
 of the Thirty -nine Articles. He (Professor Smith) did not stand up to ask 
 that his articles should be judged in any such way. What he asked was 
 that before they should come to a decision against him, it should be found 
 that there was a logical line of inconsistency between his articles and the 
 doctrines of the Confession ; and if this Court acquitted him' it must be 
 on the ground that there was no logical inconsistency between his views 
 and the creed of the Church. Therefore, Dr. Brown might be relieved of 
 any fear which he might have that this Church was liable to go the length 
 of the Court of Arches, and insist, not upon logical inconsistency, but 
 upon verbal difference. There was no fear that this Court would go the 
 length of the Court of Arches, and he himself would not desire that it 
 should be so — (applause). This fact somewhat modified the necessity of 
 going outside the Confession. Dr. Brown had said that when the foun- 
 dations of the Confession of Faith were shaken by such views as those 
 they were now considering, then they had to go outside the Confession, 
 and buUd up these foundations by reference to the Bible and to common 
 sense. It so happened, however, that the foundations of the Confession 
 were in this case part of the Confession itself. The doctrine of the in- 
 fallible truth of the Bible was as much a part of the Confession as the 
 
58 
 
 statement that the Bible was infallible truth, and if he had assailed 
 this doctrine or built up an opinion on grounds opposed to this doctrine, 
 he could refute it without their going outside the Confession at all. 
 
 Principal Brown — My remark did not apply to this stage of the 
 proceedings at aU, but to a subsequent stage, so that these remarks of 
 Professor Smith's are inapplicable and irrelevant. 
 
 Professor Smith — If my reply is irrelevant, of course it is quite 
 obvious that the remarks which called it forth are irrelevant also — 
 (laughter and applause). Dr. Brown is here as a judge, and I hope his 
 example will not be followed by any others who are now present. He 
 has said distinctly that this charge is not to his mind clearly made out, 
 and that he does not think himself justified in voting for Mr. Masson's 
 motion. If that is anything at all, that is a verdict of not proven — 
 (hear, hear) — and, in such a matter as this, that can only be given effect to 
 by a vote on his part that this charge is not relevant — (applause). I am 
 therefore entitled to his vote, and I have a right to claim it — (applause) — 
 and to say that he is not doing his duty as a judge if he stands up and 
 says " I am not clear that this is a relevant charge, but nevertheless I will 
 withhold my vote " — (applause). 
 
 Principal Brown — I beg to say that I shall claim my liberty to act as 
 I please, and I do not hold the one result necessarily to foUow from the 
 other. My mind is in a state in which I do not choose to go into the 
 distinction that has been drawn by Professor Smith. And allow me the 
 liberty to say when you are insisting upon this line of remark that you 
 shall not have my vote. 
 
 Professor Smith — Very well, then ; that is quite clear ; but I hope 
 that no other judge in this Court will consider it consistent with his 
 functions, if he thinks that this charge is not a relevant one, not to give 
 me the benefit of his vote — (applause). I was very much surprised that 
 the mover and seconder made no attempt whatever to bring home to my 
 articles the general proposition in the abstract major. There was no 
 attempt on their part to say that I do these things which are there 
 averred. This point was certainly touched upon by Mr. Selbie, and by 
 him only on the other side ; it was also touched upon by those who 
 have spoken in support of Mr. Iverach's motion, and it was clearly shown 
 that a very great deal of proof was wanted to show that I said anything 
 that amounted to the charge which is here preferred. I dissent from Mr. 
 Selbie's proposal to take up other things than those in the extracts, 
 because I have had no fair notice that such was to be done. The Libel 
 should have been constructed so as to show any passages upon which the 
 charges against me were built up. 
 
 Mr. Selbie — It is stated distinctly that certain publications are in the 
 hands of the Presbytery Clerk, and that these are to be used against you. 
 
 Professor Smith — That is quite true, but so far as I understand the 
 law of the case — and that was the assumption upon which I went in giv- 
 ing my Answer — the Libel was bound to show the definite thing that was 
 to be brought and charged against me. The only passage that Mr. Selbie 
 referred to was the passage about the tendency of a certain writing. It 
 may be for good or bad. I did not say, and had no desire to say, it was for 
 
59 
 
 bad. As to ignoring the Divine authorsliip, wliicli is also charged under 
 this particular, that, I think, does not fall under this head. Ignore and 
 contradict, as has been pointed out already, are difterent things. AVhen I 
 contributed this article to the Eni-ijdopcedla Britannka I was writing under 
 limitations — the necessary limitations of such a work. An appeal was made 
 by one of the speakers— Mr. Bannatyne — to a former edition of the same 
 publication, but the case is entirely different. The editor has been changed, 
 the plan of the work has been changed, and I wrote with a distinct under- 
 standing that I was dealing solely with the literary question, and that there 
 woidd be another article, the name of which I think is to be " Holy Scrip- 
 tures," in which the dogmatical position in regard to the Bible was to be 
 treated. The article " Bible" was confined to the literary questions. I did 
 not think it possible to discuss the literary questions about the Bible at 
 all satisflxctorily without admitting the existence of a supernatural factor 
 in Bible history. I have said that again and again. I cannot do anything 
 with the Bible unless you allow that, and that I put distinctly to the fore- 
 front of my article. The dogmatical or theological character of the book 
 was a different question from the question of what were its literary charac- 
 teristics. I distinctly admit that the religion of the Bible is the religion of 
 revelation, that during the period of that history God spoke by his prophets 
 to men. I did not go farther and ask, what are the theological character- 
 istics of the record of revelation, because I had another question before 
 me— the question of its literary characteristics. The two questions are 
 distinct, and every one Avho -has ever tried to ^vi-ite such articles, without 
 keeping these two aspects entirely distinct, will recognise the difficulty 
 that lies in such a way of treatment. I have here done what every orthodox 
 writer does — (applause) — and seeing this has been so mis-stated, not through 
 any fault on my part, but through the unfamiliarity of the Church with 
 these lines of investigation, I regret very much that I did not put at the 
 commencement of my article " Bible," as I had at one time intended to 
 do, a paragraph which I had -\ATitten, and which I could yet show to the 
 Presbytery, stating my distinct views dogmatically on the point now 
 raised. In that paragraph I stated that I assumed the Bible as a record 
 of revelation, and I stated the ground of that assumption, opposing the 
 contention of the Tubingen school, whose hypothesis is that everything 
 that is supernatural is untrue, and further explaining that while I then 
 acknowledged its Divine characteristics I was to treat it in its purely 
 literary forms. This statement corresponds with what I have said now. 
 I did not put that paragraph in because I was strictly limited as to room, 
 and because I did not know that I was entitled to ask the editor to put 
 in what was of the nature of a personal explanation, and I did 
 not think that that explanation was necessary. But, had I antici- 
 pated the persistent attempts that have been made to put the 
 worst construction on everything I have said, I certainly would have taken 
 care to protect myself — (applause). I have no objection to what was said 
 about the speeches in Chronicles except on this one pomt of view, that my 
 opinions were charged as being linked into something that was much more 
 far^oiu"-. The kind of grounds on which these speeches are viewed as 
 free compositions has been shown by Dr. Delitzsch, whose remarks have 
 
60 
 
 been quoted in Dr. Candlish's pamphlet, and ought, therefore, to be well 
 known to the members of Presbytery. That speech of Abijah, to which 
 ]Mr. Selbie made reference, bears the stamp of the chronicler upon it. It has 
 his style, his very impress, and it contains an expression which IMr. Selbie 
 will, as a Hebrew scholar, understand in its full meaning, namely, 'amme 
 haarazot. To any competent Hebrew scholar that is an indication that 
 that speech was written after the Exile, for that expression only came into 
 existence at that time. Another thing in the speech of Abijah is that he 
 says that Jeroboam revolted against his father Eehoboam when a young 
 man and tender of heart, or, as he might be described, a raw lad. 
 The chronicler has told us in the chapter before that he was a man of 
 forty-one, and not quite twenty years had passed since. It is not likely, 
 therefore, that Abijah, in speaking before the people, would have said 
 that he was a raw lad. Such things as these are slight matters ; they 
 don't touch the value of the Bible ; and I refer to them only in passing, 
 I do not know what would be the result if I put myself in Mr. Banna- 
 tyne's position. If I felt that these things touched my faith, I could not 
 study Scripture for one day without coming to something which would 
 give my faith a wrench ; and the Church should not put office-bearers in 
 a position in which these slight matters Avould be elevated into vital 
 matters, and men would have no choice between yielding up everything 
 in Christianity and holding the extremest views of inspiration which it is 
 possible for anyone to frame — (applause). As to the allegation about writing 
 under the influence of party spirit and for party purposes — What I said 
 was that the writer was partial to the service of the singers ; and is there 
 anything wrong in that ? Suppose a member of this Church were to write 
 a Church history, would he not be legitimately partial to the history of his 
 own Church 1 Would he not treat it with particular kindness and fond- 
 ness, and give it prominence 1 Mr. Bannatyne said that the liljcrty given 
 to the writers of the inspired books might go so far as to effect a propor- 
 tionate treatment of different things, and that is what I mean. The pro- 
 portionate treatment of different things is different in different authors ; 
 and every author treats in the largest proportion the thing for which he 
 has the greatest love. Is there anything heretical there 1 — (applause). That 
 covers all the charges, and I think it really enough for my purpose. 
 I came up with a good many notes, for instance, about the ships of 
 Tarshish and other matters, but these points have not been brought up, 
 and I need not trouble the Court upon the subject — (cries of " Go on," 
 " Go on "). I have not been stating a theory of Inspiration as generally 
 accepted. I have been trying to give an exposition of what the Confession 
 says about Inspiration. No doubt there is room for further theory. To 
 nie it is a mystery. It is a thing which is due to the action of God's 
 Spirit, and when we begin to study this we get into the region of the 
 infinite, and can never expect to understand it ; therefore I treat with 
 great reverence all questions that go beyond the Confession ; and on all 
 such questions I have wished to speak with reserve, not but that I think 
 there are things that can well be investigated by human reason, and 
 human reason properly used, I think, will never be inconsistent with 
 faith, but because these are sacred subjects on which Ave should speak 
 
61 
 
 with caution. The only question I had to consider was how much is in 
 the Confession, and how much that is not in the Confession is to members 
 of this Church a subject of free and reverent enquiry — (applause). ]\Ir. 
 Masson referred to two points — what does the Confession cover in claimiu"- 
 Divine authority and infallibility for Scripture : and he seemed to say 
 that I adopted the well-known view that part of the Scriptures is the 
 Word of God, and part is not the Word of God ; and he proceeded to 
 say that I produced a certain arbitrary and somewhat subjective test to 
 show which is which. On that subject I made a very distinct statement 
 in my Answer. We may say silver is contained in the mould into which 
 it is run. If the silver is only in the leaden ore, the man who has no 
 means for smelting it is no richer by having it in his possession. If the 
 Bible only contained the Word of God mixed with man's word like 
 silver in the leaden ore, then no one could use Scripture for his oavu 
 rehgious life who did not possess the requisite scholarship, as in the 
 other case the man could not get silver without having a smelting furnace 
 to separate it from the leaden one. Therefore that view is untenable, 
 but there is another way in which Scripture may contain the Word. Scrip- 
 ture contains the Word of God, the pure Word of God, as the mould contains 
 the silver seven times tried. The pure silver takes the shape of the mould, 
 it may be an imperfect shape, but it is pure silver, and the man is enriched 
 thereby at once without any further act. That is the way — (applause). 
 It is pure silver, and no one comes to the Bible but finds in it the solid 
 silver seven times tried by the furnace in the Old Testament and in the 
 I^ew Testament, and not merely the leaden ore. But that is not to say 
 that the form of the Word of God will not contain things that are 
 imperfect, just as pure silver may be in an imperfectly-shaped sheU — 
 (applause). Such a doctrine of the imperfection of Scripture really 
 covers everything I have said. I never said, as Mr. Masson fears I do, 
 that every individual soul is capable of telling at once what is the will of 
 God in Scripture. The witness of the Spirit is an objective thing. It is 
 like light in the world. It is only our eyesight that gives us the use of it, 
 and there is no other evidence for the existence of light except our eyesight. 
 In the same way it is only the witness of the Spirit that enables us 
 to see the divine qualities of the Scripture, it would be difficult to prove 
 it divine without the witness of the Spirit. Professor Smith added that he 
 would be happy to answer any questions, but there were no other points 
 which he now remembered as having emerged in the course of the debate 
 which called for any reply from him, and he resumed his seat amid loud 
 applause. 
 
 Mr. Masson said he would waive the right of reply. 
 
 Several members here stood up, and, amidst some confusion, it was 
 brought out that some gentlemen thought that, having appealed agaiust 
 the phrase " contradict or are opposed to," they were entitled to treat that 
 as meaning " subvert." 
 
 IVIr. Selbib said it would be understood that in voting for the first 
 motion they did so on the understanding that they claimed that the word 
 ought to be " subvert." 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne said all along they had protected themselves by saying 
 
62 
 
 that they voted under cover with respect to the change of the word 
 " subvert." 
 
 JNIr. IvERACH said it was an impossible tiling for a person to vote for 
 '* contradict," meaning all the time " subvert." 
 
 Professor Smith said " subvert " was not in the Libel, and if they were 
 not to stick to the Libel now, there was an end to all verity. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — That is our look out, and not yours. 
 
 Mr. A. F. MoiR said they seemed to have arrived at a very strange 
 position, that people who did not believe that the Libel was relevant would 
 vote that it Avas relevant in one sense^ and not in the one they were 
 voting on. 
 
 Mr. Johnstone hoped that this would be kept in view to show the 
 value of the voting on the other side. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — That is your explanation. 
 
 Mr. Johnstone — I hope the reporters will take this down. 
 
 The Moderator — What we have before us now is a motion which 
 does not contain the word " subvert" at all. 
 
 Principal Brown here remarked that in his reply he had used a strong 
 expression, and he should be sorry to use any expression which was im- 
 proper. When he asked leave to withdraw his motion and liberty to 
 dissent, he did it under the possibility that either Professor Smith or 
 some one on the other side might say that that implied that he voted with 
 them. No one, however, made any objection to it, and he said nothing. 
 Whereupon Professor Smith said, " I claim your vote then," when he (the 
 Principal) had replied, " I do not think it necessary to come to that con- 
 clusion, and you shall not have my vote." He did not like that expression, 
 and he now begged to withdraw it. 
 
 Professor Smith said he had not taken it at all in an offensive sense. 
 
 The vote was then taken with the following result : — 
 
 For Mr. Masson's Motion — Dr. Longmuir, Messrs. Craven, Arthur, 
 Bannatyne, Selbie, and Masson, ministers ; and Messrs. W. W. Milne, 
 Mitchell, Aberdein, and Dr. Gordon, elders — 10. 
 
 For Mr. Iverach's Araendment — Dr. Spence, Messrs. Stephen, A. F. 
 Moir, Yule, Johnstone, Anderson, Selkirk, Sloan, E. A. j\litchell, Goodall, 
 Low, Iverach, Gage, Semple, Lines, JNIacqueen, ministers ; and Messrs. 
 ■Collie, Paterson, Thorn, Moir, W. Gordon, Barnett, W. Milne, Valentine, 
 ^nd Fleming, elders — 25. 
 
 Principal Brown and Messrs. Bell and Fitzpatrick declined to vote. 
 
 The result was received with cheers. 
 
 Mr. Masson dissented and complained, and Mr. Bannatyne adhered. 
 
 The Presbytery adjourned till Tuesday next, at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Aberdeen, 2Gth Fehruanj, 1878. 
 
 The Presbytery met in the Hall of the Free West Church, at ten 
 o'clock — Prof Salmond, Moderator. 
 
 The following answer to Mr. Masson's reasons of dissent from the 
 
63 
 
 resolution of the last meeting in regard to Tertio, was given in by the 
 Committee of Presbytery : — 
 
 As fr-^m the constitution of men's minds there is large room for diversity of 
 opinion as to what constitutes virtual denial of any confessional position, the Presby- 
 tery regards the very large majority in this division — 25 to 10 — a sufficient vindication 
 of its decision that no virtual denial of the divine authority and infallible truth of 
 God's Word was made. 
 
 4. " Quarto" — discrediting the Authenticity of the Bible. 
 
 The Presbytery took up the fourth particular under the first alternative 
 major proposition, (see Form of Libel, p. 9.) 
 
 Dr. LoNGMUiR, after expressing his sadness of spirit at the commotion 
 this case had made, and his regret and sorrow at seeing their Professor, 
 •whom he so much respected, and the members of Presbytery so much 
 divided in opinion, said it must have struck those within this Court, as 
 it had struck those without, that every one of those that voted against the 
 relevancy denied their sympathy Avith Professor Smith's views, so that a 
 judicial sentence that was wont to be quoted as a good joke was likely to be 
 turned into earnest, when the finding of this Court would be — Professor 
 Smith, you are declared not guilty, but you must not do the like again ! 
 Dr. Longmuir went on to comment on the phrase " poetical invention of 
 incidents, " as applicable to the narrative of Jonah and the great fish, 
 referring to the confirmation of that incident supplied by Layard's dis- 
 coveries at Nineveh. When Layard brought to this country the slabs from 
 l^ineveh, I would not rest till I had seen them, said Dr. L., assured that 
 they would cast much light on the historical parts of Scripture, and I was 
 not disappointed. Brethren can scarcely conceive what my feelings were 
 in seeing Dagon and Cannes, the one half-fish half-man, bent semicir- 
 cularly like the mermaid, and the other, a man with the giU-covers of a 
 large fish dra\vn over his head and the body of the fish hanging down his 
 back. Dr. Longmuir illustrated his views on this point more fully, by 
 quoting the words of our Saviour in Luke xi., as to Jonah being a sign 
 to the jSTinevites. He then remarked upon other passages, and continued 
 — What is said with regard to Daniel appears to me to be quite sufficient 
 to support the coimt we are now considering. He is only " akin to the 
 prophets proper," says the quotation ; and, in his explanation. Professor 
 Smith tell us that he (Daniel) is not called a prophet in the Old Testa- 
 ment ; but the line that has been left blank would have contained the 
 statement of our Lord that Daniel was a prophet (Mark xiii. 14). If 
 Daniel has not been called a prophet in the Old Testament, he certainly 
 has all the attributes of one, and few of the writings of the prophets are 
 more frequently alluded to by our Saviour, who takes from him the pro- 
 phetic but humble name of the " Son of Man," and clearly alludes to his 
 imagery when speaking of his return in glory. I need say little more on 
 the Ketubim, than that our Saviour seems to include them in the expres- 
 sion Psalms, as being the first of the Hagiographa, or holy writings, when 
 he speaks of the Scriptures as consisting of " Moses, the Prophets, and the 
 Psalms 3 " and that the whole of these books are stamped with his au- 
 
64 
 
 ttority as " the Scriptures." Without enlarging further on these topics, 
 I move the relevancy of Quarto. 
 
 Dr. Gordon (elder) seconded. 
 
 Mr J. M. Sloan moved — 
 
 That the Presb)rtery find the particular Quarto irrelevant under the first alterna- 
 tive of the major, inasmuch as it is not explicit in statement, is destitute of any cor- 
 responding averments in the minor, and is not substantiated by the extracts adduced 
 in support of it. 
 
 He held that the particu.lar Quarto was not explicit, intelligible, or gram- 
 matical, and pointed out that, on a former occasion. Principal Brown had 
 said that he could never make anything out of it. When they had such 
 testimony as that, to the effect that this part was not intelligible, it would 
 be a serious matter for the Presbytery to say that it contained the charge of 
 contradicting the Confession of Faith, and that it was opposed to sound 
 doctrine. 
 
 Principal Brown said what he meant was, that the phraseology was 
 unintelligible. He never thought that the drift and scope of it were un- 
 intelligible. 
 
 Mr. Sloan said, he at the time stated that he thought it could be 
 made intelligible, and he made a suggestion which he thought would 
 accomplish that end. Professor Smith very generously made another 
 suggestion in his Answer. But as neither suggestion was accepted, he 
 submitted that they must hold it irrelevant. Prom the way the particu- 
 lars were characterised it could not be found relevant. " Albeit, the 
 presentation of opinions," &c. Whose opinions were they 1 Were they 
 Professor Smith's opinions 1 He submitted that there was no distinct 
 definition of whose these opinions were, and tliis want of definiteness was 
 condemnatory of the particular. Suppose they admitted that it was Pro- 
 fessor Smith's opinions that were referred to in the first part— and com- 
 mence, " Albeit, the presentation of opinions, as your own opinions, which 
 discredit the authenticity," and so on ; then the concluding part of the 
 sentence was — "without any indication of dissent therefrom." So that 
 under this view of it they had the presentation of opinions of his own, 
 which discredit the authenticity of Scripture, without any indication of 
 dissent from his own opinions, which, IMr Sloan submitted, was perfectly 
 unintelligible. 
 
 Mr. Masson — That is not there. 
 
 Mr. Sloan said that was not there, but it was not sense that was 
 there. Then the particular was irrelevant, because it was inadequate in 
 form. The word " presentation" was also inaccurate. Now the presenta- 
 tion of things Avhich discredit the authenticity of Scripture was not a 
 thing which was improper. They might require to present opinions for 
 various purposes— for the purpose of information for instance — and that 
 was what Professor Smith did. They might present the opinions of any 
 heretic, of Voltaire, and not be subject to libel. Then, again. Quarto 
 was inadequate in form, because there was no conclusion drawn from it 
 in the minor. Proceeding to the extracts, Mr Sloan said the charge was 
 irrelevant, inasmuch as these did not bear it out. Take the book of Job 
 for example. He did not know that many would hold that the book of 
 
65 
 
 ,Tob did not contain poetical invention and incident. In an article in Pro- 
 fessor Fairbairn's Encyclopasdia it was stated that it was possible to hold 
 that everything in Job took place as it occurred, but it was scarcely 
 credible. Then as to the book of Jonah, Professor Smith manifestly was 
 not stating a personal opinion at all, but there as elsewhere treating of the 
 literature of the subject. Professor Smith holds by the authenticity and 
 canonicity of all the books of Scripture — (hear, hear). He says, for ex- 
 ample, "Esther has been viewed" — and he spoke here of what is matter 
 of fact — " as a fiction by many who are not over sceptical critics," and 
 that he can maintain and substantiate as a matter of fact. He then goes 
 on to show why he rejects that view, " but on this view a book which 
 finds no recognition in the New Testament, and whose canonicity was 
 long suspected by the Christian as well as by the Jewish Church, must 
 sink to the rank of an apocryphal production." The very fact, Mr. Sloan 
 proceeded to say, that Professor Smith puts Esther among the canonical 
 books of Scripture, shows that he does not accept the position taken up by 
 these sceptical critics — (applause). With regard to the substitution of 
 Elohim for Jehovah, Mr. Sloan remarked that there were in our present 
 New Testament expressions which he supposed would not be found in our 
 revised version. Now as they had not the old Hebrew manuscripts to go 
 back upon, so that they might arrive at an accurate reading, there was 
 greater scope for examining Old Testament writings according to liberal 
 criticism. Then coming to the book of Daniel, Professor Smith had said 
 in his article about prophetic writings, that he could find no place in it 
 for Daniel, " which presented so many points of diversity from ordinary 
 prophecy as to require entirely separate treatment." But Professor Smith 
 did not identify himself with the modern critics. He merely put the 
 alternative, and he said that it required separate treatment. He did not 
 see how they ■were to base upon that any charge of holding a position con- 
 trary to the Confession of Faith. 
 
 JSIr. Johnstone, Belhelvie, seconded. After remarking that this trying 
 case had been the cause of much irritation, he said he wished to refer to 
 feelings of another kind, namely of gratification and thankfulness to 
 God that had been expressed by a person to him, when he read Professor 
 Smith's reply to a challenge that he did not hold the Bible as the great 
 source of belief and ultimate authority. The person, when he heard it, 
 said it ought to be printed separately, and cast abroad throughout tlie 
 whole land. The extract was as foUows : — "If I am asked why I revere 
 Scripture as the word of God, and as the only perfect rule of faith and 
 life, I answer with all the fathers of the Protestant Church, ' Because t!ie 
 Bible is the only record of the redeeming love of God, because in the 
 Bible alone I find God drawing near to man in Christ Jesus, and declar- 
 ing to us in Him His will for our salvation. And this record I know to 
 be true by the witness of His Spirit in my heart, whereby I am assured 
 that none other than God Himself is able to speak such words to my 
 soul ' " — (applause). He said, instead of nibbling away and chopping 
 logic in a small way, why not, with all their hearts, receive this direct 
 statement — (hear, hear). He did not say that it was an absolute, full, or 
 correct statement, but it was a thing that they ought to be truly thankful 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 for. As to Quarto, it really tried one's patience to deal with a thing that 
 they could not get hold of very well — (hear, hear). He proceeded — The 
 obscure language of Quarto reminds me of an incident related by Hugh 
 Miller, and which I may be permitted to refer to as an illustration. 
 When working as a mason in a certain district in the Highlands, there 
 came to Miller one day a woman wishing to be enlightened on a very 
 deep theological question (which she stated with considerable precision). 
 " I merely remarked," says Miller, " in reply, that she was, of course, 
 acquainted with the views of the old theologians — such as Flavel — 
 men who really knew as much about such things as could be known, and 
 perhaps a little more — (laughter). Was she not satisfied with them % 
 Xot dissatisfied, she said ; but she wanted more light." In order to get 
 out of the difficulty regarding the matter in hand, Miller says — " One of 
 the passages in Flavel, on this special point, had luckily struck me from 
 its odd obscurity of expression, and I was able to quote it in nearly the 
 original words." The passage from Flavel concludes thus — " It might 
 be," he thought, " by way of concomitancy, as Estius will have it ; or to 
 speak as Dr. Eeynolds doth, by way of ineffable resultancy and emana- 
 tion " — (laughter). As this (says Miller) was perfectly unintelligible, it 
 seemed to satisfy my new friend — (loud laughter). There is a power 
 about a thing that is unintelligible — (laughter) — no doubt of it. I^ow 
 he was unwilling to believe that any there could be satisfied in the same way 
 with Quarto, but it should not be forgot that on the one hand Mr. Laidlaw 
 had described it as "a perfect jumble," while Principal BroAvn on the 
 other hand said he " could make neither head nor tail of it " — (laughter), 
 
 Mr. Selbie, in supporting Dr. Longmuir's motion, admitted that the 
 particular was not very grammatical or intelligible in its language, but 
 held that the meaning was perfectly clear — (hear, hear). He held that 
 the views of Professor Smith here under consideration, if they did not 
 " contradict" the Standards, were " opposed to," and might be viewed as 
 siubverting them. This point he insisted fully upon. He held that Pro- 
 fessor Smith had undoubtedly conveyed an erroneous impression of the 
 views of the Free Church, and complained of his ignoring Jonah and 
 Esther, while he had not, though questioned by the Presbytery, said a 
 word as to whether he believed Daniel to contain authentic history. He 
 considered his views on the Hagiographa very sad indeed. 
 
 Principal Brown said he had had considerable anxiety in regard to his 
 duty to-day with regard to this particular Quarto, and he could not help 
 referring to the instructions which Professor Smith gave to him last 
 Thursday— he would not like to say the lecture which he had read to him — 
 as to his duty as a judge in this Court, and the challenge that he had 
 tlarown out to him (Principal Brown) to give him his vote as a matter of 
 consistency if he did not see his way to vote on the other side. 
 
 Professor Smith — -It is a matter of justice, not of consistency. 
 
 Prmcipal Brown went on to say that had the doctrine of inspiration 
 nakedly formulated in Professor Smith's Defence been formulated in the 
 articles under investigation, he would have had no hesitation in voting 
 last Thursday with those with whom he usually voted. It was because 
 ]ie was not quite clear that the doctrine of inspiration expressed in 
 
the Libel was conveyed explicitly in the articles that he could not 
 •see his way to vote at all, but he did believe, and did now be- 
 lieve, that that doctrine, though not expressed in the articles, was 
 the true key of the manner in which the articles treat various por- 
 tions of Scripture— (hear, hear)— that the treatment of those portions 
 of Scripture was dictated by, and, indeed, affected by, that view of 
 inspii-ation which is formulated in the Libel, and it was because of that 
 that he had great hesitation as to what his course ought to be to-day ; 
 and he confessed that he came there rather with the design of not voting 
 at all upon Quarto, and adhering to the course he had followed on Thurs- 
 day. i\iter remarking that he had been considerably impressed by what 
 Mr. Selbie had said as to giving "subvert" as an alternative, and 
 sheltered under which he could have voted. Dr. Brown said he held 
 that it was not consistent with any such view of inspiration as he 
 believed was contained in the Confession to hold with regard to the 
 book of Job such views as are expressed about the speeches of Elihu, 
 or when it was said so very nakedly, and so offensively, that " in a large 
 part of the Psalter a later hand has systematically substituted Elohim for 
 Jehovah/' and not only so, but that great freedom was observed on the 
 part of readers and copyists, " who not only made verbal changes, but 
 composed new poems out of fragments of others." A question on this 
 point had been transmitted by the Presbytery, but Professor Smith had 
 ominously left it unanswered. He did not care for the reason ; but at 
 anyrate they were left in the dark as to whether they were not at the 
 mercy of readers and copyists for portions of the word of God which are 
 believed to be inspired. He had nothing to say regarding Daniel in 
 addition to what had been said; but regarding the Hagiographa, he would 
 say that the statement made aljout it, or a third part of it, with regard to 
 the openness in which it was left to receive additional books, put it in 
 the same predicament as the valuable parts of the Apocryphal writings, 
 because of the history they contain, or from their bearing an ancient and 
 venerable name. If they applied this to the whole of the Hagioj;rapha 
 where were they ? Our Lord had mentioned the Hagiographa by the 
 name of the chief book, and this showed that the canon was then closed. 
 On the book of Jonah, lie could understand Professor Smith's remarks in 
 no other sense than that there was no clear evidence that Jonah was 
 matter of history, and when he (Principal Erown) looked at what our 
 Lord says, he was certain that He would not have spoken as He did if it 
 had not been a matter of historical fact. Principal Brown concluded by 
 stating that he would give his vote for Dr. Longmuir's motion. 
 
 Mr. Bell had serious doubts as to Professor Smith's position in 
 reference to the extracts produced. At last meeting he had illustrated 
 his views of inspiration by saying that while the silver was pure, the 
 mould was imperfect. ISTow, he thouglit that that view of inspiration was 
 hardly what he should like to accept, because it left it entirely open to 
 ■every one to decide what the mould was and what the silver was. For 
 instance, Jonah might be held to be only a bit of the mould, and so with 
 other things which touched the substance of Scripture. In the circum- 
 -Btances, he felt he could not vote at all to-day. 
 
68 
 
 Professor Smith, in replying, said it was rather unfortunate to be al- 
 ways obliged to go back on the same point day after day, but it waa 
 necessary in this instance to do so. Mr Bell had misapprehended the 
 import of his illustration. He had said that the Scripture was not like 
 the silver in the ore, that the person who went to Scripture was not in the 
 difficulty of the man who went to the ore and did not know what was 
 silver and what was not. In the case of Jonah, for instance, he could 
 not regard the book as canonical, unless he believed that it taught us 
 divine truth, and unless any ambiguity that might arise as to its inter- 
 pretation was not of such a kind as would lead anj'- one to find in it what 
 was not divine truth but human error. The question was of imperfections 
 of form as distinct from the substance. It was not that part was good and 
 part bad, but that the substance was all divine, and that in such a sense 
 that it appeals as a divine and infallible guide to tlie simple Christian. 
 He was surprised at the questions that had been raised as to the human 
 imperfection of form, when such a man as Dr Bannerman, who held a 
 very high doctrine of inspiration, indeed, admitted it. He could not 
 enter upon that, but would quote a statement by Baxter, tlie author of 
 the " Saints' Eest." Baxter was talking in his book upon Christian evi- 
 dence, upon the differences of opinion that exist upon the doctrines of in- 
 spiration, and he goes on to state what all are agreed upon. "Yet aU 
 are agreed in this, that Scripture is so of divine inspiration as yet in the 
 manner and method and style " — and surely that covered all questions of 
 literal and figurative meaning — " to partake of the various abilities of the 
 writers and consequently of their human imperfections " — (applause). 
 Now, surely from the seventeenth century downwards, at all events, the 
 expression " human imperfections of Scripture " had been freely used by 
 the most orthodox writers ; and it surprised him that such an explanation 
 as this was necessary. As to what Dr. Brown had said, he would explaii 
 that on Thursday he had not asked his vote as a matter of consistency., 
 He regretted to say that it seemed to him that Dr. Brown's conduct had beei 
 entirely consistent since the time he had written his motion and his speed 
 supporting it, finding the whole matter relevant Avithout considering h 
 (Professor Smith's) Answer — (laughter and applause). What he had, 
 said was that he thought it just that Dr. Brown should give him his vote, 
 because in a court of justice a man is to be held innocent and declan 
 innocent until he is proved to be guilty— (applause). It was not j 
 that any man should have to prove his innocence ; it was just tliat a jud, 
 should be satisfied of his guilt ; and it was just that when a judge 
 not satisfied of his guilt he should find the charge not relevant — (a] 
 plause). Proceeding with his argument, Professor Smith said that 
 valid attempt, he might almost say no attempt, had been made to sho 
 that his theory of inspiration was inconsistent with the Confession ; an( 
 there had been no attempt to show that following out that theory of inspiri 
 tion in his statement about individual books, he had been led to state- 
 men's which are manifestly inconsistent with the Confession. That was 
 what the prosecution liad got to find out. They had got to show that th© 
 statements he had made about biblical books were manifestly and directly 
 inconsistent with the Confession — (applause). He argued that they were 
 
69 
 
 not, because lie said that they were fully in accordance with the 
 views of inspiration, which, according to his argument, conserved all 
 that is essential in the Confession. Sonae persons might think that his 
 statement as to Confessional doctrine Avas not complete. l^o doubt 
 it was not perfectly complete, because he had only taken up those 
 points of the doctrine which he thought came up in the case, 
 but no one had attempted by anything like a sound argument to show 
 that anything he had said on this point was inconsistent with any point 
 that had been clearly made out to be Confessional. To-day they had got 
 from the ingenuity of Mr. Selbie a new distinction applied to the Libel, 
 which had had a gratifying elfect upon Dr. Brown, and had relieved him 
 of the painful difficulty to which he would otherwise have been shut up 
 of not voting against him (Professor Smith) on this point — (laughter and 
 applause). What ^fr. Selbie had called attention to was that the Libel did 
 not simply use the expression " contradict," but " contradict or are opposed 
 to." He (Professor Smith) had no doubt whatever that the Presbytery 
 had intended that these terms should be synonymous, at anyrate that was 
 what the general public would understand. But he would like to ask what 
 was the logical meaning of "are opposed to." They Avere speaking of opinions 
 opposed to doctrines, and they were speaking on logical grounds, and the 
 only two kinds of opposition known to logic were contradictory opposi- 
 tion and contrary opposition — (applause). But contrary opposition was 
 more than contradictory, because, while contradictory opposition was an 
 opposition between two things, one or other of which must be true, con- 
 trary opposition was an opposition between two things, one of which must 
 be false, although possibly both were so. Therefore, if there was any 
 sense in putting a different meaning on " opposed " than " contradict," 
 it would seem that Mr Selbie was anxious to point out not merely that 
 lis (Professor Smith's) view of the Confession was false, but to keep it 
 open for his (Mr Selbie's) advantage that while his (Professor Smith's) 
 opinions were false, the Confessional opinions might be false also — 
 (laughter and applause). That, he thought, was a piece of plain logic — 
 (renewed laughter and applause). Before going to tlie points relative to 
 this particular which had been raised in the course of debate, he would 
 point out that they had gone back to that long dispute as to the dif- 
 ference between relevancy and proof, and he wished once and for aU to 
 crush any ambiguity that might arise in the minds of the Presbytery on 
 that point. He would refer them to Hume's Commentaries on the 
 Criminal Law of Scotland, which was known to be an authoritative book 
 on matters of this kind. If Mr Selbie's position on this point had any 
 meaning at all, it amounted to this, that they might adduce evidence 
 afterwards to prove the major as well as the minor, and that they might 
 prove anything not explicitly and in detail set down in the minor. 
 
 Mr Selbie — Not at all. 
 
 Professor Smith argued that if this were not the explanation of Mr 
 Selbie's position, it was impossible for the Presbytery to know in what 
 position he stood on this matter. Professor Smith thereupon proceeded 
 to quote extensively from Hume, the drift of the quotations and of his 
 argument being to show that the Presbytery in dealing with this case 
 
70 
 
 irust set down in the Libel the exact things with which he was charged^ 
 and that when any of these charges was found relevant it was impossible 
 not to find it proven. Having exhausted this part of the case, Professor 
 Smith went on to say that he wished to draw a little practical lesson from 
 this. They had been in this Court brow-beaten by strong legal statements 
 made by a single member of the House. 
 
 Principal Browx — I think it would be well to avoid any allusion like 
 that. 
 
 Professor Smith — I withdraw the expression, but I will say that there 
 has been a great influence exercised on certain members of this House by 
 statements upon legal points proceeding from one member of the House, 
 who, unfortunately, is the only member of the House who has had the 
 advantage of a legal education — (laughter). I wish to point out in this 
 instance that this gentleman, on so very important a point as this, was 
 ignorant of the facts stated in the very clearest manner in this book of 
 Hume's, which is recognised as a standard authority on the subject — 
 (loud applause). 
 
 Mr Mitchell — How do you know that I was ignorant 1 
 
 Professor Smith — I am glad to accept his statement, and it now ap- 
 pears that although he was fully acquainted with those facts, although he 
 was here as judge, and not merely as prosecutor, he withheld these facts 
 from the Court — (renewed applause). ]\Ir Mitchell, upon his present 
 explanation, not only knew these facts and withheld them from the Court, 
 but he supported Dr Brown's way of going into the relevancy, although 
 lie knew all the time that this was clearly and directly in the teeth of 
 Hume's exposition of the law on the subject — (applause) — for he objects 
 to me giving him the only charitable explanation possible, that he did 
 this in ignorance of the law — (applause). 
 
 Dr Brown — Some of those who are not legal gentlemen may be able 
 to say something on that at a future state. 
 
 Professor Smith — Very well ; I hope whatever is sa,id will be done 
 with reference to the clear statement in this authoritative book. He 
 hoped he had made it clear to the Court that the nature of a Libel was 
 this, that every fact they were going to state against him must be put 
 down with the utmost detail and with the utmost distinctness which the 
 prosecutor could reach, and after these had been found relevant, the Avhole 
 question was simply whether these opinions said to have been stated by 
 him had been stated by him — (hear, hear) — and the only sense which 
 could be given to the statement, " without prejudice to the said gene- 
 rality," was this — that the whole papers were referred to, not that any new 
 propositions might be started, but that, if necessary, the context might be 
 appealed to, to help them to understand what the exact sense of the ex- 
 tracts founded on in the charge was — (hear, hear). If it had been in- 
 tended to ground an argument against him on what he had said in his 
 answers to the questions put by the Presbytery, that should have been 
 put into the indictment, and all that they had to consider to-day was 
 what he had said on these various topics as set down in the Libel. A 
 man was answerable for what he had said ; he was not answerable for 
 what he had not said — (hear, hear). If a man was to be answerable 
 
71 
 
 "because, when discussing difficult and troublesome questions, he did not 
 stop to explain his own views on each particular question and on each 
 particular phase of each question, he did not know which of them would 
 escape trial for heresy — (hear, hear, and applause). The charge 
 under Quarto — that he had stated the opinions of other people 
 which contradict or are opposed to the doctrines of the Confession 
 — he thought would not have been pressed. Eegarding the book of 
 Jonah, he hoped brethren did not suppose that if he were to give 
 his view it would be without paying the deepest and most rever- 
 ential attention to what our Lord said, but how was he, in a literary 
 question, to go aside to argue on such a point as that. The meaning of 
 a prophetic sign in the Old Testament was a difficult question, and it went 
 much farther than Dr. Longmuir seemed to say. It was not necessary 
 that it should be a miracle in order to be a sign ; and, for himself, he 
 thought that the sign of the prophet Jonah would be more striking if it 
 should be found that it was a parable, a book written iinder the guidance 
 of God very long before that remarkable event of which it is an illustra- 
 tion. Before he could say it was a parable he would try to be 
 sure of that. He had said that a very large number of writers, and he 
 would say the majority of recent writers, undoubtedly do hold that Jonah 
 is a parable, and that many very orthodox writers do the same ; and they 
 do so on varioi;s grounds, not so much on gi'ounds of difficulty about the 
 whale, but on the ground of the teaching of the parable. He was not going 
 into that. These were not his views. When he stated his views ou 
 Jonah he would state them as frankly as he had stated his views on other 
 things — (hear, hear, and aj^plause). He would not be reticent about it. 
 When he had in the course of his studies arrived at views which might 
 not be generally accepted, he would not be backward at the proper time 
 to lay them before the Church and say what he could ui support of them, 
 and wait in a respectful manner to see whether they agreed with her 
 Standards. But because he had stated opinions which were current, and 
 current among the majority of scholars, without even stating that he 
 had accepted these opinions, it was unheard of that a charge of hersey 
 should be grounded on any such thing — (applause). As to the Book of 
 Esther, his position was this, that if he felt it was not a history, then it 
 would to him lose its value as part of the Old Testament canon ; and 
 because he was not prepared for that step, therefore he had in writing on 
 this question put in a caveat against extending to that book a method 
 more legitimate in regard to other books. They must remember, how- 
 ever, that he did not say that that was not a question which the Church 
 would have to face. They might have to face questions of canonicity 
 now as the Church had often faced them before, but when they came to 
 face them they must face these questions for what they are, and that was 
 what he had said about Esther. The other details were really of very 
 little importance. Dr. Longmuir himself seemed to admit that there was 
 considerable variety as to the text of some of the Psalms. Dr. Brown 
 had pathetically said that he (Professor Smith) was attacking the inspira- 
 tion of the Psalms, but was the Principal not aware that the majority of 
 scholars found no other explanation than that which he had given ] At 
 
72 
 
 a certain time in the Old Testament history, the word Jehovah was 
 avoided, and the word Elohim was used in order to make it perfectly plain 
 that the Israelites did not speak of God as of a god side by side with other 
 gods, but as the only true God ; and was it less probable that in the 
 Psalms originally collected for liturgical purposes it might be thought 
 wiser to remove from liturgical uses the word Jehovah and substitute 
 Elohim, which gave a clearer testimony to the unity of God ] Was it so 
 very certain that Dr. Brown's contention was the right one, without going 
 into any of these liistorical questions, that a member of Presbytery was 
 entitled to rise, and in a tone of pathos declare that this was an attack 
 upon the inspiration of the Psalms 1 — (applause). Eegarding the book of 
 Job, he had stated that the speeches of Elihu break the connection, and that 
 he thought was certain. He did not say that that absolutely settled that 
 they were not written by the same author, nor could he say absolutely 
 that the speeches were by a later hand, because the question was one 
 that admitted of and was receiving much discussion ; but he did lean to 
 the opinion that the speeches of Elihu were of a later time, and he defied 
 any one to prove that there was anything heretical in that — (applause). The 
 book of Job was an argument in v/hich deep questions with regard to Divine 
 Providence and the relations of Divine Providence to human righteousness 
 were tossed backwards and forwards between the various interlocutors. That 
 was the nature of the book, and if that were removed they would lose its 
 instruction. Let them suppose that the speeches of Elihu were written by 
 a later hand. Did it follow that they were not to accept this book as the gift 
 of God because he had caused another link to be put in there, and yet 
 anotherof these various conflicting and confronting viewsof God's providence 
 with the discussion of which the book is taken up. He did not feel 
 obliged to reject them, because he thought they were added afterwards. 
 He held the book of Daniel to be canonical, because he found in it the 
 mark of prediction, and in the New Testament sense he admitted that it 
 contained prophecy. As to the closing of the canon, it had been said 
 that it would not do to state that the writings of the Hagiographa, like 
 Chronicles, were written after the prophetic succession had ceased. 
 Malachi was the last of the prophets, and he would like to ask, was 
 there nothing in the Old Testament later than Malachi, or would the 
 fact that specific prophetic inspiration had ceased be an adequate reason 
 for rejecting Ezra and Nehemiah, which were not written by the prophets'? 
 This question he thought had been raised by their going back to the idea 
 of the canon of the Old Testament having been closed by the Prophets, 
 but at all events it had been said that it would not do to say that the 
 closing of the canon underwent fluctuations, and that when books came 
 up with certain recommendations they had to be considered. He hoped 
 that parity of reasoning would not be applied to the New Testament, 
 for if it were it would be found that they had no New Testament canon 
 at all, for the New Testament was closed by those gradual tentative 
 ways, and by the gradual growth of opinion in the Church, precisely by 
 those ways in which he had asserted that the Old Testament canon had 
 been closed. As to the time at which it was closed, they had heard that 
 the Psalms in the New Testament meant the whole Hagiographa. He 
 
73 
 
 had no hesitation in saying that that, however often it liad been repeated 
 in books, was not proved, and that it was not very likely that when our 
 Lord said the Psalms, he meant the Clironicles. They knew that the 
 canon of the Hagiographa among the Jews was not completed until after 
 the time of Christ. Graetz maintaiued that there was no official canon 
 of the Hagiographa till a.d. 65, and the canonicity of the Song of 
 Solomon was disputed in the second century. With these facts before 
 him, had he said too much when he had said that the third part of the 
 canon was open when the other two were closed ; and if it was to be 
 said that there was danger in such an assertion as that, were they not 
 driven to the supposition that there was to be no investigation of the 
 history of the canon at all 1 — (applause). 
 
 Mr. D. Mitchell asked Professor Smith — Supposing there were a 
 certain number of charges found relevant, did he hold that every one of 
 these charges, when the decision comes^ must be held as proved if held 
 relevant ? 
 
 Professor Smith — Certainly. 
 
 Mr. D. Mitchell said the Borthwick case consisted of 13 particulars, 
 which were affirmed to be contradictory to the Holy Scriptures and to the 
 Confession of Faith. Eespecting that case, Mr. Mitchell said that Dr. 
 Bannerman asked what course was competent to the accused if all the thir- 
 teen charges had been found relevant ; and he pointed out that two courses 
 were competent — first, that the extracts declared relevant were not faith- 
 fully quoted or accurately extracted. But the chief one was on the proof, 
 that the extracts which had been found relevant did not bear the meaning 
 put upon them at the stage of proof. So much was that the case that the 
 late Dr. Candlish moved that one of the articles found relevant should 
 not be held proved ; and the late Principal Dewar, of this town, moved 
 that two of them held relevant should not be held proved. 
 
 Professor Smith was glad that jMr. ^Mitchell had brought forward this 
 case, and said if he had done so before they would have undeistood the 
 position of the other side. In the meantime he (Professor Smith) stood 
 to what he had said, and the best legal authority on which he had been 
 able to lay his hands upheld his view as the only one consistent with the 
 ordinary practice of libelling. Whether the Borthwick case was conducted 
 properly or not, it was a very curious thing that at so late a stage the 
 gentlemen on the other side had shown their hand and indicated what 
 they were going on. 
 
 After some conversation. 
 
 Dr. LoNGMUiR briefly replied. The view of Jonah stood pretty much 
 as he left it. It was said to be a poetical invention — (" No, no"). 
 
 Professor Smith — I have not said that Jonah was a piece of poetical 
 invention, but that a great many people held so. 
 
 Dr. LoNGMUiR said " generally " was the word used, and he held it 
 included Professor Smith. 
 
 Professor Smith — Not in my opinion. 
 
 Dr. LoxGMUiR — We differ on that point — that is all — (laughter). Dr. 
 Longmuir dwelt on the alleged obscurity of the charge Quarto, but said 
 they yet all apparently understood what it meant. 
 
74 
 
 The vote was then taken, with the following result : — 
 
 Fm' Dr. Lojiginuir's motion — Principal Brown, Dr. Longmuir, Messrs.. 
 "W. L. Mitchell, Leslie, John Macdonald, Selbie, and Masson, ministers ,-^ 
 and D. Mitchell, Bisset, Aberdein, Eitchie, and Dr. Gordon, elders — 12. 
 
 For Mr. Sloan's amendment — Dr. Spence, Messrs. Moir, Yule, John- 
 stone, Anderson, Selkirk, Sloan, R. A. Mitchell, Goodall, Clark, Iverach, 
 Gage, Innes, and Macqueen, ministers; and Messrs. Collie, Paterson, 
 Thorn, Moir, W. Gordon, Barnett, Valentine, McHardy, Cook, and Taylor, 
 elders — 24. 
 
 Messrs. Stephen, Craven, BeU, and Pitzpatrick, ministers ; and Mr, 
 Wildgoose, elder, decUned to vote. 
 
 Dr. Longmuir dissented and complained to the Synod, and Dr. Gordon 
 adhered. 
 
 5. " Quinto " — The Song of Solomon. 
 
 The Presbytery then took up Quinto (See Form of Libel, p. 9). 
 
 Principal Brown, before proceeding with the particular, asked Pro- 
 fessor Smith to give an explanation of what he meant by the word 
 " betrothed," as in his article " Bible " he seemed to give one definition, 
 and in his article " Canticles " another. 
 
 Professor Smith said that, with respect to his article ''Bible," Dr. 
 Moody Stuart's argument in the Assembly was that he (Professor Smith) 
 had assumed that the heroine was betrothed according to Mosaic law. 
 Now, in ordinary English, the word was used in a wider sense. But there 
 was no doubt the heroine had pledged her feelings to the shepherd. He 
 asked to be judged by what was distinctly put in the article " Canticles." 
 It was a pity that he had put the word " betrothed " in the article 
 "Bible." 
 
 Principal Brown said that in several instances the Canticles called 
 the heroine a spouse. 
 
 Professor Smith said Kallah, as was well known, was an extremely 
 wide word in Hebrew — (laughter). 
 
 Dr. Longmuir then moved : — 
 
 The Presbytery find that the fifth particular under the major proposition of the 
 Form of Libel against Professor Smith, with the corresponding averments and 
 extracts in the minor proposition, be found relevant under the first charge of the 
 general major. 
 
 He said he had been much shocked in reading the account which Pro- 
 fessor Smith had given of the book now under notice. He could have 
 sympathised with him if he had given a representation of one side of 
 criticism as well as the other. But he thought all would agree that an 
 undue prominence had been given to the one view, while the other had 
 not been presented at all. He noticed very briefly the statement of 
 Professor Smith that " True allegories are never without internal marks 
 of their allegorical design," and then referred to the way the book had 
 been preserved, and concluded with his motion. 
 
 Dr. Gordon seconded. 
 
 Mr. A. F. Moir moved as an amendment — 
 
75 
 
 That the Presbytery find that the particular Quinto, with the corresponding' 
 extracts and averments in the minor, is not relevant to sustain the first alternative 
 charge in the general major. 
 
 With regard to the charge under Qidntn that Canticles was devoid of 
 spiritual siguificance, Mr. Moir said he could understand how upon 
 Professor Smith's theory he might make the book of Canticles to serve 
 most useful purposes in relation to the Christian and spiritual life ; and 
 he argued that there were none of Professor Smith's views on this point 
 which contradicted or were opposed to the Standards of their Church. 
 Then it had been brought against him that he did not give sufficient 
 weight to opinions opposite to his own, and that he had not stated 
 certain things which would have gone far to reconcile the views he had 
 stated to the Confession of Faith. Well, if they were to be charged with 
 heresy for the things which they missed out of their sermons, he did not 
 know where any of them would stand. Professor Smith had just held to the 
 point directly before him. With regard to the statement about the book 
 being providentially prevented from being deleted from the canon, he 
 expressed his astonishment that this charge should have ever occupied the 
 place it did in a libel intended to carry the censures of heresy on the 
 front of it — (applause). 
 
 Mr. Sloan seconded the amendment. He differed entirely from Prof. 
 Smith in his view of the Canticles. But the simple question before 
 them was, were these views such as contradicted the Confession '? On 
 the contrary its canonicity and authenticity were admitted by Professor 
 Smith ; who did not say that the book was providentially inserted, but 
 only that its deletion from the canon was providentially averted. 
 
 Principal Brown said — I am not prepared to hold that an abandon- 
 ment of the allegorical sense of this book, and an advocacy of the purely 
 literal sense of it is a legitimate subject of Church censure. For myself 
 I have tried hard to read myself into that purely literal sense of it in 
 order to see if it would explain naturally and worthily, either as a praise- 
 worthy Oriental composition or as occupying a place in Old Testament 
 Scripture. But I confess I have failed. After remarking that with the 
 exception of a very few spiritual men, such as Delitzsch, the residuum 
 who had thrown off the allegorical view were men of whom you need 
 expect recognition of spiritual significance no more than you need 
 expect to get grapes of thorns and figs of thistles, Dr. Brown said of all 
 the theories held. Professor Smith's view seemed to him the most un- 
 natural and repulsive. After remarking on the wide sense given by 
 Professor Smith to the word " betrothed," he said, well then, might Dr. 
 Moody Stuart say in the speech referred to, that the crime imputed to 
 Solomon by this offensive theory, though not perpetrated was none the 
 less in itself ; that viewed as a song it turns the simplest words into evil > 
 since the heroine of the tale overcomes through no power of conscience 
 and no sense of obligation to the divine law, but purely through firmness 
 of will and the strength of a preoccupied affection. No Israelite, imbued 
 with the principles of the law of Moses, could have conceived or composed 
 it as an example of lofty virtue or of a character worthy of our admira- 
 tion ; and that, viewed iu this light, the theory must be pronounced un- 
 
70 
 
 ^worthy of Biblical criticism. As to some expressions used in this article, 
 I should have thought, said Dr. B., they might have been spared, and if 
 they might, that they should. But perhaps the theory is such that it re- 
 quired them adequately to set it forth. Of all the features of Professor 
 ^Smith's theory, the most astounding to me is the light which it is said to 
 throw upon the character of the northern trials. Dr Brown went on to 
 argue that the two sacred histories of the revolt of the Ten Tribes given 
 in Kings and Chronicles, instead of speaking of the pure simpKcity of the 
 norlh, spoke only of social and political grievances maddening the people 
 into rebellion against the Eoyal family of Judah, and the readiness with 
 which in the face of prophetic warnings the people fell into the calf 
 worship of Jeioboam. 
 
 Mr. Yule said he could not see that Dr. Brown's criticism of Pro- 
 fessor Smith's views in regard to the Northern Kingdom had any bearing 
 on the charge now under consideration, as there was nothing in the 
 extracts quoted from Professor Smith's writings as to the state of the 
 Northern Iviugdom. As to Professor Smith's view of Canticles, admit- 
 tedly taking the literal view was not heretical, and as to allegorical 
 exposition he might ask brethren who held by it — which allegory 1 — 
 (hear, hear.) Not one of them would pin their faith to any allegorical 
 exposition yet given — (hear, hear). As to saying that in providence ixse 
 had been made of a prejudice to preserve the book in the canon, why 
 did they not admit that God in his providence had made use of actual sin 
 for gracious ends, as in the case of Joseph sold by his brethren to save the 
 tribe of Israel — -(applause). 
 
 Mr, Craven said he endorsed the views submitted by Principal 
 Brown, but he could not come to the same conclusion with him, and felt 
 constrained not to vote with him. However much they might deplore 
 tlie state of thought and feeling in any person who could not sympathise 
 Avith the spiritual significance of the Song of Solomon, it was another 
 thing to say that the views which had apparently been expressed by Pro- 
 fessor Smith contradicted the Confession of Faith — (applause). He had 
 some doubt as to whether they contradicted the Confession, and therefore 
 could not vote on the side on which he had formerly voted. 
 
 Mr. Bell and Mr. Selbie said that for similar reasons they would vote 
 for neither of the motions. 
 
 Professor Smith said he would not enter into the merits at great 
 length, but he wished to be frank and explicit with regard to the use of 
 the word " betrothed." Principal Brown had attached an importance and 
 a meaning to it which he certainly did not attach to it, or else he would 
 have been more careful in his language. In the first place, the article 
 " Bible " was published some time before the article " Canticles," and 
 when he wrote the former lie thought he had satisfied himself in a general 
 way that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the ordinary 
 critical opinion. He had not formulated a definite opinion of his own, 
 but simply stated that it was a lyrical drama in which, according to most 
 critics, the pure love of the Shulamite for her betrothed is exhibited as 
 victorious over the seductions of Solomon's harem. That was a mere 
 general statement of the thing, and he certamly never thought of attaching 
 
77 
 
 to the word "betrothed" the meaning betrothed by Jewish law. In 
 speaking of Dr. Moody Stuart's criticism, he now found that he had 
 overlooked the use of the word betrotlied in the article " Bible," but he 
 had still to point out that he did not state his own view in that article, 
 and that even supposing he had, the word betrothed had two meanings. 
 He undoubtedly held that the Shulamite considered herself pledged by 
 her love to the shepherd, but that there had been no formal betrothal. 
 He did not attach much importance to that, and even supposing she had 
 been betrothed, and the betrothal had been cancelled — which was possible 
 — and Solomon had taken her to his harem, that would not have changed 
 the matter very much. It was natural to suppose that her love to the 
 shepherd enabled her to overcome the temptations of Solomon's harem 
 quite as much as any legal obligation ; and he was not at all sure 
 whether it represented a lower type of morality that she should rest 
 upon a pure and true affection than that she should rest on a formal 
 statement of the law — (applause). He was not sure that it was always 
 the highest type of morality that depended upon the law for its sanctions. 
 If he had known that this was to be elevated into a point of such import- 
 ance, and that such enormous arguments were to be founded upon it, he 
 would have tried to make it clear before. He apprehended that the state 
 of the case was this, that she had pledged her affections with the shepherd, 
 that during a progress she was seen by Solomon, who, along with the 
 ladies of the Court, admired her. Eeally the matter came to nothing, 
 but if Dr. Brown wished to press the word betrothed let him do 
 it, and he would defy him to prove heresy from it. As to the Northern 
 Kingdom, he held certain deiinite views on it which he was prepared 
 to defend by arguments from the books of Samuel and Kings, but 
 they were not included in the Libel, and they had therefore nothing 
 to do with them. As to the book of Samuel — a book which was 
 exceedingly difficult to understand, and which Avas not always rightly 
 represented in our English version — he had made a reference to the 
 state of the northern part of the kingdom, having in his view at the 
 time 2nd Samuel, xx. 19. The meaning of that passage was exceed- 
 ingly clear. It meant that if old customs and establishments were 
 given up elsewhere, if they went to Abel and Dan, they would see that 
 they had not forgotten them. The Northern Kingdom was conservative 
 undoubtedly for evil, but also for good. Then as to Dr. Brown's way 
 of explaining away the connection of the prophets with the northern 
 revolt, he thought that his (Professor Smith's) was the more textual, and 
 tliat the language of rebuke which Ahijah used went on the assumption 
 that, so far as the revolt was concerned, Jeroboam had the right, and that 
 it was only after that that he was dragged into sin and to a carnal policy. 
 He had nothing to say about the carnal policy, but it was plain on the 
 face of the history that the right was not on Eehoboam's side. No one 
 who had been brought up on the principles of liberty — which surely had 
 to do with morality and religion — would deny that Eehoboam and Solo- 
 mon had broken their covenant with the Northern Kingdom, and that 
 when Eehoboam went north to swear to the constitution of the Northern 
 Kiiigdom, he just did as the Emperor of Austria did when, obedient to 
 
78 
 
 the Constitutionalists in Hungary, lie went to be crowned at Pesth — 
 (applause). It was a question of liberalism and freedom, and it was not 
 remarkable that the prophets of God, who were always opposed to tyranny, 
 rose up and took the part of the Northern Kingdom. Was a man to be 
 considered a heretic for saying so ] Was it to be said that tyranny and 
 despotism were things that the word of God permitted, and that the word 
 of God had not a word to say as to the principles of liberalism which had 
 given us both our civil and our religious freedom 1 — (loud applause). 
 Mr. Mom sxibmitted his motion in the following form : — 
 
 That the Presibytery find that the particular Quinto, with the corresponding ex- 
 tracts and averments in the minor, is not relevant to sustain the first alternative 
 charge in the general major. 
 
 He did not say anything about what Quinto would be in relation to the 
 second general charge, and therefore he held that anybody who believed 
 that the particular was incapable of sustaining the first charge was quite 
 in order and doing right in voting with him. 
 
 Dr. LuNGMUiR briefly replied, complaining of the degrading position 
 to which the views of Professor Smith reduced Solomon. 
 
 The Presbytery then divided, with the following result : — 
 
 For Dr. Lompnuir's Motion — Principal Brown, Dr. Longmuir, Eevs. 
 Messrs. W. L. Mitchell, J. Macdonald, and Masson, ministers ; Messrs. 
 D. Mitchell, Eitchie, Wildgoose, and Dr. Gordon, elders — 9. 
 
 For Mr. Moir's Motion — Eevs. Dr. Spence, Messrs. Craven, Moir, Yule, 
 Johnstone, Anderson, Selkirk, Sloan, Bell, E. A. Mitchell, Clark, Iverach, 
 Gage, Lines, and Macqueen, ministers ; Messrs. Collie, G. H. Paterson, 
 Thom, J. Moir, W. Gordon, Barnett, W. Milne, Valentine, Cook, and 
 Taylor, elders — 25. 
 
 Messrs. Stephen, Selbie, Goodall, and Fitzpatrick declined to vote. 
 
 The result of the vote was received with loud applause. Dr. Long- 
 muir dissented and appealed to the Synod, with adherents, and the 
 committee formerly appointed were requested to answer the dissent, and 
 appear at the Synod to support the judgment of the Presbytery. 
 
 6. " Sexto." — Ignoring Christ's Testimony to Old 
 Testament Authorship. 
 
 The Presbytery took up Sexto (see Form of Libel, p. 10). 
 
 Some conversation ensued as to the ambiguity of the charge under this 
 head, and the consequent necessity of amending the Libel ; but Professor 
 Smith having expressed his willingness that the discussion should 
 proceed, 
 
 Principal Brown moved : — 
 
 That the Presbytery find the sixth particular under the major proposition of the 
 Form of Libel against Professor Smith, Avith the corresponding averments and 
 extracts in the minor proposition, to be relevant under the first charge of the general 
 major. 
 
 In supporting his motion, Principal Brown said that what they complained 
 of was such ignoring or contradicting of the testimony referred to as 
 
79 
 
 virtually amounted to a discarding of the testimony. He would begin 
 ■with the 110th Psalm as an example of the ignoring of authorship com- 
 plained of. After referring to the questions formulated but not adopted 
 by the Presbytery on Psalm xc, and so not answered by Professor 
 Smith, the appeal to the Assembly and the decisive majority by which 
 the appeal was sustained, he said, Professor Smith had never yet recog- 
 nised the Davidic authorship of that psalm, although our Lord's 
 argument is plainly worthless on any other vieAv of its authorship. As 
 to the 16th Psalm, two Apostles, Peter and Paul, as nakedly as words 
 could express it, argued before the Jews that what is said in that psalm 
 of his flesh not seeing corruption was not true of David, for his sepulchre 
 was with them at that day, and that this was and could be true of none 
 but one man — Christ Jesus. Yet, in his article in the Expositor, Pro- 
 fessor Smith had not only utterly ignored the Davidic authorship of that 
 psalm, but denied that the psalm does say what was true of none but one, 
 and affirming that it specially says what is true of every saint, of whom 
 Oliiist was the most eminent — that they would abide before God for 
 ever. Among the other questions proposed to be put to Professor Smith, 
 and adopted by the Presbytery before last Assembly was one as to what he 
 meant by saying that '' what is usually meant by the word laio (Torah) in 
 writings earlier than the captivity " are " the priestly ordinances." His 
 reply to that was that in \\T.'itings previous to the Exile the word " law " 
 generally meant not a written jiriestly ordinance, but an oral decision of 
 the priests. ]^ow what the Presbytery wanted to know was not anything 
 about oral decisions of the priests or priestly ordinances, but whether, 
 according to his construction of the Old Testament literature before the 
 Exile, he had left any room for a written icord in possession of the 
 whole nation for ages. He had told nothing whatever about that, but 
 about something that they wanted no information about at all. Principal 
 Brown concluded by giving some of the characteristics of the written 
 word as celebrated in the Psalms as perfectly converting the soul, the 
 study of the saints by day and their song in the night, as broken by the 
 wicked to the grief of the godly in the land, and of course they must 
 liave had it to break, etc. For such written word he found absolutely 
 no room in Professor Smith's view of Old Testament literature. He did 
 not rest on the word Torah (law). He rested on the fact that his scheme 
 excluded it. In all these views, believing that this particular was proved 
 relevant by the extracts in the minor, he had felt constrained to mov^e 
 accordingly. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiE, elder, seconded the motion. 
 
 Professor Smith said the possibility of constructing such an argument 
 as Dr. Brown had done was not hinted in the remotest way in the Libel, 
 and his whole reading and previous knowledge had never led him to 
 think that such an argument was possible. But this showed all the more 
 forcibly that it would be no more than substantial justice that the whole 
 points charged against him and included in Dr. Brown's speech should be 
 specifically mentioned. It was the business of the other side to prove 
 everything, and it would surely be incompetent for them to prove anything 
 that was not in the Libel. 
 
80 
 
 Mr. Yule moverl- 
 
 That the Presbytery find the particular Sexto irrelevant, inasmuch as there is no 
 specification of the Old and New Testament testimony which Professor Smith is said 
 to have contradicted, and inasmuch as the extracts in the minor do not substantiate 
 the charges as relevant under the first of the major. 
 
 With regard to the first point in his motion, it was obvious that be- 
 cause of the omission to specify the things with which Professor Smith 
 was charged the Libel was most ill-constructed and illogical, and in regard 
 to the second point he thought that Principal Brown had failed to show 
 that the extracts quoted were sufficient to substantiate the particular. It 
 was a curious thing that although a great deal had been said about 
 previous questions to Professor Smith, none of these had been embodied in 
 the Libel, or at least they had been, but in an exceedingly microscopic form. 
 All these matters had been thrashed over already ; he thought tbey were 
 not worth thrashing over again, and he considered that Professor Smith's 
 opinions were not contradictory to what most of them believed on the sub- 
 ject— (hear, hear). He (Prof. Smith) had stated publicly in regard to Deuter- 
 onomy, that, if he thought our Lord had said anything distinctly as to the 
 authorship of that book, he would not in any way contradict the general 
 view, and they must presume that the same applied to the Psalms — (ap- 
 plause). He was quite sure that Professor Smith would acknowledge the 
 authority of our Lord as completely conclusive with respect to the Davidic 
 authorship. After criticising various other points in Prmcipal Brown's 
 speech, Mr. Yule concluded by stating that it seemed to him that the 
 charge of contradicting the doctrine of the Confession in this particular 
 had not been made out, and that the charge must be departed from. 
 
 Mr. E. A. Mitchell seconded the amendment, and said it became 
 them to speak cautiously indeed with regard to the testimony borne by 
 our Lord and His apostles on points as to the authorship of the Old 
 Testament, because they should be careful to ascertain whether the 
 apostles or Christ intended to bear testimony regarding the authorship of 
 the passages they quoted, or if they merely made use of ordinary and 
 popular expressions which had not any particular significance. 
 
 Mr. Masson maintained that, as momentous teaching depended upon 
 the authorship here the subject was one of very great importance, and 
 though not directly involved in Professor Smith's writings it was a 
 perfectly logical course to put the cpiestion asked. 
 
 Professor Smith said he was willing to meet any logical inference from 
 the Confession, but he did not say that he was willing to meet any logical 
 inference from the minor of the Libel, because he was entitled to have in 
 the Libel the exact thing that he was wanted to meet. 
 
 Mr ]\LvssoN said that if Professor Smith had any idea about the 110th 
 Psalm, and was prepared to acknowledge a certain position, then he must 
 say that he had taken a very long time in giving expression to that 
 opinion. 
 
 After remarks from Mr. ^loir, elder, and Mr. Stephen, who reserved his 
 opinion tiU he had heard Professor Smith's explanation on this important 
 point, 
 
 Professor Smith said he was confident that they would not do justice 
 
81 
 
 to this portion of the case until they got to the substance of it, and the 
 reason that he liad taken objection to the form of the charge was because 
 it was not such as would not enable them to get to the substance of it. As 
 to the question of the testimony of our Lord, tliey had tliere a question of 
 theology, but it had not been clearly put before the Presbytery. The 
 question that liad been raised here obliquely was, he believed, a more 
 important one than had hitherto appeared, because it was more a question 
 as to the doctrine of the person of our Lord than a question as to the 
 explanation of Scripture ; and, he confessed, if the weight was to be laid 
 on this head whicli seemed to be laid on it by some members on the 
 other side, it would have been much fairer put in that way, because he 
 stood there to saj^ that he would not yield to any one in the reverence 
 with which he approached the mystery of the incarnation ; and he would 
 not set up his own human judgment in any way against that which came 
 to him on the authority of Christ. Let them show him that the meaning 
 of Christ was so and so, and he was willing to waive his judgment at 
 once — (applause). And that was what he had said in connection with 
 Deuteronomy. He had said that he was not able to see that the language 
 of Christ, taken as human language is to be taken, did prove that it was 
 literally written by Moses. It must be judged so. Although Christ was 
 more than man, and although Avhat He actually meant to say came to us 
 with divine authority, yet in settling Avhat He actually meant to teach us 
 we must not put more into His words than coidd be put into the words 
 of another person speaking in the same connection. He might use such 
 expressions regarding INloses as that quoted, and yet his argument might 
 not rest on it ; but if it were shown that Christ meant to speak to the 
 authorship, and that his argument depended upon that, then he at once 
 accepted the authority — (applause). Waiving the point of order. Pro- 
 fessor Smith ex, rjadia took up the question of the 110th Psalm. It 
 seemed to him, so far as he had been able to read the words of our Lord, 
 that the probable interpretation on which He based his arguments was the 
 assumption of the Davidic authorship. On that ground, confirmed by 
 some arguments from the Old Testament itself, he thought it probable 
 that the psalm was written by David. He thought it probable 
 that that was the force of Christ's argument, but at the same time he 
 would not go so far as gentlemen on the other side, and he believed it 
 to be possible for a person perfectly honestly to hold that Christ was here 
 making an ar(jume.ntum ad hominem, and that He, by so doing, is simply 
 endeavouring to prove to the Pharisees by taking their own premises, and 
 their traditional view of the Psalms, that He is more than the son of David. 
 If any one takes that view he would not say ho was a heretic. JS'ay 
 more, he would not undertake to say more than this, that in his opinion 
 that was not the most probable view of the text — (applause). The reason 
 why he had made no allusion to this in his article " Bible " was this : he 
 was asking — Is there literary evidence that some of the Psalms are 
 David's? Literary evidence must appeal to people of all theological 
 opinions, and it was because there was this evidence regarding the 7th and 
 18th Psalms that he had cited them. His argument would not have been 
 helped by mixing up the two things of belief and literary evidence, as it 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 was recommendGd that lie should have done ; and he must say that if he had 
 the same thing to do again he would do it in the same way. He did not 
 desire his argument to be tripped up by its being pointed out to him that 
 he was going into a theological argument, and not into a literary question. 
 Dr. Brown surely possessed sufficient experience in this department, and 
 sufficient address as a writer, to have caused him to abstain from using 
 such an argument as this — (applause). In the case of the 16th Psalm 
 they could not start from the title, and if the psalm was given to them 
 without a title to rely upon, it was reasonable to suppose it must be 
 understood by itself. When they had explained the psalm he was not 
 aware there was anything in his exegesis to prevent anyone saying that 
 the psalm was David's. He believed if anyone accepted the New 
 Testament argument they did not require to refuse to accept what he had 
 said regarding the psalm. Indeed he had followed in the same line as 
 Calvin and many other critics. The argument of the Apostle rests on the 
 fact that the Psalmist, whom he calls David, was dead and buried, and if 
 there was no resurrection in Christ Jesus, then the hopes of the Psalmist 
 were lying and false. His argument was that the Psalmist could not 
 refer to himself, and that therefore the psalm must be fulfilled in some 
 higher one who had power to triumph over death, not only for himself but 
 for those who believed. It would be very difficult to prove that there 
 was more than that in the Apostle's argument, and that one syllable in 
 the argument would be broken down if they took out the word " David " 
 and substituted any other. Professor Smith concluded with a long and 
 elaborate argument as to his views respecting the Torah. 
 
 Mr. Stephen said he was perfectly satisfied with Professor Smith's 
 explanation, and was prepared to vote upon his side — (loud applause). 
 
 Principal Brown then replied. 
 
 Mr. Bell asked Professor Smith if he understood him to say of the 
 110th Psalm that it was probably Davidic. Did he reaUy believe that it 
 was Davidic 1 
 
 Professor Smith said he thought it was most probable that our Lord's 
 argument was not an argument eid Iwmtnem, and he gave the like pro- 
 bability to the Davidic authorship. Not being quite sure of that he . 
 thought that probably the psalm was David's — (applause). | 
 
 The vote was then taken, with the following result : — \ 
 
 For Principal Brown's Motion — Principal Brown, Eev. Dr. Long- 
 muir, IMessrs. W. L. Mitchell, Craven, Selbie, Goodal, and Masson, minis- 
 ters; Messrs. Mitchell and Wildgoose and Dr. Gordon, elders— \0. 
 
 For Mr. Yule's Motion — Eevs. Dr. Spence, Messrs. Stephen, Moir, 
 Yule, Johnstone, Selkirk, Sloan, Bell, R. A Mitchell, Clark, Iverach, Gage, 
 Innes, and Macqueen, ministers ; Messrs. Collie, Paterson, Thom, Moir, 
 W. Gordon, Barnett, W. Milne, Valentine, Cook, Fleming, elders — 24. 
 
 Eev. Messrs. Anderson and Fitzpatrick declined to vote. 
 
 Dr. Brown dissented from the judgment of the Presbytery, and com- 
 plained to the Synod. The usual committee was appointed to answer the 
 dissent and support the judgment of the Presbytery at the Synod. 
 
 The Presbytery then arranged to meet again on Thursday, at ten 
 o'clock. 
 
83 
 
 Aberdeen, 28th Pebruanj, 1878. 
 
 The Presbytery met in the Hall of the Free Church College, on 
 Thursday, 28th February, to resume consideration of this case — Professor 
 Salmond, moderator. 
 
 The Clerk read the following reasons of dissent and complaint by 
 Dr. Longmuir against the findings of the Presbytery at their last sitting : — 
 
 Quarto. — 1. Because the assertion that the Book of Jonah is an instance of 
 " poetical invention" is contrary to the references of the Saviour to it as history. 
 2. Because the denial that Daniel was a prophet is in opposition to the declaration of 
 Jesus Christ that Daniel was indeed " a prophet." 
 
 Quinto. — 1. Because the representation of Canticles as a mere poetical allegory is 
 inconsistent with the declaration of the Confession of Faith, that Canticles is one of 
 the books that were given by inspiration of God.' 2. That the theory expounded 
 and embraced by the writer of the article "Canticles" exhibits both Solomon and the 
 " betrothed maiden" in a degraded if not immoral view, which is inconsistent with a 
 book inspu-ed by the Holy Spirit of Cod. 
 
 7. '' Septimo." — Disparagement of Prophecy. 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the charge under Septimo (see Form of 
 Libel, p. 11). 
 
 Principal Browx, in absence of !Mr. Selbie, who was to have moved in 
 this particular, said — I never thought that Professor Smith's articles ex- 
 pressly contradicted the doctrine of Scripture and the Confession, on the 
 subject of inspiration ; but I did and do think that they undermined or 
 subverted it. Accordingly, when the Presbytery resolved to expel the 
 word " subvert" from the Libel, and to substitute for it " contradict or are 
 opposed to," I immediately saw that this was a step that trenched upon 
 the relevancy of the Libel before the stage of relevancy had been reached, 
 and so was both unconstitutional and unjust to a large portion of those 
 who were distressed and alarmed by those articles. Dr. Brown, after 
 remarking that the object of the Libel was to give opportunity of judgmg 
 if an ecclesiastical offence had been committed, and what was its precise 
 nature and degree, adverted to the course followed on the other side, of 
 interrupting the debate after it was begun, and changing the mode of 
 procedure. This he held to be against the whole intention of the Libel, 
 and nothing showed better the impropriety of the course than some of 
 the speeches on the other side, showing how near a professor might 
 come to an express contradiction of the Scripture and Confessional doctrine 
 of inspiration, without going quite outside of the lines of Confessional 
 orthodoxy. After further explaining his reasons for preferring 
 " subvert " to " contradict or are opposed to," as better expressing the real 
 nature of the offence under Quarto, and similarly under Septimo, and 
 quoting Professor Smith's words as to prophets prophecying " into the 
 future," and true prophecy being " always ideal," which he denied. 
 Principal Brown said — the word " ideal " here is manifestly used to express 
 merely the great general purpose of God to carry on gradually to its full 
 completion in Christ his original design of redemption, and is put in 
 sharp contrast with specific prediction of concrete future facts. The next 
 sentence seems to concede strict prediction, that " the critical study of 
 
84 
 
 prophecy has done no greater service than to point out how small a 
 traction of prophecy is strictly predictive." But presently, in the next 
 extract, we have a formal definition of the whole elements of true 
 prophecy, wdiich, according to the plain meaning of language, excludes the 
 strictly predictive element. "The prophecies contain, Ist^ reproof of 
 present sin ; 2nd, exhortation to present duty ; 3rd, encouragement to 
 the godly and threatening to the wicked, based upon God's righteous 
 purpose. In this last connection prophecy is predictive. (That explana- 
 tion of ' prediction ' as the mere evolution of a righteous government, is 
 to me anything hut evidence of the recognition of it in the sense of 
 prediction of concrete future facts.) It lays hold of the ideal elements of 
 the theocratic conception, and depicts the way in which, by God's grace, 
 they shall be actually realised in a Messianic age, and in a nation 
 purified by judgment and mercy. But in all tliis the prophet starts from 
 present sin, present needs, present historical situations. There is no rea- 
 son to think that a prophet ever received a revelation which was not spoken 
 directly and pointedly to his own time." I could say much upon this, 
 but I refrain, more especially as the extract given of the exposition of the 
 16th Psalm in the Expositor, which immediately follows the above, is a 
 complete proof that my understanding of his view of prophecy is the 
 correct one, and that this view is contrary to the Scripture view of the 
 predictive element in prophecy. He says "the 16th Psalm delineates an 
 ideal which throughout the Old Testament dispensation was never realised 
 fully, that is in a whole life, but which only expressed the highest climax 
 of subjective conviction, was not felt to detract from its religious truth. 
 !N"ay, in religion, the ideal is the true." But mark more particularly what 
 follows : — " We may say, then, that in the mouth of the Psalmist himself 
 our psalm did not set forth a remote prophecy or a religious problem, but 
 a truth of direct spiritual intuition " ; and, in the next sentence but one — 
 " Like other psalms, in which the ideal is developed in the teeth of the 
 empirical, it came to possess a prophetic value for the Church." In 
 other words this psalm was not intended to express a set of concrete 
 historical facts, but what he calls "the transcendental ideal of fellow- 
 ship with God," true supremely of Christ, but in its measure of all who 
 are his. Now, sir, I affirm that this contradicts the statement of two in- 
 spired apostles, who both say that this psalm states a future concrete fact 
 which was not true of David Avho Avrote it, as it is not true, and never will 
 be, of any but one man, Christ Jesus, that his flesh should not see corrup- 
 tion (and that word dlaptliora unquestionably means just what we under- 
 stand by corruption). But I will not say a word more on this. I might 
 again refer to the 110th Psalm, our Lord's argument from which I hold 
 to be inconsistent with Professor Smith's view of prophecy. He says the 
 argument of our Lord was not an exegetical one dependent on the Davidic 
 authorship of it, but a theological one. I say it is perfectly obvious 
 that our Lord's argument is worthless if David was not speaking there, 
 find speaking of Messiah's double relationship to himself, as is admitted by 
 critics such as Canon Perowne, who is of no narrow school. Dr. Brown 
 moved as follows : — • 
 
 The Presbytery find the seventli particular under the major proposition of the Form 
 
85 
 
 of Libel against Professor Smith, with the corresponding averments and extracts in the 
 minor proposition, to be relevant under the first charge of the general major. 
 
 Mr Bannatyne, in seconding the motion, referred to the fact of an ap- 
 peal having been taken for restoration of the -word " subvert." Every vote 
 under the first charge was, lie held, given under cover of that appeal. If, 
 said Mr. B., you go on voting as if you were not subject to our com- 
 plaint, you may have to undo all you are now doing. Irrespective of it, I 
 cannot and will not vote. My privilege under it I will not forego. Xo 
 man is entitled to denounce me for this. 
 
 Professor Smith rose to order. Mr Bannatyne had said that he would 
 not give his vote on the question before the house, but on the question which 
 he believed should be before the house. He submitted that under those cir- 
 cumstances ^Ir. Bannatyne had no right to speak as expressing himself ia 
 rebellion against the Presbytery. 
 
 ]\Ir. Banxatyne — If Professor Smith had waited two minutes he 
 would have seen something different from what he has now alleged. He 
 then proceeded to express his concurrence with Mr. Selbie in favouring 
 the use of the word " subvert " as better expressing the meaning of the 
 charge than " contradict or are opposed to." You may in certain cases 
 subvert unintentionally — you can hardly ever be said to contradict unin- 
 tentionally. As I understand them, said Mr B., some in this Presbytery 
 are declaring, and asking us to declare, that nothing from Primo down- 
 wards, in this Libel, contradicts or opposes, in the sense of contradicting 
 the inspiration and infallibility, and divine authority of Scripture ; while 
 we on thi", side of the house are only going the length of saying, by our 
 consecutive votes, that there is quite enough in Primo, &c., to make it 
 advisable to proceed subsequently to prove whether or not the contents of 
 these particulars and extracts do, in point of fact, either contradict, or 
 oppose, or subvert, or whether or not they contradict or oppose so as to 
 subvert, the inspiration and truth and authority of Scripture. 
 
 Professor Smith — I again rise to the point of order. Mr. Bannatyne 
 has attempted to entrench himself within a second Hne of defence for his 
 conduct, but has not withdrawn from his previous position, that he ia 
 entitled to vote in rebellion to the judgment of the Presbytery. 
 
 Principal Buowx — Did he use the word rebellion 1 
 
 Professor Smith — I used the word rebellion. 
 
 Principal Brown — ^I think it is an improper word. 
 
 Professor Smith^I will explain why it is rebellion. It is always 
 rebellion in a Church Court when a member of that court refuses to have 
 his proceedings in the court conducted by the principles which the court 
 itself has laid down — (hear, hear). If he considers that the court has 
 gone beyond its authority in anything, he has the right to appeal and 
 have all subsequent proceedings cancelled. If he finds his conscience 
 seriously injured by what has been done, or is being done, he may absent 
 himself from the court until the proceedings have been afterwards 
 review^ed or cancelled by a supreme court. But no member can stand up 
 in rebellion — I repeat the word — against the constituted authority, and 
 take an opposite course to the course which had been taken by the court, 
 by remaining in the court and insisting on his right to move and act in. 
 
86 
 
 accordance with his particular private opinion, wliich is not the opinion of 
 the court. At this stage it is obvious that the interests of justice will be 
 most seriously compromised if we allow this irregularity to go on further. 
 
 The Moderator — It is quite possible that the Commission will over- 
 rule the decision of the Presbytery, and if that is the case, the thing will 
 come back to us, and we must vote on the first alternative again with a 
 change in Primn. But in the meantime we have not the term " subvert " 
 before us at all, and if Mr Bannatyne contends that he is to argue and 
 vote on the ground that we have the word " subvert " in the Libel under 
 the cover of his appeal, I must rule that he is out of order in 
 that respect. 
 
 Principal Brown thought the IModerator had ruled rightly as he 
 had put it. 
 
 After some conversation, 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne went on to say that he would take " opposed 
 to" instead of "contradict." He then proceeded to argue that as re- 
 gards predictive prophecy under this head, " spiritual insight," to what- 
 ever extent, was inadequate; and only "direct supernatural reve- 
 lation" of the events that were to occur long posterior to their oavk 
 age, enabled the prophets severally to prophecy in the words they 
 used. They saw what God saw, and only because God saw it and told 
 them of it, and so they predicted it — no reasoning of their own could 
 have led them to it. ]^o insight of the nature of the insight of other holy 
 men, however intensified, could have led them to its discovery. To him 
 it was manifest that the opinions of Professor Smith animadverted on in 
 Sejitimo were inconsistent with all this. The extracts in the minor fully 
 supported the charge, and he therefore felt justified in secondmg the 
 motion. 
 
 ;Mr. MoiR, Woodside, moved — 
 
 That the Presbytery having considered the particular Septimo in the Libel against 
 Professor Smith, along with the corresponding averments and extracts in the minor : 
 Finds that these are not relevant to sustain the first alternative in the general major. 
 
 The charge, he said, was a twofold one, that of " disparaging " prophecy, 
 as representing it as spiritual insight ; and that of excluding prediction in 
 the sense of direct supernatural revelation. Now he maintained that the 
 terms used here were misleading, and not borne out by the quotations 
 made from Professor Smith's writings. Professor Smith does not say that 
 prophecy arises from spiritual insight, based on the certaintj'- of God's 
 righteousness — only that one of the contents of prophecy is based upon 
 that foundation. It was yet more misleading to say that he excluded the 
 predictive element, or that prediction of events '"' long posterior " to the 
 prophet's time was excluded. But he put the question directly — Does 
 prediction in its essence depend in the least on the length of time to 
 elapse] Certainly not. Here, for example, is an instance of genuine 
 predictive prophecy uttered not more than twenty-five or twenty-six hours 
 before its fulfilment, and yet I have no doubt that we all admit its 
 genuineness to be as undoubted as if the interval had occupied twcntj'-five 
 centuries. I refer to 2nd Kings vii. 1 (compare verse 18). And if it 
 coidd be proven that Professor Smith writes of a prediction uttered twelve 
 
87 
 
 months before its fulfilment, would not that be equally valid with one 
 extending over twelve centuries 1 In further illustrating this point, Mr. 
 Moir referred to the article in the British Qnarterhj Review, written before 
 Mr. Smith was a professor even, and in which the predictive element is 
 certainly recognised. Moderator, said he, I read that article some time 
 ago, and I have read it again, and always with increasing admiration. I 
 cannot speak of it without recording my conviction that, taken as a whole, 
 it is a very valuable contributi(jn to our critical literature, and that it 
 appears to me that from beginning to end the writer has set before him 
 the most exalted aims. The quotations adduced from it in our minor must 
 be read by the light of the author's purpose and method, as well as by the 
 light of the other statements in the article. If this is allowed, and I for 
 my part do not know how it can be refused, then I am very sure that they 
 will convey to an unbiassed mind a very different impression from that 
 which they convey if considered simply by themselves and by persons 
 unacquainted with the scope and aim of the article. After noticing that the 
 article is a criticism of certain writings of Ewald, Kuenen, and Gustave Baiir, 
 and must be so viewed, Mr. Moir quoted from the Libel the extract : — 
 "The prophets prophesied into the future, but not directly to the future. 
 Their duties lay with their own age ; only by viewing them as they moved 
 amidst their contemporaries does tlie critic learn to love and to admire 
 them." I think. Moderator, that those who drew up the Libel might 
 have carried on the quotation a little farther, for Avliat follows greatly 
 modifies the quotation as they have made it: — "A prophecy then 
 coming to us in the name of Isaiah, but having no roots in Isaiah's age, 
 is to the historical student either an inexplicable phenomenon or a 
 phenomenon unexplained. Certainly he is called upon to admit that 
 another inquirer approaching the problem from a theological standpoint, 
 taking the prophet on the divine side, may be able to explain what he 
 cannot understand." The other extract is : — " True prophecy is always 
 ideal, seeking to grasp, not the immediate future, but the eternal and 
 unchanging principle which Jehovah, the living God, is ever working out 
 more fully among his people. The critical study of prophecy has done no 
 greater service than to pomt out how small a fraction of the prophetic 
 writings is strictly predictive." l!^ow, what are the allegations which 
 these extracts are believed to substantiate. First, that the predictive 
 element of prophecy is traced to human sources ; and second, that it is 
 excluded. I have already noticed that these sentences were penned in 
 rigid conformity to the laws of historical criticism, and subject to its 
 canons. After noticing that Professor Smith's writing was saturated 
 with the idea of the subjective or organic unity of the Bible, and that he 
 had kept ever before him the lofty purpose of showing how the sphitual 
 influences operating in one age, worked onward to those that followeJ, 
 ^Ir. ]\[oir continued — Professor Smith has done noble service b}-" emphasis- 
 ing such truths, and I am not prepared to admit that he has by so doing 
 shut himself out from a full recognition of the predictive element in pro- 
 phecy. He certainly has not denied it. I do not think that he ignores 
 it ; even in the very passage quoted from his article he admits the fact of 
 predictive pro})hecy, and no one can deny the truth of the latter part of 
 
88 
 
 the first quotation. That Professor Smith recognises a very substantial 
 distinction between the mere believer and the prophet is manifest from 
 what he advances {British Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 321): — " 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 him impelling him in 
 a course that he could not have chosen for himself ; and, in this course, 
 his individuality was not obliterated, but absorbed and swayed by the 
 one Spirit of all prophecy. He speaks and thinks, not his own thoughts, 
 but the thoughts of Jahveh, the living God, Avhose eternal purpose flows 
 in ever varying form, but ever in substantial unity, through all the history 
 of his people." ]\Ir. Moir having more fully illustrated his point, said, I 
 for one have risen from the perusal of this article impressed more than 
 ever with the conviction that if Professor Smith appears to me — I wiU not 
 say that he does — to err in too slavish an adherence to the canons and 
 method of the critical schools ; he has never for a moment lost sight of 
 the lofty purpose wuth which he has bowed his neck to their yoke, viz., 
 that he might assert even on the scientific platform, and in the use of 
 scientific methods, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh full of grace and 
 truth. ]\Ir Moir having then referred to the third quotation from the 
 article " Bible," and maintained that keeping the passages in their due 
 connection tlie predictive element w\as acknowledged, and that the prophets 
 usually spoke by direct inspiration, concluded — -Still farther we are bound 
 to remember that the EncijdopoKlia Britannica is an organic whole ; that 
 certainly we have not read its last utterance on prophecj^, and that most 
 probably Professor Smith wull yet have something to say at greater length 
 on the same subject. It is perfectly true that we are bound to judge 
 according to what we have before us ; but these are nevertheless perfectly 
 fair considerations for us to keep in view in judging of our brother's 
 writings, and that especially if we have reason to suppose, as we have, that 
 he felt himself hampered, by Avant of space and other considerations, in 
 giving a full exposition of his opinions. With regard to Psalm xvi., I 
 shall content myself with saying that the exposition of that psalm, viewed 
 as a whole, is in many respects all that could be desired, and better in 
 some respects than anything that, so far as I know, has been hitherto 
 offered to the Church. If there be error in the handling of it, and I am 
 not prepared to say that there is not, still it seems to me that it is more 
 exegetical than otherwise, and, at any rate, it is not of that pronounced 
 type that would sustain a charge of heretical pravity. I think, too, that 
 it is unfortunate that the very portion left out of the centre of the quota- 
 tion is tlie one that would have gone farthest to modify our censure of 
 Professor Smith, if it had been inserted in our Libel. I leave, however, 
 some one of the brethren holding the same views generally that I do to 
 take this matter up, and conclude by moving the amendment which I 
 have already read. 
 
 Mr. R A. Mitchell, in seconding the amendment, said that the sub- 
 ject of prophecy was a very mysterious subject, a subject which presented 
 many difficult problems which they had really no materials for solving. 
 Tlie psychology of prophecy was a subject with regard to which they 
 should abstain from dogmatising, as they really knew little or nothing 
 
89 
 
 about it. They knew very little of tlie modus of prophetic inspiration, 
 the workings of the prophet's mind, when he was under the mysterious in- 
 liuences of the Spirit, or the way in which the prophet's foresight of future 
 events might have been connected with his faith in the righteousness 
 and gracious redemptive purpose of God. Professor Smith was charged 
 with disparaging prophecy by representing it as a faculty of spiritual in- 
 tuition. He thought he was justified in calling it by the word intuition 
 by the consideration that in the Old Testament prophecy in general 
 is spoken of as a "seeing" or "intuition." It could not be supposed, 
 surely, that Professor Smith regarded the intuitions of the prophets as 
 similar in kind to the intuitions of natural genius ; but the meaning of 
 his views was that tlie kind of truth which the prophet possessed was a 
 kind which he derived from supernatural revelation. Surely that was 
 the very essence of the Scriptural doctrine of prophecy — that prophecy was 
 a supernatural gift of the Spirit of God, and not a power or product of 
 man's natural reason. A man who maintained that maintained what was 
 distinctive of the orthodox as contrasted with the rationalistic view of 
 prophecy, and ought not to be gratuitously suspected of rationalistic ten- 
 dencies. But evidently Professor Smith was suspected of agreeing with 
 the rationalists in denying to the prophets a supernatui-al power of pre- 
 dicting future events. The fact that Professor Smith does not give such 
 prominence as they had been accustomed to give to the predictive ele- 
 ment in prophecy might have appeared to them a suspicious thing, if they 
 were disposed to regard all his utterances with suspicion — (hear, hear). 
 But undoubtedly Professor Smith was right in thinking that too exclusive 
 a prominence has generally been given to the predictive element in pro- 
 phecy, and that other elements not less important had been in some 
 measure lost sight of. The prophets knew enough of the unfoldings of 
 God's providence to enable them to speak with persuasive power to the 
 men of their own time ; and their words had deeper meaning than either 
 they or the men of their own time could grasp. This he thought a sound 
 and scriptural view of prophecy, and it was Professor Smith's view. Will 
 any one deny that the prophet's own time occupied the foreground in his 
 mind, and in uttering his predictions of the future, he took his start from 
 "present sin, present needs, present historical situations'?" To say that 
 the prophet takes his start from present historical situations is not to say 
 that his words don't reach far beyond them. To say that he speaks di- 
 rectly to the men of his own age is not to say that he does not speak also, 
 and even more powerfully, to the men of later ages, nor is it to deny that 
 in speaking to the men of his own age he spoke to them of the future 
 Messianic age. The Libel speaks of Professor Smith as denying direct 
 supernatural revelation of future events long posterior. But he says dis- 
 tinctly in his Answer to the Presbytery's question, that he regards 
 the Personal Messiah as the primary subject of such prophecies as 
 Isaiah xi. and others— in other words, that these prophecies contain direct 
 prediction of events which certainly happened long after the age in which 
 the prophets who uttered them lived. ^STo doubt, while he regards the 
 16th Psalm as ]\Iessianic, he does not regard it as containing a direct pre- 
 diction of Christ. But that, as we all know, is the view of Calvin and of 
 
90 
 
 many otliers of the soundest and most orthodox expositors. "Whether or 
 not we agree with the view of the 16th Psahn taken by Calvin and Pro- 
 fessor Smitli, we may at all events abstain from condemning it as a view 
 disparaging to prophecy, or inconsistent with immediate inspiration — ■ 
 (applause). 
 
 ^Ir. Massox said he would feel compelled to-day to separate himself 
 from the position taken up by Dr. Brown. Mr. M. went on to argue 
 that Professor Smith's view of inspiration, as to be gathered from his 
 writings, was not that of the Confession ; and he Avould have liked a 
 distinct avowal on the points left in doubt. Now I pass on to say, con- 
 tinued Mr. J\I., tliat one effect of Professor Smith's reply, in my mind, 
 has been that I am much relieved on the point of prophecy, as far as the 
 first charge is concerned, and I shall be very ha^jpy to carry out' my 
 convictions to-day, even although it may be at the expense of the support 
 of those with whom I have been hitherto acting, by giving him my vote 
 — (applause). 
 
 Mr. Yule was surprised that the count now before the Presbytery had 
 been persisted in, as he thought the other side would have fallen from it. 
 The (juestion now before them was whether Professor Smith had con- 
 tradicted or had said something opposed to the Standards on this point of 
 prophecy. Dr. Brown had said the question had been raised how far a 
 minister or a professor might go in certain directions. But they had not 
 raised that question. What they had raised was how far had Professor 
 Smith gone, and had he gone beyond the bounds which the Confession 
 of Paith and the Scriptures had laid down — (applause). That was what 
 they were trying to discuss, and he apprehended it was their duty to 
 settle that. He could understand why some on the other side had 
 not been able to say that Sept i mo contradicted or was opposed to 
 the Standards, and for all the arguments that had been adduced, 
 it seemed to him that all the brethren should be of one mind, 
 and that they should find unanimously to the eifect that Professor 
 Smith's teaching oii the subject of prophecy did not contradict 
 the Standards — (applause). Mr. Yule maintained that the word 
 " intuition," used by Professor Smith, entirely agreed with the Scripture 
 idea of a " seer," and he had expressly stated that he did not exclude 
 direct prediction. 
 
 Mr. Selbie contended that Professor Smith had never admitted his 
 belief in the strictly predictive element in prophecy. 
 
 Mr. Johnstone said Professor Smith was charged with " dis- 
 paraging prophecy by representing its predictions as arising merely from 
 so-called spiritual insight based on the certainty of God's righteous 
 purpose." Well, it was important to notice in the first place that these 
 expressions Avere not Professor Smith's. It was a mistake to affirm that 
 he represented the predictions of prophecy as arising merely from " so- 
 called spiritual insight." " Spiritual intuition " were his words, and he 
 gave the reasons for using them in his Answer. Mr. Johnstone referred 
 to Principal Brown's statement that he might be prevented voting on 
 certain of the particulars, and asked why so ? Could it be explained on 
 any other supposition than that Dr. Brown was unwilling to give Pro- 
 fessor Smith the benefit of any doubt 1 — (applause). 
 
91 
 
 Principal Brown — I gave on a former occasion all the explanation that I 
 thought necessary, and if it is not satisfactory I do not mean to waste the 
 time of the Presbytery in giving another. 
 
 Mr. Johnstone — Very well, I am satisfied. I shall draw my own 
 conclusions from that. 
 
 Mr. Bell said he did feel that Professor Smith's position in reference 
 to prophecy was quite consistent with the Standards — (applause). He 
 did not think that it had been made out in the least degree that Professor 
 Smith denied the distinctly predictive element in the Scriptures. It was 
 possible that Professor Smith had not given so large and important a 
 place to direct prediction as he might have done ; and while he (Mr. 
 Bell) might have serious difficiilty about other views held by Professor 
 Smith, he could not say he had the least doubt on the point now before 
 them. 
 
 Professor Smith on rising to reply was received with applause. He 
 said — Following my usual rule in this matter, I shall begin by answering 
 the questions which have been addressed to me, and I am grateful to 
 those who have put such questions instead of trying, without any 
 explanation, to see how much can be forced by an ingenious exegesis out 
 of incidental expressions in my writings. Mr. Masson asks two questions. 
 The first, I think, is a question as to what I mean in the distinction 
 between direct and indirect Messianic prophecy, and I understand Mr. 
 Masson is anxious to see whether all that I mean is as follows : that by 
 what may be called ultimately a process of rational insight, holy men in 
 the Old Testament stretched up towards an ideal, and this ideal ultimately 
 was realised in Christ. It means more than that, because it means this, 
 that holy men were able to stretch forth their hands after that because 
 the Spirit of Christ himself gave them that hope — -(hear, hear, and 
 applause) — and unless it had been the case that God in his infinite love 
 had decreed to send Christ into the world ; unless He had planned out the 
 purpose of redemption, and unless before the time for carrying it out 
 arrived He had alreadj--, by His own Spirit, given rays to the men in the 
 Old Testament of that light which in its full splendour was only to arise 
 in the ISTew Testament, they would not have been able to stretch towards 
 that ideal. It is an ideal, but it is God's ideal. It is not man's ideal ; 
 and it is God's ideal, because it is only God that could have made it 
 known in its perfect as- well as its imperfect form. 
 
 Mr. Masson — How do Christians rise up to it now 1 
 
 Professor Smith — Christians now have the whole thing made plain 
 in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Christians no longer require fresh rays 
 of light for new necessities, because every light that the Christian requires 
 is given in the complete revelation of the New Testament, but in the Old 
 Testament there was no complete or full manifestation of light in Christ, 
 and therefore the necessary light was given by God to His Church from 
 time to time in various ways. One of the ways was by the direct 
 prediction of the Messiah, and another of the ways was by illuminating 
 the heart of a man like the Psalmist to see in a vague manner so much of 
 the truth to be realised in Christ as would suffice for a present necessity 
 • — (applause). As to the expression " intuition," Mr. Masson wishes to 
 
92 
 
 ask me why I took the word '' intuition," which he fimls in Morell. I 
 have not read Morell, I am sorrj'- to say. I do not know whetlier he is 
 right or wrong. I got it, as I have already said, out of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and even although the most heretical man should use a Biblical 
 expression, I do not think tliat I would be inclined to find fault with 
 him — (laughter and applause). The word " intuition " is a word that 
 bears various senses ; on the whole, however, I thought it was the 
 word that best translated the Old Testament ^vord chazon, which "vision" 
 does not perfectly represent. The Hebrews regarded everything that 
 came to a prophet as a seeing, because he did not get at it by dialectics, 
 but because it was presented to his spiritual eyesight by God, just as an 
 object is presented to the physical eyesight ; and to say that a prophet 
 saw it by spiritual intuition is not to say it is a mere natural act. Far 
 from it. I use the word " intuition," and I find fault with the Libel for 
 using the words " so-called spiritual insight," and for this reason, that 
 while " spiritual insight " can also bear a perfectly sound sense, it is a 
 vaguer and less satisfactory expression. As Mr. Selbie lias pointed out, 
 I did, in passing, speak of the spiritual insight of prophecy. When I 
 have used at one time a vague expression in passing, and if at another 
 time I have given a distinct definition of what I understood by prophecy, 
 I object that the distinct definition was not the one upon which the 
 charge was based, and it will require a good deal more ex- 
 planation to get rid of this fact than the statement that I had 
 used " spiritual insight " somewliere else- — -(applause). Well, was I en- 
 titled to say "spiritual" insight ? I am surprised that the brethren 
 on the other side who have dealt so much in i)hilosophical and theo- 
 logical dissertations, who have had so much to tell us about psychology 
 and theological distinctions which did not occur to a simple man like 
 myself in writing a simple account of specific things — (laughter and 
 applause) — should not have been aware that in discussing the word 
 " spiritual " they had come into contact with a very important question, 
 the question of grace, and that upon that subject I had never given an 
 uncertain sound. For example, in my article upon " The Schools of the 
 Continent " — I go back to that to show how consistent I have been — I 
 make a clear and distinct statement on the subject, and in this connection 
 I might say that if you want to know really what a man's views about 
 prediction and revelation are, if you want to know whether he is orthodox 
 or heterodox, you must go back and ask what he thinks about the nature 
 of grace. I put it so in my reply to the College Committee. I said " ISfy 
 whole theory of revelation rests on the assumption that there is an absolute 
 contrast between revealed and natural knowledge," and it is fortius reason 
 that I hold with our Confession that the natural man fallen into sin is not 
 able to see any of the things of God except by supernatural enlighten- 
 ment ; and if that had been taken along with the expression " spiritual 
 intuition," no gentleman would have risen on the other side and made a 
 peddling criticism of the word " spiritual " — (hear, hear, and applause)— 
 as if I was anxious to do away with the fact that God has given us a 
 knowledge of Himself ; that a salvation is given by His Spirit to those 
 who but for His great gift would not have known of God at all — (applause). 
 
93 
 
 IMr. Masson — I think you should retract the word " peddling." 
 
 Professor Smith — I did not apply the terra to ISfr. Masson ; and I 
 ■will not retract the word " peddling " as applied to a number of criticisms 
 that have been indixlged in to-day — (hear, hear). 
 
 Mr. ]\rASSON — You do not apply it to me 1 
 
 Professor Smith — It does not apply to what Mr. Masson said at all. 
 As regards the criticisms of Mr. Bannatyne, I hope that when he is 
 teaching his people he uses a somewhat more strict and fairer method of 
 exegesis than he has applied to mj' writings. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — I am much obliged to Professor Smith for the 
 direction. 
 
 Professor Smith — Working backwards on what has been said, I find 
 that every day new difficulties are springing up and encumbering the case. 
 It is like fighting with the hydra. When we have cut off one head, the 
 next day we find three springing up in its place, and the issue becomes 
 constantly complicated. First it was a question as to " subvert " and 
 " contradict ;" then it was, in addition to that, the question of relevancy 
 and proof ; then some one has a distinction between the Confession and 
 Scripture, and a distinction between " contradict " and " oppose," and by 
 all these means in succession the other side have been drawn out of the 
 mire of their embarrassments, and have been able to put their feet on a 
 sure place and to take up a new speech or song against my heresies — 
 (laughter and applause). I have yet to learn — since opinions necessarily 
 are opposed in definite ways and are not gifted with the same versatility 
 as that displayed by gentlemen on the other side — (laughter) — that there 
 are more than two logical forms of opposition — the contradictory opposition 
 with which Mr. Selbie is dissatisfied, and the contrary opposition which 
 i\Ir. Selbie disclaims ; and when these are removed I am unable to see 
 what is left — (laughter and applause). As to the question of the difference 
 between relevancy and proof, I am beginning to understand that better — 
 (hear, hear). I do not say that I am beginning to see the justice of it 
 better, but I am beginning to umlerstand better what is meant. I see 
 that what is meant is this, that I should not have had at this time any 
 opportunity of disposing of what may seem to sonic to be prima facie 
 evidence against me. It may be said that proof of relevancy is proof of 
 a prima facie case against me. That would not help the argument of the 
 other side, unless they mean more, that I shall not have an opportunity of 
 destroying the appearance of a 7jr/?/irt/rtCitf case against me until I shall 
 be summoned and put to the bar. Is that an example of Christian 
 charity ? And may I ask whether every member ought not to be glad if 
 by going a little more fully into the case at this time, it became manifest 
 that it is not necessary to put me at this bar at all — (applause). 
 
 Mr. Selbie —That is what is intended. 
 
 Professor Smith — I have done that by disproving the charge that is 
 brought against me. " Ah but," says Dr. Brown, " we are not bound to 
 prove the charge ; all that we require to do is to say something in support 
 of it." This contention raises a very serious point, because it must be 
 manifest that this trial is becoming more and more a trial upon exegetical 
 grounds. Xow we all know that no Presbyterian has ever held that there^ 
 
94 
 
 ■was any infallible judge of the ScriptiU'e outside the Scripture itself. I 
 cannot take any man's interpretation as infallible, or found the ground of 
 heresy on that, but certain propositions on which we are all agreed have 
 been drawn from Scripture and formulated in our Confession, and we 
 have agreed that no office-bearer can remain in our Church who does not 
 adhere to these propositions. There is a system of Bible truths which the 
 Church is satisfied do come from Scripture, but here we have gentlemen 
 going beyond that, drawing out their own exegesis of passages of Scripture, 
 and making their own exegesis the test of orthodoxy in others. That is 
 what Dr. Brown's argument on the 1 6th Psalm comes to. Let's see how 
 he treated that subject when he himself wrote upon it in his Commentary.- — 
 
 Calvin, who is followed by some of the best modem critics — such as Hengstenberg 
 and Tholuck, to whom may be added Alexander — views the entire psalm as meant of 
 David liimself, but regards the words of the 10th and 11th verses as expressing his 
 assurance of safety, not from any temporal danger, but from the dominion of death 
 and the grave — an assurance of eternal life and blessedness \vith God ; and since this 
 would have been a baseless expectation but for Christ's resurrection, Peter, according 
 to them, only seizes on the deeper import of the psalm in viewing it as a prophecy of 
 Christ's resurrection. But, however this may be thought to bring out the Messianic 
 character of the psalm, it does not, at least, seem to be the Apostle's way of viewing 
 it. If words have any meaning, he lays down the f ollo\ving positions. 
 
 And so on. " If words have any moaning." No expression has been 
 more familiar to us during the last few days than this remark of Dr. 
 Brown's, with wliich he silences all argument — (laughter and applause). 
 It is very trying to a comparatively modest man like myself, who am 
 not always quite sure that words have no meaning except what I put 
 on them — (laughter) — it is very trying to me to have to stand and have 
 Dr. Brown, when I am stating views and explaining Scripture as well as 
 I can, declaring that " if words have any meaning this borders on heresy, 
 and although not contrary to the Confession, yet I shall be shut up to 
 vote for the motions that these opinions are opposed to the Confession." 
 But would Dr. Brown if, instead of me, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Tholuck, 
 and Alexander were standing here, get up and, sjDeaking in a heresy case 
 as he now speaks in this case, say that " You, Calvin, Hengstenberg, 
 Tholuck, and Alexander hold opinions that do not contradict the 
 Confession, but for all that I feel shut up to vote that these opinions are 
 dangerously opposed to the Confession ? " — (laughter and applause). 
 That is virtually what he is doing here. Would he have done that in 
 regard to Calvin 1 
 
 Principal Brown — I never would. 
 
 Professor Smith — That is what I say. If I were Calvin — (a laugh) 
 — Dr. Brown would not do such a thing, because he would be laughed 
 out of Court. But when I come up and give- exactly Calvin's opinion 
 upon this very point. Dr. Brown has no hesitation in rising and saying 
 that in my mouth Calvin's opinions are heretical — (applause). iS^ow, 
 Moderator, so much for that ; and now I am going to come to this article 
 in the British Quarterhj Review. Moderator, I am not to detain you 
 with words of law, but at the time I wrote that article, and at the time 
 that article was published, I was not a professor in this Church. I was not 
 an office-bearer in this Church, and I was not a probationer of this Church; 
 
95 
 
 I had signed no pledge, I had taken no test ; I was free to say 
 what I pleased, and I doubt whether anything contained in an article 
 published at that time can be naade the ground of a charge against me. 
 It does not matter how unsound I might have been. I may have been 
 unsoiind. Most students at some time in their career are unsound — 
 (laughterand applause) — but the point to be considered is am I unsound now] 
 or have I been unsound as a professor in this Church, and that is what the 
 Libel undertook to make out. The Libel says that my views are opposed 
 to the Confession of Faith, and that the otfences which have been charged, 
 " especially in a Professor of Divinity, are to be censured in order that 
 others holding the same sacred office may be deterred from doing lilce 
 offences in all time coming." But these are not the views of a Professor 
 of Divinity, and they are not the views expressed by a person holding 
 sacred office, and they would have shown a little more consistency if they 
 had left it out. For my own part I am glad they did not leave it out — 
 firstly, because if read from first to last its testimony is in my favour and 
 not against me, and consequently the fact that they had to go back so far 
 as to a time prior to my becoming an office-bearer in the Church is clamant 
 proof that they have very little evidence against me — (applause). 
 Moderator, I was at the trouble to enquire at the clerk if that article had 
 been lodged with the others papers in Court, and I found that it was 
 not, and for a good reason. The paper is out of print, and those who 
 wish to read it cannot get it. It is not doing much harm in the world 
 if the views it contains are dangerous, for those who wish to get it cannot 
 now obtain it. It is true that extracts from it are given in this Libel, 
 but I am safe to say that very few of the members have seen more of the 
 article than these extracts. To take an old publication, published before 
 I was a professor, before I was a probationer, which is now out of print, 
 which no one can see even if one wanted to do it, which no one can be 
 able to judge of as a whole ; to take two or three sentences from it in 
 order to make out an accusation was a very curious specimen of justice — 
 (applause). Now, there were one or two points on which great weight 
 was laid by several speakers. I had said in that article that true prophecy 
 was always ideal, and that Principal Brown denied. I said that what 
 prophecy wished to grasp was not the immediate future but the eternal 
 principles which God is working out more fully among his people. 
 Principal Brown had denied that. But I do not know in what sense he 
 was justified in denying that Prophecy was ideal unless he meant 
 a mere human ideal ; but surely no one Avho holds that the thing 
 which Christ came to preach was the kingdom of God, will deny that all 
 prophetic teaching culminates in this, which is not only ideal but the 
 highest ideal that the human race has got. I am not one of those who 
 think that the ideal is opposed to the real. I believe that the ideal is the 
 real and the true, because I believe that God who in his own purposes 
 has set before us the highest spiritual ideal, will in his own purposes also 
 realise that ideal — (applause). And, therefore, when I say that true 
 prophecy is always ideal, I do not mean that it is not real, not concrete, 
 but that it is that and something more — (applause) — and that that was 
 my meaning is plain from Avhat follows. I said, " The business of 
 
96 
 
 prophecy is to grasp principles which God has worked out," and I say 
 then " these principles are grasped with such firmness, with so concrete a 
 hold, that they never remain floating as it were in the air, but are always 
 applied with confidence to the special needs and special circumstances of 
 the theocracy. And so it was with Isaiah." But then I go on to say 
 hoAV far this ideal, which I say is a supernatural ideal — how God, setting 
 before him this supernatural ideal, also therewith enabled him to predict 
 the most striking events, such as the destruction of Sennacherib. There 
 are one or two other things to which I may refer. I am found fault with 
 for reducing prediction to a small fraction of the prophetical writings, and 
 Mr. Selbie, with a subtlety which I envy and admire, suggested that T 
 thought criticism had done no greater service than deny the evidences of 
 revealed religion. That is a still finer inference. It appears to me that 
 the evidence of prediction arises from those predictions which we know to 
 be prediction, and if it so happened that some people had thought things 
 predictions which Avcre not, the removal of that mistake would surely re- 
 lieve the evidence of prediction from the incumbrances which surround it, 
 and would put in a still clearer light the evidence of that which remains ; 
 but what I meant by that was this, not that I thought I should reduce 
 the number of predictions which are fulfilled as evidence, but certainly it 
 was the case until recently in this country that people were too busy 
 gathering these predictions from prophetic writings to pay sufficient at- 
 tention to the mass of instruction ancl revelation which could not be used 
 for the purpose of evidence, with which the prophetical books are filled. 
 Moderator, I can take up the prophecies wherever you please, and I will 
 undertake to find, as a rule, at least ten verses of general religious teaching 
 of the highest kind — remember I do not disj^arage it for that — that, in-; 
 deed, renders it of more value to me — but I say that you will find ten 
 verses of religious teaching for one verse of prediction. Suppose Mr. 
 Selbie to take the first chapter of Isaiah. Hoav much of that is direct 
 prediction 1 Yet few chapters are read with more edification from day 
 to day. 
 
 Mr. Selbie — I do not object to that. 
 
 Professor Smith — I am glad of that. He does not object to the only 
 thing a reasonable expositor would have taken out of what I said. He ob- 
 jects to something which he himself put into what I said : that is all — 
 (laughter). 
 
 ]\fr. Selbie — What I found fault with was disparaging one part of 
 prophecy. I attach importance to both. 
 
 Professor Smith — I am quite willing to allow Mr. Selbie to attach 
 importance to both. I attach importance to both, but, under the circum- 
 stances in which I was reasoning, I thought it important to point out the 
 risk of overlooking the other thing. Dr. Brown has said that it is certain 
 that God will do so and so, because God has a righteous purpose. I 
 grant that, but Dr. Brown has missed the point. The question is — How 
 (Iocs the prophet know God's righteous purpose and its details? I have 
 s lid distinctly that his conception of the purposes of redemption and its 
 details was given to him not by human insight, but by God. Am I 
 disparaging tlie supernatural revelation of the propliets, because, while 
 
fully admitting that what was given to them was given by God, I hold 
 that God did that with a certain plan, so that prediction was a scheme 
 and not a number of isolated facts — (applause). Then, again, Dr. Brown 
 saj^s if there is any meaning in the Avords that the prophets spoke 
 directly to their own time, that means that there is no room for pointing 
 to a future period. My grammatical education, my education in the 
 English language must be different from Dr. Brown's. We don't speak 
 the same language, if that is the meaning which he takes from my words. 
 
 Principal Brown — I can only say that five hundred people have 
 understood the statement as I did. 
 
 Professor Smith- — Very well. I am now going to read a passage from 
 the article. I admit that many people have misunderstood me, but now 
 it seems that Dr. Brown represents the unjudicial opinion of five hundred 
 people outside of this court. He is here to try and understand my words 
 in rhe fairest way — (hear, hear) — and he is here to try and put the best sense 
 on them and not the worst — (hear, hear and applause). But the opinion of 
 five hundred people outside this court seems to have more influence on Dr. 
 Brown than clear expressions of mine repeated from time to time. 
 Professor Smith having read the extract from the article "■ Bible " on the 
 point under consideration, proceeded — The meaning of that is perfectly 
 clear. It means that the prophet did predict, but that when 
 he predicted he gave what would have a direct lesson and bearing 
 on his own time — (applause). Dr. Brown said it could not mean that, 
 because that was too obvious. I have yet to learn that if I say two and 
 two make four, he is to argue that I mean that two and two make five, be- 
 cause it is too obvious that two and two make four — (laughter). In truth, 
 if Dr. Brown had been familiar with the subject of prophecj^ he would not 
 have found that this statement was superfluous. I was not talking about 
 prophetic prediction except very obliquely ; I had to give an account of 
 the way in which critics proposed sometimes to change the received date 
 of a prophecy, and I tried to explain that their criterion was that a pro- 
 phecy would always show signs of the people to whom it was first spoken, 
 not in limitation of its prediction, for the prediction will go far beyond 
 that, to Christ and the resurrection and the last day ; but at all events 
 there would be something in it to show whom the prophet was directly 
 addressing, and that is the argument used by the critics about the latter 
 part of Isaiah. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but it is a 
 legitimate argument. It seems to me that they are right, and that the 
 prophet goes far beyond his own time, and goes further — to Christ ; but 
 if there is anything clearer than another it is that he was speaking to the 
 Jews in Babylon — (hear, hear). And the argument is that if Isaiah had 
 addressed it to the future he would also have addressed it to the Jews of 
 the time of Hezekiah. There are two connections in which the subject 
 of prediction has come up in my writings. I wish to say that my own lan- 
 guage in regard to prediction has been measured — and for two reasons. 
 One was, because I was speaking of the critical evidence as to the date of 
 prophecy, which is different from the critical evidence as to the reality of 
 prophecy. The other reason was that I was dealing with the subject apo- 
 logetically. Every one admits that the prophets predicted the future, but 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 a very considerable number of critics of the negative and non-supernatural 
 school were anxious to show that these predictions had never been ful- 
 filled, and the reason why I measured my language was that we must keep 
 clear of this. There are many prophecies not literally fulfilled, and I 
 measured my language in regard to Christ and his Church in order to take 
 up those predictions to which I have specially referred. We all know 
 that the Church contains at present a great many people who will not see 
 any truth or reality in the prophecies spoken to the Christian Church. 
 They say that the prophecy applies to the Jews. I am not now asking 
 whether some of these things are true or not, but this I am very sure of, 
 that any one who wajits to make a safe statement about prediction must 
 not rest his faith in prediction in the belief that some of these things are 
 to be fulfilled literally in a future time. I am sure that they will be ful- 
 filled spiritually in Christ and his Church, and I framed every expression 
 so as to show this. Professor Smith concluded by stating that he had 
 gone over the question step bj'- step, and that he thought he had succeeded 
 in showing that there was no ground for the charge contained in Septhno. 
 Principal Brown, in reply, having for himself repelled a remark from 
 the speaker to the effect that he could easily conceive how some of them 
 came to the consideration of this case with minds? previously disposed to 
 suspect Professor Smith, said as to a remark of Professor Smith, that if he 
 (Dr. Brown) had been acquainted with the subject of prophecy he would 
 have done so and so, he now stated, as he had done already in the Assembly, 
 that there was a great deal more involved in those cpiestions with respect 
 to Professor Smith's writings than many people are apt to imagine. In his 
 younger days, being of a turn which he might call exegetical and sus- 
 picious, and of a negative leaning in regard to the interpretation of the 
 Old Testament, and not being in a position to see that Jesus Chi-ist was 
 the efflorescence of Old Testament prophecy and the consummation of the 
 Old Testament economy, he trembled at the prospect of going forward for 
 licence in the Church that certainly held these views — as all orthodox 
 Churches did — and such was the state of his mind that he seriously con- 
 templated abandoning the study of divinity altogether and betaking him- 
 self to a secular profession, that he might keep a good conscience in the 
 matter. He had never ceased from that time to make the subject of (Jld 
 Testament interpretation a subject of special and anxious enquir3^ and had 
 endeavoured to keep himself abreast of the literature of the da}', and he 
 claimed not to be destitute of the faculty of exegetical interpretation, or 
 of an acquaintance with this subject which would entitle him to speak on 
 it as he had done. He said that the extract from the British Q/iarfcrli/ 
 would not have been introduced if all the subsequent articles had not been 
 "written on the same principle. After criticising several of Professor 
 Smith's views in regard to the Psalms and Isaiah to the same effect as on 
 the previous day, he proceeded to refer to the argument about direct and 
 indirect prophecy, and said he hoi)cd they were not required at this time 
 of day to draw the distinction between these two. It was because there 
 M'as no sufficient recognition in Professor Smith's writings of the strictly 
 predictive element of prophecy that constrained him to give his vote in 
 favour of the relevancy. He denied that this was coming to be a question 
 
99 
 
 of mere exegesis. Professor Smith ImJ quoted from a commentary of his 
 on Acts second, with the view of showing how he admitted his interpreta- 
 tion of the 16th Psalm was opposed to that of Calvin and others. What 
 he said and now said was, that if Avords had any meaning, two inspired 
 AjDOstles affirmed that the words about his flesh not seeing corruption were 
 not true of any man save Jesus Christ. Calvin, Sir, has been once and 
 again flaunted before x;s in these discussions. But on the 110th Psalm 
 Calvin, while not recognising any Psalm whatever as having a primary 
 reference to Christ, admits that this one must be held to be an exception, 
 which to me only showed that his scheme was not a sound one. Princi- 
 pal Brown concluded by expressing the pain which he felt in standing 
 there, and said that if his conscience permitted him to do otherwise he 
 Avould have most gladly done so ; and often he was fain to exclaim, " Woe 
 is me that I sojourn in Meshech." 
 
 Professor Smith having replied to some remarks of Dr. Brown's as to 
 the vieAVs of EAvald, 
 
 The division was taken, with the following result — 
 
 Fur Principal Brotcn's Motion — Principal Brown, Dr. Longmuir, 
 ]\Iessrs. Craven, Arthur, Bannatyne, and Selbie, ministers ; Messrs. W. 
 W. Milne, D. :\IitcheU, Pdtchie, Dr. Gordon, and Wildgoose, elders~l\. 
 
 For Mr. Moir's Amendment — Dr. Spence, Messrs. Stephen,- Dal- 
 garno, Moir, Yule, Johnstone, Anderson, Selkirk, Sloan, Bell, E. A. 
 Mitchell, Masson, Clark, Iverach, Gage, Semple, Innes, and Macqueen, 
 ministers; INIessrs. Collie, Paterson, Thom, Moir^ W. Gordon, Barnett, 
 W. jNIilne, Cook, and Fleming, elders — 27. 
 
 The result was receiA'ed Avith loud applause. 
 
 The usual appeal Avas taken by the minority, and Mr. ]\Iasson Avas, on 
 the motion of Mr. Moir, appointed to act Avith the former committee, in 
 an.:wering the reasons of dissent against this finding. 
 
 8. " Octavo" — The Personality of Angels. 
 
 The Clerk then read the eighth particular (see Form of Libel, p. 11.) 
 Mr. Craven (NeAvhills) rose to move that Octavo be found relevant. 
 He admitted that Professor Smith's able and candid pamphlet had greatly 
 relieved his mind on and modified his vieAvs in some particulars ; but in 
 regard to the " T)octrine of Angels" the Defence, so far from making 
 matters better, had made them Avorse — (laughter) — and instead of relieving 
 him had confirmed him in his former conviction that in the article on 
 Angels he Avas justly chargeable Avith having contradicted the Confession 
 of Faith. His teaching Avas simply this, not that the Avord of God con- 
 tained in the Old and New Testament Scriptures revealed to us the real 
 existence of angels, but that the Bible made us aware that there Avas 
 among the JeAvs a prevalent belief ui the existence of such superhuman 
 beings ; that there was no direct revelation, or at least a very obscure 
 revelation ; and that the existence of angels Avas a matter of popular as- 
 sumption. If Professor Smith had merely said nothing more than this, 
 that in the Scriptures there Avas not found any account of the creation of 
 angels, possibly every member of the Court Avould have agreed Avith him. 
 
100 
 
 But he maintained that this was not a ])oint in dispute. He could not 
 persuade himself to helieve that Professor Smith did not believe in the 
 real existence of angels, good or bad, but so long as he remained silent, 
 not giving forth any positive utterance, multitudes who judged of the 
 matter by his writings were, to say the least, in very painful doubt. 
 
 Mr. Arthur seconded the motion, and maintained that Professor 
 Smith had in his writings called in question the Bible statement of the 
 creation of angels and of their real existence. 
 
 Mr. J. M. Sloan said he had been very curious to see who would 
 undertake the duty of moving the relevancy of this particular. He thought 
 their credit as a Presbytery had been tarnished by having on the face of 
 the Lil;el a particular of this sort. It proceeded upon an entire miscon- 
 ception of the meaning of Professor Smith's writings, and he did not 
 think, when these Avere understood properly, that there would be room 
 for any debate whatever on the subject. He therefore moved : — 
 
 That the Presbytery find the particular Octavo irrelevant under the first of the 
 major, inasm\ich as the words in that particular, and of the corresponding extracts in 
 the minor, when properly understood, are in entire consonance with Scripture and the 
 Confession of Faith. 
 
 • — (applause). He said he had iiad occasion again and again during the 
 course of the discussion to notice the misapprehension which seemed to 
 prevail as to Professor Smith's writings — (hear, hear). When he thought 
 of the charge against Professor Smith contained in this particular, he was 
 reminded of a declaration of one of Moliere's characters, who discovered 
 that he had been speaking prose all his life and didn't know it — (laugh- 
 ter). He was afraid that some of the Presbytery would find that they had 
 been teaching heresy during the greater part of their lives without know- 
 ing it — (laughter and applause). In further supporting his motion, Mr. 
 Sloan remarked that though angelic beings were mentioned in Scripture 
 several hundred times, there was not one positive assertion that they 
 existed. 
 
 Mr. Semple seconded the amendment, and expressed his astonishment 
 that the particular had been made the subject of an atlirmative motion. 
 
 ]\lr. Selbie said he had come up to the Presbytery with the feeling 
 that he could not support the particular, but from the nature of the De- 
 fence which had been given he was almost inclined to change his mind — 
 (laughter). It had left a worse impression on his mind than it had befoie, 
 and he was very anxious to hear what Professor Smith had to say on the 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne enumerated at considerable length the various refer- 
 ences in the Bible to angels, and went on to remark that the view which 
 Professor Sniitli took of the angelic life was merely a strange attenuation 
 into thin air of the mighty angels that excelle<l in strength. 
 
 Principal Brown said, if Professor Smith believed in the creation and 
 personal existence of angels and in their human qualities, if it was possible 
 to use language fitted to mislead the public, Professor Smith had used it. 
 When he said, however, that " Nowhere do we find a clear statement as 
 to the creation of angels," he (Dr. Brown) presumed that Professor Smith 
 believed that angels had a personal existence, but did not believe that 
 
101 
 
 thoy had existed from all eternity, and for Professor Sniitli to withhold 
 that was a serious thing, more especially when they found him saying that 
 the doctrine " that angels are endowed with special goodness and insight 
 analogous to human qualities appears as a popular assumption and not as 
 a doctrine of revelation." Now, there were many |)opular assump- 
 tions, and some of them were absolutely worthless. He thought for a 
 man to write articles in a work that had attained a world-wide ciiculation, 
 and leave them in the dark as to his real opinions, was not honest nor 
 right. 
 
 Professor Smith — I think the words " not honest " should bo Avith- 
 drawn. 
 
 Principal Brown said he would withdraw it, and say it was not a fair 
 thing to the public. Why was it that Professor Smith's articles had 
 excited so much distress and alarm 1 It was not one statement that had 
 caused it. It was the pervading spirit of negation manifested on many 
 occasions, and the report of the College Committee had stated the same 
 thing. If Professor Smith had clear views on these points, why should he 
 Jiot have stated them ? 
 
 Mr. Mom (elder) defended the phrase that the attribute of angels was 
 a popular assumption. 
 
 Professor Smith, who was received with loud applause, said — After 
 listening to the incendiary speech of Dr. Brown I had difficulty in under- 
 standing that I was in a court of justice. 
 
 Mr. Bannatyne — Is it right to use a word like that 1 
 
 Professor Smith — I will explain the word. I use it in a Parliamentary 
 sense. I will explain it, and then I will withdraw it if the Presbytery 
 asks me. 
 
 ]\Ir. Baxnatyne— Principal Brown very readily withdrew a word 
 which I was sorry he used, and I do not think that such a word as 
 " incendiary " should be used — (applause). 
 
 Professor Smith — I will substitute the idea, and I say that in listening 
 to the speech of Dr. Brown, which was not addressed to convince this 
 Presb}i;ery of the errors of my article, but was directed to spread abroad 
 among the public a strong and exaggerated expression of the rashness of 
 my article — in listening to this I Avas unable to recognise that I Avas 
 listening to the pleadings of a judge in a Court of Justice — (applause). 
 Instead of addressing himself to the clear matter of fact Avhether a logical 
 analysis of the statements in my article contradicted the Confession, Dr. 
 Brown indulged in a by no means complimentary declaration as to the 
 intentional obscurity of my statements. Instead of confining himself to 
 ask the meaning of what I had said, he introdueed things that he says I 
 should have said. 
 
 Principal Browx explained that he had been speaking on the College 
 Committee's report, which entirely justified what he had said. He hoped 
 that Professor Smith Avould not apply that dreadful word "incendiary " 
 to him. 
 
 Professor Smith — If it gives personal pain to Dr. Brown I shall with- 
 draw the word, but simply for the reason that I am unwilling to give him 
 personal pain. 
 
102 
 
 Mr. Baxnatyne — It gives pain to the whole of us. 
 
 Professor Smith proceeded to say that it was high time that members 
 should show that what he had said was contrary to the Confession in- 
 stead of indulging in general declamations as to what he shoukl have said 
 — (applause). When he removed from Dr. Brown's speech these remarks 
 he found nothing in it to answer. A great part of INIr. Bannatyne's 
 speech was quite beside the point. If he had read bis (Professor Smith's) 
 article he would have seen that he was not giving the finished doctrine of 
 revelation. Mr. Bannatyne had proved upon his head many crimes of 
 which he had no suspicion that he was giiilty. He had fallen foul of him 
 for speaking of " notions " in the New Testament in connection with the 
 New Testament angelology. Angelology meant the doctrines and thoughts 
 of the New Testament on this subject. He was not aware that any one 
 could think without notions, but, if that Avere the position of 'Mv. Banna- 
 tyne, he could understand more easily how he had made himself so 
 unintelligible on this occasion ; for if he abstained, as a point of ortho- 
 doxy, from having notions in his head when he was thinking on subjects 
 of revelation, he (Professor Smith) was not surprised that his ideas were 
 somewhat obscure — (laughter). 
 
 Mv. Bannatyne — Much obliged to you. 
 
 Professor Smith proceeded to speak of the distinction between 
 dogmatic and biblical theology, and said that in the article in question lie 
 had been treating the subject in the latter aspect. He wished to record 
 how far the knowledge and doctrine of angels had got at different stages 
 in the Old and New Testament, and he had nothing to do with the net 
 result of it. It was not his purpose nor the business of the Encydoixvdia 
 to draw dogmatic inferences. The book was one for all the Churches. It 
 would tell them what could be fairly and honestly drawn from the Bible by 
 simple interpretation, and it would give them thatas Avellas itcould; but when 
 it went to the inference which one or other Church had drawn, it would 
 no longer argue the position of any of the Churches, but would, if 
 necessary, give a slight sketch of what the different Churches have held. 
 The inferences he drew were the inferences of their Church, else he would 
 not be standing there — (applause). He agreed as thoroughly as Dr. 
 Brown or ]\fr. Bannatyne that the way in which angels are mentioned in 
 the Old Testament does carry with it the existence of angels, and if they 
 existed they must have been created — (applause). In this article his 
 duty was not to draw his own inferences or the inferences of anybody 
 else ; it was to state what was the status of the biblical facts. He had, 
 however, distinctly stated that the existence of angels was a Bible belief. 
 Gentlemen seemed to think this was a small thing to say. He thought 
 it a very important thing for himself and for all Avho took the lUble 
 belief as their own. On the authority of the Bible, and especialh' of our 
 Lord, he admitted the reality of angelic agency and beings, though he 
 would not like to be very dogmatic as to the details of tlie angelic nature. 
 
 Principal Brown said that as Professor Smith had once and again 
 appealed to him, as if he was taking the strongest position against him, 
 he ( Dr. Brown) was conscious that he was taking the very reverse. But 
 the language of the article with respect to the points stated in Octavo was 
 
103 
 
 entirely misleading, in liis judgment. He believed the great proportion 
 of the ministers of the Free Church had been impressed Avith the 
 conviction that Professor Smith, whilst he might in a single word have 
 shown that he believed in the personal existence of angels, had not done 
 so, and he had made his Answer to the Libel appear to him (Dr. Brown) 
 to be confirmatory of the feeling that he had against that article before. 
 Up to within a few minutes ago he felt there was no ground in any of 
 the particulars so clear a.s this ; but after what Professor Smith had just 
 said he could not vote for the relevancy. 
 
 Mr. Selbie, Mr. jMasson, and Principal Buown thought that Mr. 
 Craven might withdraw his motion. 
 
 Mr. Craven said he would yield to the superior opinion of Principal 
 Brown. 
 
 Mr. Banxatyn'e said that he would agree to the withdrawal of the 
 motion only on the distinct understanding that Professor Smith had now 
 declared before them to-day his belief in angelic beings. 
 
 Mr. Selbie — Both good and bad. 
 
 Mr. Ba.watyxe — Yes, both good and bad — (laughter). 
 
 Professor Smith said he could not accept the withdrawal on that 
 ground. He did not think that justice would be done in the case unless 
 the motion was withdrawn on the grounds that the statement in the 
 articles did not bear out the allegation in the particular. 
 
 Mr. Craven — I cannot withdraw it on that account. 
 
 Principal Brown was quite willing to have it Avithdrawn on the 
 ground that they had now for the first time any evidence that Professor 
 Smith believed in the personal existence of angels. 
 
 Mr. Sloan said they had in their hands the answers that Professor 
 Smith gave to the questions submitted to him by the Presbytery. 
 
 Principal Brown — ^That monosyllable I don't give much for. 
 
 ^Ir. Sloan — Well, if we don't give much for his distinct denial 
 
 Principal Brown — I don't take it as a distinct denial. 
 
 ]\Ir. Sloan was proceeding to quote from Professor Smith's answers, 
 when ^Fr. Arthur interrupted him, contending that they should proceed 
 with the vote. j^lr. Sloan, however, insisted on being heard, and said 
 that when Professor Smith was asked to say whether the account given 
 of the development of the doctrine of angels in his article was meant to 
 leave it dubious whether he believed in the personal existence of angels, 
 Professor Smith answered, " No." 
 
 Principal Brown — I say that is not a proper answer— (" Oh, oh "). 
 
 jNIr. A. F. MoiR — It could not be much more definite than it was. I 
 don't say it was polite, but it was one of the most definite I ever heard — 
 (great laughter). 
 
 It was then agreed that the motion should not be withdrawn, and the 
 vote was taken, with the following result : — 
 
 For Mr. Cravens Motion — Dr. Longmuir, Messrs. Craven, Arthur, 
 and Bannatyne, mivisters ; and Mr. W. W. ]\Iilne, eHer — 5. 
 
 For Mr. Sloans Amendment — Dr. Spence, Messrs. Stephen, Dalgarno, 
 Moir, Yule, Johnstone, Anderson, Selkirk, Sloan, Bell, E. A. Mitchell, 
 Iverach, Gage, Semple, Innes, and ^lacqueen, viuiisfcrs : and Messrs. 
 
104 
 
 Collie, Patorson, Thorn, Moir, W. Gordon, Barnett, "W. iMilue, Cook, and 
 Fleming, elders — 25. 
 
 The result was received with loud cheers. 
 
 Mr. A. r. Mom presumed that the Presbytery should now report pro- 
 gress. And now was the time to offer Principal Brown an opportunity to 
 make a general answer on what was past. Mr. Anderson had also a 
 motion before the house, which covered a jDortion of the general major, 
 and Principal Brown had a motion which covered another part of it. If 
 Principal Brown saw tit to reply now, the Presbytery Avould be pleased. 
 He (Mr. Moir) meant to move a motion to the following effect : — 
 
 The Presbytery having found the first charge in the major relevant in it.self ; but 
 having thereafter found the eight particulars under the major, with the corresponding 
 narrative of the minor irrelevant to infer the foresaid charge, delete the first charge, 
 (page 1 of the Libel) — namely, the charge of publishing and promulgating of opinions 
 which contradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible 
 truth, and Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or any part or parts thereof, as 
 set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of laith, and to the 
 doctrines of prophecy and angels therein set forth, and also delete the passages relative 
 to the said first charge in pages 3, 4, and 5 of the Libel [as sepai-ately printed]. 
 
 Mr. Selbie thought such a motion was incompetent. The Presbytery 
 had agreed to go over the Libel seriatim. They had gone over only the 
 first charge, and why Mr. jNIoir should make such a motion now he could 
 not understand. 
 
 ]\[r. Mom said his motion simply declared that they had done what 
 they had done. 
 
 Mr. I). Mitchell thought the motion of ]Mr. Moir was an entire de- 
 parture from the resolution that had been arrived at by the Presbytery to 
 go over the Libel seriatim. If it was proceeded with he should move an 
 opposite motion. 
 
 Mr. Mom said if the feeling of the Pre.sbytery was against him, he 
 did not want to insist upon his motion. He did not see, however, that 
 it would have been any departure from the resolution of the Presbytery 
 to take up the Libel seriatim. 
 
 The Presbytery then adjourned the further consideration of the case 
 till Tuesday. 
 
 Aberdeen, l-2th March, 1S78. 
 
 The Presbytery met in the Hall of the Free Church College, on Tues- 
 day, 12th March, Professor 8almond, Moderator. 
 
 Dissent of Dr. Brown on Septimo was given in, and the finding of the 
 Commission of Assembly on the two appeals sent up read. 
 
 Principal Brown craved — 
 
 That in terms of the deliverance of the Commission, the Presbytery enter his dis- 
 sent and complaint against the motion finding that the word subvert should not be 
 retained in the proposed Libel as made to the Synod instead of the Commission in 
 the usual form. 
 
 This was unanimously agreed to. 
 
 Mr. A. F. Moir read his motion as follows : — 
 
105 
 
 The Presbytery, liaving reserved the i-iylits of the parties whose motions have not 
 yet been disposed of, and having, in considering the Ubel seriatim, fou)id the first al- 
 ternative charge of the general major relevant, but the eight particulars under the 
 general major, with the corresponding narrative in the minor, irrelevant, in respect of 
 the foresaid charge, do now find against the motion on their table in Dr. Brown's name, 
 on the grovuid that it is inconsistent with then- former procedure. 
 
 Mr. Semple seconded. 
 
 A discussion of some length ensued, turning on the form of present 
 procedure, and the precise meaning and judicial bearing of the Libel, 
 Professor Smith quoting from Hume, as the chief law authority, to prove 
 the only sense in which the Libel could be regarded as alternative, viz., 
 that possessing beforehand the materials for determining " to which 
 denomination the facts trul}^ amount," the Presbytery mu.-=^t, at the 
 present moment, according to the precedent of law, decide to what species of 
 offence the specle>i fadl amount, and to which of the three they apply. 
 
 Principal Erown expressed a wish to have his previous motion on this 
 point brought to a vote to enable him to bring a dissent before the Synod. 
 He still held that the charge was one charge, but with three diminishing 
 degrees of gravity, and the illustrative particulars stood as witnesses. 
 
 The vote was then taken with the following result : — 
 
 For Principal Broitiib- ;Uy;*io/i— Principal Erown, Dr. Longmuir, 
 Messrs. AV. L. Mitchell, Leslie, Arthur, Hendry, Bannatyne, Bell, Goodall, 
 ]\Iasson, ministers ; aud Messrs Spring, W. AV. Milne, Mitchell, Aberdein, 
 and Dr. Gordon, elders — 15. 
 
 For Mr. A. F. Moir's Amendment — Dr. Spence, Dr. Binnie, ]\ressrs 
 Dalgarno, Moir, Yide, Johnstone, Anderson, Selkirk, Sloan, G. j\lacdonald, 
 E. A. Mitchell, Low, Clark, Iverach, Gage, Semple, Inne.s, and Macqueen, 
 ■ministers ; and Messrs Collie, Paterson, Thom, Moir, AY. Gordon, Earnett, 
 Fleming, and Taylor, elders- 26. 
 
 Messrs Stephen, Selbie, and Fitzpatrick, ministers, and Mr. Bisset, 
 elder, declined to vojte. 
 
 Principal Brown dissented, and complained to the Synod, and Mr. 
 Bannatyne, Mr. I). ]\fitchell, and Dr. Gordon adhered. 
 
 THE SECOND CHARGE IN THE LIBEL- 
 TENDENCY. 
 
 Mr. Anderson then moved : — 
 
 That the second charge in the general major be found relevant. 
 
 He was, he said, as clear in regard to the relevancy of this charge as 
 he had been in doubt regarding that of the first charge. He held that 
 opinions " dangerous " to the truth might do more mischief than a direct 
 denial of Confessional doctrine ; and it Avould require very strong j^roof 
 to show that the Church had not power to deal with such opinions. The 
 form of a libel, he maintained, was the fairest to the accused, as protecting 
 him from any such sudden surprise as might come under a general motion. 
 As for the vagueness of the words "dangerous and unsettliu's" the illus- 
 
106 
 
 trative particulars removed that. It was most reasonal)le and righteous 
 that the vast domain outside the logical fences of the Confession should 
 be guarded by such a charge as this. He quoted the Form of Libel against 
 Professor Simpson, accused of Arianism (1729) to show that " tendency " 
 was made prominent in the charge then made. It ran thus : — " You, 
 John Simpson, are guilty of impugning, or disowning, or denying the fore- 
 said necessary or fundamental truths of the gospel : at least of undermin- 
 ing the same, and teaching, and venting, and maintaining things incon- 
 sistent with or tending to overturn the belief of the said blessed truths ; 
 or to shake belief thereof, or to Inject needless, ill-grounded douhts and 
 scruples into the minds of men, and to render men dark and uncertain as 
 to what theij are to believe concerninr/ the same." This latter part is little 
 else than a paraphrase of the words, " dangerous and unsettling," and 
 may be regarded as a precedent for the use of them. In our first charge, 
 then, we have the strongest accusation that coulil be brought against any 
 opinions, that of " contradicting or being opposed " to the Confession — 
 and all beneath that is covered by the second charge. In further course 
 of his argument, Mr. Anderson said — I have listened Avith the greatest 
 pleasure to the warm evangelical utterances of Professor Smith. [ cherish 
 the thought that he is at one with us as regards the great truths that 
 nourish our Christian life. But suppose a cold Eationalist in one of our 
 chairs, who disliked our evangelical doctrines, and did all in his power to 
 shake men's faith in them ; yet meanwhile kept himself safe by intro- 
 ducing certain clauses, that were mere pasteboard barriers against the flood 
 of his errors, since nobody attached any weight or meaning to them, but 
 felt they were put in for a ])urpose. jMust the Church tolerate this ] 
 When or how was it fixed that the most trifling error if it contradicted 
 the Confession might be dealt Avith ; but the most deadly if it could not 
 be proved to do so might roll on unchecked for a lifetime 1 I should like 
 to know when and how the Church of Christ got this rope twisted round 
 her 1 Sure am I that her Lord never meant this. Why, the Confession 
 might well be regarded as a curse to the Church if it protected one who 
 publicl}^ and for a lifetime sapped the foundations on which the Church 
 rested. I would be sorry indeed to see our Assembly put down the free 
 exercise of legitimate critical inquiry, or sacrifice a gifted Professor to popu- 
 lar prejudice — (applause). But this is far from likely. What "dangerous 
 and unsettling" means will be exactly defined by the keenest discussion 
 between the highest intellects in the Church. Its vagueness will disappear 
 as it is aj)plied to one opinion after another. It will be seen at a glance 
 how such opinions are " dangerous" to the inspired passages they refer to, 
 and how they are fitted to "unsettle" men's minds regarding these. Thus 
 what is vague will become definite when brought close to the different 
 points. I believe the question is just this — Must the Church of Christ, 
 when she frames a Confession of Faith, limit her judicial action solely to 
 Avhat bears in a certain manner on that Confession 1 As the Body of 
 ( 'hrist she has a certain power of what may be called self-preservation 
 against outward injuries from her own office-bearers. Must she, then, 
 when she frames subordinate Standards, and connects her offices and their 
 temporalities with these, confine the exercise of that power to this single 
 
lOTj 
 
 line 1 She is the guardian of the truth ; it is lier very life's blood ; has 
 she a right thus to fetter lier actions regarding it ? He maintained that 
 though the Church makes Confessions and finds them of great use, she 
 must be equally at liberty to deal with error when merely insinuated 
 througli " dangerous and unsettling " opinions. 
 
 Mr. Clark, Kingswells, seconded with some diffidence ; and he 
 rested his doing so largely on the opinion of Sir Henry INIoncriefi" at last 
 Assembly, that in forming a Libel it was not necessary that you " should 
 charge a man with heresy or immorality," but that "you may charge him 
 with the dangerous character of his teaching, or you may say that his 
 teaching is dangerous to the Church and injurious to the doctrine of the 
 Church." In this view he said he would be inclined to add to the motion 
 as follows : — 
 
 The Presbytery, having framed this Libel in accordance with a statement made at 
 last Assembly on the nature of libeb, finds, subject to the validity of said statement, 
 this second alternative charge in the major to be relevant in the abstract. 
 
 Mr Yule moved : — 
 
 That the Presbytery find the second general charge in the major irrelevant, because 
 "tendency" is not a matter which can properlj^ be disposed of under the Libel ; [and 
 while it is their opinion that a dangerous and unsettling tendency does exist in some of 
 Professor Smith's writings, efspecially in the parts indicated under the heads Priino 
 and Secnndo of this Form of liibel, they consider that until the Libel is disposed of it 
 is not competent for them to proceed by way of admonition with regard to this ten- 
 dency]. 
 
 ]\fr. Baxxatynk thought this motion was incompetent under the 
 form of procedure formerly resolved upon. It ought to be confined to 
 the second alternative charge. 
 
 After some conversation, Mr. Yule agreed to limit the motion to the 
 first clause, omitting the part in brackets. 
 
 Mr Yule then proceeded to speak in support of his motion. There 
 was, he said, no precedent or example in the history of the Church in 
 which any libel had been framed with such a charge in it as the one under 
 consideration, and especially it was certain that no Libel had been framed 
 in the part which, if their previous decision was to l^e regarded as the right 
 one, would virtually be the main charge. j\fr. Anderson had referred to 
 the case of Dr. Simpson, and had quoted from that case a word that was 
 somewhat like this charge of tendency — the word " undermine " — but 
 they would observe that immediately behind that word there were the 
 words " inconsistent with," and when they were discussing a logical pro- 
 position — the Libel being really a syllogism — the word undermining was 
 not to be taken as a separate thing, but must be read in the light of the 
 last of the words. Professor Smith had craved that a Libel should be 
 framed in order that the charges against him might be put definitely ; and 
 having framed a Libel fitted to try a case of unsound doctrine they had 
 fulfilled that crave. It seemed to him therefore that unless he held that 
 everything of any sort they might have against a man ought to be reduced 
 to the Form of a Libel they were not at liberty to go further. The 
 opinion of Sir Henry MoncreifiF, that had been quoted, was meant to meet 
 the case of a person who was accused of something hardly amounting to 
 unsound doctrine or blameable practice, and who refused to be dealt with 
 
108 
 
 at all unless the charges were put before him in a syllogistic manner. 
 That was not the case in the present instance, as Professor Smith had not 
 refused to be dealt with. He also objected to this charge, as he had done 
 before, because it was not clear or explicit. He did not think that the 
 brethren who had spoken on the other side had made it much clearer 
 what was really meant by the word tendency. Tendency might mean 
 one or two or three or four or fifty things — (hear, hear). It was a most 
 vague word, ranging from the slightest flutter to the most rapid rush. It 
 Avas anything that the imagination of a man who used the word might attach 
 to it — (applause). Being so vague and inexplicit, he decidedly objected to 
 it being retained as a charge in the Libel — ^(hear, hear, and a[)plause). It 
 Avas most certain that if tliey went into the magnum, mare thus opened 
 out befoi'e them they would land in confusion. To think that the eiglit par- 
 ticulars which did duty for the first charge were sufficient to support the 
 second charge, was, he thought, a very wild supposition, and hence he had 
 moved in the terms he had indicated. 
 
 Mr. Johnstone seconded, and in doing so maintained that adoption of 
 a charge of tendency must lead to endless variety of views, which would 
 stand in the way of a judicial finding of any real value. But was there 
 a cause, or was it generous to attempt such a charge after all that had 
 come and gone. Are all the frank, clear, straightforward — 1 had almost 
 said recklessly honest — statements and explanations of Professor Smith, 
 asked Mr. Johnstone, to go for nothing ] Is it nothing to the purpose 
 that respected brethren, who have been mistaking and all unconsciously 
 misrepresenting Professor Smith's views and theories, have now in their 
 hands his powerful Answer to the Libel — an answer which will be recog- 
 nised as a valuable contribution to theological literature 1 Are all those 
 wonderfully transparent speeches of his which it has been our privilege to 
 hear, combining so many high qualities of scholarship and spiritual insight 
 in dealing with God's word, with the true orthodox ring about them, to 
 have no influence in the way of loading us to give up any further attempt 
 at seeing heresy through the medium of this Form of Libel ] That Pro- 
 fessor Smith has written rashly and unadvisedly in many respects I have 
 always said. liut let me ask, in the name of all that is just and right, 
 can we deal fairly with this case if we pay no regard to his jjurpose and 
 method in writing those articles % After adverting to the obvious fact 
 that with all his gifts Professor Smith was deficient in the art of being 
 careful of appearances, and asking the Presbytery to bear always in mind 
 that he hail, in writing his articles, been called upon to deal with the 
 Bible in its literary aspect, Mr. Johnstone said their duty manifestly was 
 not to act as mere heresy hunters, but to try really to get at Professor 
 Smith's meaning. The question is not Avhether in our search through 
 Professor Smith's articles we may not come upon this and the other state- 
 ment which will appear to some of us to be of a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency, but whether we should enter upon a charge of this nature at 
 all. Is the charge of such a kind that, according to the ordmary rules of 
 judicial procedure, it can be projjcrly and wisely dealt with as a crime to 
 be punished 1 In the present case, and looking at the articles on which 
 the charge is founded, I think Dr. Rainy puts the matter correctly and 
 
109 
 
 wisely as respects ecclesiastical action. And it may be added, to Avliat 
 Dr. liainy has said, tliat God has for wise purposes left us in a measure of 
 ignorance in reference to the questions indicated by Dr. Rainy. The 
 right course then for this Church, according to the opinion of Dr. Eainy, 
 " is to refuse to treat the questions indicated as matters for discij^line." 
 What then 1 Do you mean to let Professor Smith go free so far as the 
 Libel is concerned 1 Precisely so — (laughter and applause) — and this in 
 view of every interest concerned. Siu-ely in some other and better way, 
 if, after all that has passed, it were thought needful, the Church may speak 
 to Professor Smith about tone and tendency, and he will hear the Church; 
 for has he not in his Answer said, " I am sincerely sorry if, through fault 
 of mine, my articles have given offence to belief and encouragement to 
 doubt, and I am ready to receive, not only with respect but with grati- 
 tude, any warning on this head which their superior experience in dealing 
 with various classes of men enables the brethren of the Presbytery to 
 suggest" — (applause). These words were not words, of course, to be 
 treated lightly by this Court. They evidently mean a great deal. Most 
 assuredly they are fitted and ought to help us a little to see the path of 
 present duty — (applause). 
 
 Mr. Selbie maintained that, viewed in the light of the extracts 
 given from Professor Smith's Avritings, the charge Avas well defined and 
 distinct ; and to look at it apart from the extracts was to deal with it un- 
 fairly. Though Professor Smith in his printed Answer had endeavoured 
 •with very great ability to show that the charge of tendency was not com- 
 petent, he held that he had quite failed to make out his contentions, 
 inasmuch as certain assumptions made by him wore ill-founded aiid viti- 
 ated his whole argument. For instance, it was not necessary'- to prove that 
 opinions logically inconsistent with the Confession had been held in- 
 ferring high censure, inasmuch as the laws of the Church provide for 
 minor as well as greater offences being dealt with. Mr. Selbie quoted 
 from the " Practice of the Free Church," and argued at length in support 
 of this vieAv, and then proceeded — In short, then, we do not admit, Avhile 
 looking at Professor Smith's opinions even under this charge, that they 
 are consistent with the Confession ; but what Ave hold is that they are of 
 a dangerous and unsettling tendency just because they do not appear to 
 be consistent with the doctrines of the Confession, and because he has not 
 shoAvn, and Ave believe cannot show, them to be so. Under this charge 
 Ave are not required to prove that his opinions contradict or are opposed 
 to the doctrines named. All that we have to do is to show that they do at 
 least seem to be inconsistent Avith the said doctrines, and it belongs to 
 Professor Smith to shoAv that we are wrong and that his opinions are con- 
 sistent Avith the Standards. If it can be shoAvn that the consistency of 
 the opinions Avith the Standards is certainly a matter of doubt, that is 
 amply sufficient to AA'arrant and require us to hold the charge competent 
 and relevant. In continuation, Mr. Selbie said Professor Smith appeared 
 to assume further that his opinions Avere Avell founded ; but that they did 
 not admit, nor did the College Committee appear to do so. In conclu- 
 sion, he pointed out that responsibilities as Avell as duties lie upon a Pro- 
 fessor which do not lie upon an ordinary church member. 
 
110 
 
 ^\v. A. F. ;Moir here moved that the Presbytery now adjourn till 
 Thursday. 
 
 In course of conversation, 
 
 ]Mr. IvEKACH asked if there had been any dissent and complaint under 
 Octavo. 
 
 The Moderator said there had not. 
 
 Mr. IvERAOH said, in that case the Presbyterj'^'s finding stood as a final 
 judgment, and this finding had been to the effect tliat Professor Smith's 
 views on " angels" were in consonance with the views of the Confession 
 of Faith, and now if they went on in the lines suggested by Mr. Ander- 
 son's motion, they would be putting themselves in the extraordinary po- 
 sition of finding under the second head that things which they had de- 
 clared were in entire consonance with the Confession of Faith were un- 
 settling and dangerous in their tendency — (laughter). 
 
 Principal Browx hoped they were not going to have a discussion on 
 this point. It was manifest there was a difference between the two, 
 though he could not now go into that. 
 
 Mr. TvERACii — I am merely remarking that we have found Professor 
 Smith's views on angels to be in consonance with the Confession of Faith, 
 and that now we are to proceed to say his views on that subject are 
 dangerous and unsettling in their tendency — (laughter and applause). 
 
 Mr. Banxatyne said the (question as it came before the Presbytery 
 was to declare that Ocfavo was not relevant under the first charge of the 
 major. It said nothing whatiiver about its bearing on the second charge 
 of the major. 
 
 ^Ir. Sloan — If the motion is read, it ought to satisfy the i)arties on 
 the other side. 
 
 Dr. Spexce read the motion by ^Nlr. Sloan, carried at last meeting, as 
 follows : — 
 
 That the Preabytery find the particular Octavo irrelevaat under the first of the 
 major, inasmuch as the words in that particular, and of the corresponding extracts in 
 the minor, when properly understood, are in entire consonance with Scripture and the 
 Confession of Faith. 
 
 The reading of the motion was received with loud applause. 
 
 Some further conversation ensued, which, however, led to nothing, 
 and it was closed by a remark of the Moderator that the position certainly 
 was awkward. 
 
 The ^Moderator pronounced the benediction, and the Presbytery 
 separated at .5 p.m. 
 
 Aberdeen, litk JJairh, 1878. 
 
 The Presbytery met in the Hall of the Free Church College, on Thurs- 
 day 14th March, at ten o'clock — Professor Salmond, moderator — and 
 resumed. 
 
 In the course of the day the Court was crowded by the public, the 
 attendance including a large number of the ministers of other denomina- 
 tions. 
 
Ill 
 
 ]\rr. A. F. Mom sujjported Mr. Yule's motion. In reference to a 
 charge of " tendency," he argued that the law recognised no such cliarge 
 even in very obvious cases, without having first made special legislative 
 provision. Stone throwing, for example, was a common practice in 
 Aberdeen, and the dangerous tendency of the practice could not be 
 doubted ; yet it could not be made a statutable offence till a municipal 
 Act was got making it so. At first he thought that Professor Smith's 
 writings wei'c something terrible, but the more he studied them the better 
 he luiderstood them, and saw that there was reall}^ very little in Professor 
 Smith different from his brethren — (applause). It is the constitaitional 
 right of every minister to have any offence charged agivinst him stated so 
 distinctly as that there can be no mistake about it. Pardovan says that 
 nothing is to be admitted by any Church judicature as the ground of a 
 process for censure, but what hath been declared censurable by the Word 
 of God or some Act or universal custom of this Church agreeable thereto. 
 But this charge is so indefinite that it cannot be referred to any Act or 
 universal custom of this Church, and I challenge those on the opposite 
 side to bring forward any instance of such a charge being held relevant. 
 Eeference has been made to the case of Professor Simpson of Glasgow, 
 but that case was founded on a special Act of the Assembly inhibiting 
 him from teaching certain doctrines, which he denied had certain tenden- 
 cies. Tn further illustrating his view, 'Mv. Moir contended that in puttuig 
 the charge in this loose constructive form they were really making Pro- 
 fessor Smith responsible for other men's acts and opinions. And, passing 
 from formal Church law as they usually understood it, he referred to the 
 charge of heresy which the Apostle Paul was called to answer, when, 
 although he was styled a " pest" and a " ringleader," a heathen judge even 
 <leclined to send him to Caisar's bar unless his accusers could bring a de- 
 finite charge against him. 
 
 jMr. jMasson argued that their friends should not lay so much stress 
 upon the word "tendency," but look at it in tlie light of the opinions quoted. 
 
 Professor Binnie said he, as a new comer in the Free Church, and 
 a colleague of Professor Smith's, had tried to persuade himself that he 
 might take no part in the case ; but felt himself unable to decline to vote 
 with ]\rr. Anderson's motion — (applause). He did not think such a 
 charge as that before them indefensible in a Libel. Tliough there 
 were ambiguities in tlie Form of Process, he thought it did imply 
 that it was competent in the Presbytery in such a case to proceed by Libel 
 upon such a charge as that in the alternative. It Avas very true that it 
 might be hard to find any i)recedent. But then there were various things 
 to be taken into account. How many precedents had they altogether of 
 a charge of heresy in the history of the Church from 1560 downwards] 
 There was a great deal of talk going on just now, as if the Presbyterian 
 Churches were hunting grounds for heresy. This was altogether un- 
 founded. But he supposed there was no man present that had ever had 
 anything to do Avith a charge of heresy before this case, and he thought it 
 was not fair to institute comparisons between their blundering proceedings 
 and the procedure in Civil Courts. He would like to see a Sheriff Court, 
 constituted of men from the Sheriff downwards, who never saw a case 
 
112 
 
 tried, and what a series of mistakes they would make. He did not think 
 they could make very much of precedents in this case. Without going 
 closely into tlie legal ground he would take two cases, neither of which 
 represented Professor Smith's. Let them take the theory that the earlier 
 Tsraelitish history was tainted with fable, and that they did not get upon 
 solid historical ground till they advanced to the book of Judges. Well 
 now, he was not prepared to adduce any passage out of the Confession of 
 Faith that formally contradicted that. But suppose any person held that 
 view, was there to be no strict judicial dealing in the easel— (hear, hear). 
 To take another case : that of the views of Eiehm on the book of Deutero- 
 nomy. He held that it was post-lMosaic. Then along with that he held, 
 which Professor Smith did not hold but strongly repudiated, that it w\as a 
 fraudulent production — that the man who wrote Deuteronomy wrote it 
 with a fraudulent intent. Suppose that view were to arise amongst them : 
 was there any formal contradiction of the Confession there 1 
 
 Professor Smith — Certainly. 
 
 Professor Bixnie said he would like to hear it proved. He certainly 
 believed that it subverted the whole doctrine of the Confession — (hear, 
 hear). It was an advantage to all parties that they should put such a 
 question in the way of strict judicial dealing, that the person' should see 
 distinctly what was being found fault with. Of course, he knew the 
 answer that was given by some of the brethren who differed from him. 
 They said the proper way to deal with tlie case was to enlarge the Church's 
 Confession so that the Church might give forth a distinct voice with re- 
 gard to these matters. But in the history of the Church that had not 
 been the way in which the creeds had been enlarged. The addition of 
 articles had taken j^lace at the end of the controversy and not at the be- 
 ginning. Professor Binnie concluded by saying that he had dealt only 
 Avith the relevancy. What he held was, that when the Church found it- 
 self in presence of things that it perceived to be in theinselves dangerous 
 and unsettling, it was a quite right thing to say so ; and that was the 
 way this subject must be approached. 
 
 ]\rr. Stefhex could not agree with either of the motions that had been 
 submitted, and he went on to state his reasons at some length. 
 
 Mr. K. A. Mitchell — It seems to me that it would be very easy for 
 the Church to deal with such theories as Dr. Binnie has referred to. It 
 would be very easy to show that the theories are inconsistent with the 
 teaching of the Confession of Faith regarding the inspiration of Scripture. 
 If any one in this Church were to promulgate the opinion of Eiehm that 
 Deuteronomy involves a fraud, he Avould be condemned at once on the 
 ground that such is inconsistent with the inspiration of that book. I 
 think Dr. Binnie was quite right in saying that the Church ought not to 
 legislate with regard to such a case as this, until the controversy on the 
 su])ject has lieen brought to a close. But if it is not right for the Church 
 to legislate until that point has been reached, we have much more reason 
 to say that it is not alloAvable for the Church to pronounce a judicial cen- 
 sure until that point has been reached. To pronounce a judicial censure 
 Avould in fact be virtually legislating on the subject in an informal man- 
 ner. Surely a subject can be thoroughly controverted in the Church, and 
 
113 
 
 the Church thereby ripened for legislation, without a judicial process 
 being instituted against any individual in connection with it. After 
 showing that the only truly constitutional and judicial course was to con- 
 fine the Libel to what was held to contradict the Confession, Mr. Mitchell 
 pointed out that if no charge of that sort could be made good, the clear 
 course for the Presbytery was to deal with Professor Smith in another 
 and less judicial way in reference to any supposed tendency of his opinions 
 — the way in short of frank brotherly conference. To condemn formally 
 as " dangerous and unsettling " what they had found after careful exami- 
 nation not to be inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church, was in his 
 judgment a perfectly monstrous thing, and a thing that overturned and 
 stultified their previous decisions. 
 
 Mr. Arthur said it appeared to him that the opposition made to the 
 relevancy of this second charge was unreasonable, not to say frivolous. He 
 went on at some length to argue that the opinions of Professor Smith 
 were dangerous and unsettling. 
 
 jVIr. Selkirk, Free East Church, said he had not taken an active part 
 hitherto, and spoke now simply because he feared that by finding this 
 charge relevant they would do Professor Smith a great injustice ; they 
 would do a great harm to the truth of Christ, and a great injury to the 
 cause of Christ throughout the land ; and he would go further, and say 
 that if they found this charge relevant they would injure the cause of 
 Christ throughout the world — (applause). He had been privileged for 
 five years to be associated with Professor Smith, and had had oppor- 
 tunities of meeting with him in those moments of life when men were apt 
 to unbosom and unbend themselves, and when he had looked into that 
 life, anything purer, nobler, and more godly, it had never been his fortune 
 to meet with before — (applause). He had had intercourse wdth him as a 
 minister of the Church of Christ, and on every occasion on which he 
 heard him open his lips in doing duty in the Church, he had blessed God 
 that they had a minister who could give such fresh, clear, soul-enlivening 
 and soul-exalting views of divine truth as he did — (applause). He had 
 also read all Professor Smith's writings, and he had never found anything 
 in them either dangerous or unsettling. If they introduced the mode of 
 dealing with unsettling matter proposed they would be introducing that 
 which would be dangerous and unsettling to the best interests of the 
 Church of Christ. And how were thej^ to determine this whole matter 1 
 Mr. Selkirk asked them to look at the character of some of those who 
 would be judges, instancing a probationer he had met in Eoss-shire, and 
 who, on being asked his opinion, at once said, " Professor Smith is a child 
 of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness " — (loud laughter). The 
 man who gave that answer a few months ago, was now a minister of the 
 Free Church of Scotland. Mr. Selkirk then asked the probationer if he 
 had read Professor Smith's writings. He answered "No, I have seen 
 them at manses," which he took to mean that he had never read them. 
 " Did he know Professor Smith personally?" " No, he would not know him 
 if he met him on the street." Mr. Selkirk then said, " Do you not think 
 it is rather a harsh judgment to say Avhat you have said about writings 
 which you never read, and about a man whom you have never seen in the 
 
lU 
 
 flesh." The answer he got was, " I'rofessor Smith is a mass of un- 
 sanctified learning " — (great laughter). He asked them to think of the 
 idea of the vote of such a man as that settling the whole matter perhaps. 
 
 Mr. Baxnatyne, in reference to some remarks made, defended the 
 mode in which the Libel had been drawn, and reminded the Court that 
 Professor Smith had left some of the Presbytery's questions unanswered, 
 so that they could only proceed as they did, and they had gone very 
 much upon the basis of the College Committee's report. He maintained 
 that the abstract charge was competently made, and they would find out 
 whether the particulars supported it. 
 
 Mr. IvERACH said the Presbytery would observe the exquisite vague- 
 ness of the charge in the Libel as compared with the wording of the 
 CoUege Committee's report. It is not said that Professor Smith's opinions 
 endanger and unsettle the doctrines mentioned. It is not even said that 
 they tend to endanger and unsettle these doctrines. That would seem to 
 be too definite also. ISTo. They are of a dangerous and unsettling ten- 
 dency in their bearing on various doctrines. You have vagueness enough, 
 as Mr. Yule has shown, in the word " tendency ; " but the Libel brings 
 an additional shade of darkness into it by saying it is a tendency with a 
 bearing, and the Presbytery is called on to look at the deportment of the 
 tendency — a vaguer thing still — (laughter). Tendency is vague enough, 
 but a tendency with a bearing — I may frankly say that, although I be- 
 lieve I do understand English, tendency Avith a bearing, or what the de- 
 portment of a tendency can be — -(laughter) — is a charge so vague, so 
 mysterious, and so elastic that it should never have a place in any legal 
 document whatsoever — (hear, hear). The supporters of the motion should 
 consider the consequences of the procedure now initiated. They are de- 
 parting from the recognised usage of the Church, departing from the forms 
 of process, taking a step never before taken in our land in our Church 
 Courts, initiating a course which will tend to make Libels as plentiful as 
 blackberries and as valueless — (laughter and applause). If this be a com- 
 petent and relevant charge, not one of us is safe for a single hour. I 
 happen, I suppose, to hold unpopular opinions. I am sure that Mr. Ban- 
 natyne holds unpopular opinions — (laughter and applause). 
 
 Mr. Banxatyxe — And he is determined to hold all the opinions he 
 finds in Scripture, be they popular or unpopular — (hear, hear). 
 
 ]\Ir. IvERACH — Each one has some crotchet. 
 
 Mr. Banxatyxe — I don't admit a crotchet, though^(laughter). 
 
 Mr. IvERACH — Do you not see what a dangerous weapon you are 
 forging, and how useful it may be in the hands of a majority who wish to 
 put to silence an unpopular brother? Heretofore a trial by Libel has 
 been the last resource of the Church — a means to which she applied her- 
 self when all other means has fiiiled. If you hold this relevant, you will 
 make it a much more easy thing for the Church to have recourse to a 
 Libel, ^o doubt we shall have the high authority of Sir Henry Mon- 
 creiff quoted against us, but although his is a great authority, he is not 
 infallible, and it seems to me that his utterance at last Assembly Avas a 
 most dangerous and unsettling one — (hear, hear, ;ind laughter) — because 
 his opinion tends to bring down a Libel from the high position it once 
 
115 
 
 occupied to a very common level indeed. If he be correct, a Libel is not 
 the fearful and terrific thing the Church has always held it to be, but a 
 tiling regarding which you can pass no sentence save a gentle admonition 
 — (hear, hear). Such a course will make a trial by Libel supremely un- 
 just and ridiculous. Mr. Iverach went on to say that Sir Henry's book 
 was inconsistent with his oral utterance, and to show that the course pre- 
 ferred was equally against the law and practice in ecclesiastical courts. 
 
 Mr. Sloan stated certain difficulties he felt, such as — where a man who 
 presented opinions that did not involve any very grave censure refused con- 
 ference, wdiat was the Church then to do 1 To Libel him or allow such 
 opinions to go on 1 While protecting the rights of the individual they 
 were bound to look to the rights of the Church. It was said that the 
 Church could have a brotherly conference with the party or parties. Well, 
 if a conference were frankly gone into, then he would say let nothing else 
 be done. Had that been done in this case it would have saved him 
 occupying the position he now did. He thought it would be extremely 
 prejudicial if the Presbytery did not come to an affirmative finding in re- 
 gard to this particular charge in the abstract. They had had extreme grati- 
 fication in regard to the earlier part of this discussion ; and he did expect 
 that if they came to particulars under this head they would get such ex- 
 planations as might lead them to vote every one of the particulars, Avith 
 the averments and extracts, nut to substantiate the charge. For the reasons 
 he had given he felt himself constrained to support Mr. Anderson's motion 
 — (applause). 
 
 Principal Browx wished to say a few words with regard, first, to the 
 question of competency and then of relevancy. With regard to the com- 
 petency, he recollected very well that at the very outset certain members 
 of Presbytery claimed the right at a later stage to question the competency 
 of the second charge altogether. He also recollected that no minnte was 
 taken of that claim, and he himself, at the moment when the statement 
 was made, had made up his mind that if it was not argued at that time he 
 should dispute arguing the question of competency at this late stage. He 
 now held, therefore, that it was incompetent to take up the question of 
 competency after the Presbytery had accepted the Libel. 
 
 Professor Smith — Would Dr. Brown state whether I have lost my 
 right to object to its competency 1 
 
 Principal Browx said he did not know. He supposed Professor 
 Smith could appeal against it. He did not see any reason why Professor 
 Smith should not appeal. In that case all his rights were reserved. And 
 now with respect to the relevancy. Principal Brown proceeded to quote 
 the case of Professor Simpson, of GlasgoAv, and argued that that case was 
 sufficient to establish, that from the beginning this Church had recognised 
 the charge of tendency to be a legitimate charge to be put into a Libel. 
 Eeferring to the report of the College Committee, the Principal said he 
 held that the College Committee took up Professor Smith's case with ex- 
 •clusive reference to the tendency of his writings to affect inspiration. He 
 ■quoted largely from the Committee's report in support of his contention, 
 and said it was all very well to say that to the common people lectures, 
 such as Mr Laidlaw had delivered on the Canon, or that any truth, might 
 
116 
 
 unsettle people who did not understand it. But the College Committee 
 were not speaking of such cases. They Avere speaking of the effects of 
 the articles on the public mind, and not on the mind of the uninstructed. 
 And, more than that, the members of that College Committee did feel and 
 express that they could not read those articles without feeUng that they 
 had a most dangerous and unsettling tendency in their own minds — 
 (applause). The Committee had expressed only what this second charge 
 expresses, namely — that the writuigs were of a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency in respect of their bearing upon the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 He believed from the bottom of his heart that that had been established ; 
 and he would only say farther that if they were to interpret the doctrine 
 of inspiration held in these articles by the Answer to the Libel — if they 
 were to consider the Answer to the Libel as the true key to the view of 
 inspiration maintained in those articles — then he thought the dangerous 
 and unsettling character of those articles would appear to every one who 
 was not prepared to fidmit the doctrine of inspiration formulated in that 
 Answer, and he would tremble to be found standing on that ground. 
 
 Professor Smith, who was received with loud applause, said — I think, 
 Moderator, it will be convenient that I should begin by making one or 
 two remarks on Dr. Brown's speech, because wdiile the other speeches run 
 into one another very much, and can so far be treated together. Dr. 
 Brown laid before us very clearly three distinct points which may be 
 taken up more satisfactorilj' while fresh in people's minds. The first 
 point that Dr. Brown raised was that he maintained that the time had 
 gone by for raising the question of the competency of any part of the 
 Libel. Xow, Avith regard to that, I may refer to the minute of Presby- 
 tery of October 31, 1877, at which the Libel was accepted indraft, and in 
 that minute it is expressly stated that, under the Act 5 of 1853, "The 
 Presbytery decline to commit themselves as to the competency and 
 relevancy of any one of those counts or propositions until Professor Smith 
 shall have the opportunity Avhich that Act provides for stating his 
 objections at the meeting therein required to be held. This motion Avas 
 unanimously agreed to" — (applause). It is a very remarkable thing that 
 persons taking a prominent charge in this case should, in the face of that 
 minute, unanimously agreed to, rise up and say that the Presbytery's 
 opportunity of discussing the competency of the matter is gone — (hear, 
 hear, and applause). I leave it to the House to consider how very grave 
 a responsibility rests upon those who make a statement so distiiictly in 
 the teeth of the Presbytery's own minute — (applause). I will also point 
 out that, although the Presbytery had minuted nothing as to relevancy of 
 the Libel, according to our rules of procedure Ave can discuss Avhether the 
 major be true or not — that is, Avhether the offence or offences referred to 
 be truly or not a subject of Church censure, inferring the indicated penalty. 
 Well, that is the point on Avhich we are arguing to-day, and I again 
 repeat that it indicates an extraordinary recklessness, and shall I say, an 
 overhaste on the part of those Avho sit on the other side, that such an 
 argument as has been mentioned by Dr. Brown Avas breatlied for a single 
 moment — (applause). Now, the next point that Dr. Brown raised Avas 
 the case of the Simpson Libel. Of course, one expected that that would 
 
117 
 
 be alluded to, and upon this point I have something to say. Observe 
 there were two Simpson cases, and the case here referred to is the second 
 process against Simpson ; and that second case was based partly upon the 
 Confession of Faith, also upon the special Act of Assembly passed against 
 Simpson himself in 1717. In'the copy of the Libel in that case, which I 
 liave here, the Libel is followed by passages from the Confession of Faith 
 and Catechism, and also from the Act of Assembly on which the Libel — 
 this particular Libel — is founded. Professor Smith quoted from this 
 Libel to show the accuracy of this statement, and proceeded — Observe the 
 meaning of the Libel in my case is that the promulgating opinions of a 
 dangerous and unsettling tendency in their bearing upon orthodox 
 opinions is an offence. It is put in the major of the Libel as being a 
 sufficiently definite and recognised offence in itself to be put in an 
 abstract form, as something for which a person is to be judged ; 
 but in the case of Simpson all the expressions about " tend " 
 appear in the minor. That of itself wonld be sufficient to indicate 
 that the plan of the Simpson accusation was something different 
 from ours. What it indicates is this. The Libel sets forth in its major, 
 first, the doctrine of the Confession ; and, secondly, the Act of Assembly 
 forbidding Simpson to use expressions used by the adversaries of the faith 
 in an unsound sense, even although he himself might use these expres- 
 sions in a sound sense ; and all that is said about tendency is simply a 
 link between the general accusation of heresy aad the lower accusation of 
 contravening a special Act of Assembly ; and why tendency is put in the 
 minor is that it is put there as an evidence that he does hold certain doc- 
 trines. It was 'a case raised on the ground that an uiisound person was 
 in a covert manner attacking truths he did not believe, but his disbelief 
 in which he did not openly profess. The position was that Simpson was 
 playing false with the Church, and therefore the Church in the first pro- 
 cess forbade him to use certain expressions, saying " You shall not use 
 them at all, because your scholars may take them up in an unsound 
 sense ; " and then, when the case was brought up again, they fell back 
 upon that as an evidence that he had been trying in a hidden manner to 
 subvert the doctrine of the Church, and that he had been attacking the 
 Act of Assembly in short. That comes out still more clearly when Simpson 
 declared his adhesion to the Confessional doctrine, and contended that he 
 had never held or deliberately taught the gross errors of which he had 
 been accused, but the Assembly yet found him censurable for his uttering 
 such things and using such expressions as were proved against him. 
 The first question was one of his loyally accepting and teaching the Con- 
 fessional doctrine, and the second was a question of his submission to a 
 special Act of Assembly ; and in the second head the question of tendency 
 came in ; but not as a charge ; only as evidence. As has been brought out 
 by Mr. Moir, it would be perfectly competent to put in tendency as 
 evidence, and that was what Avas done in the great constitutional case 
 which is the precedent for looking at this constructive case. In a con- 
 structive case you must prove intention. You want to know what a man 
 was meaning to do. You may have a man who sits in a chair, who, 
 whenever there is anyone to overhear him, says nothing contrary to the 
 
118 
 
 Confession of Faith, but who, when alone with his class, drops an occa- 
 sional expression which tends to snbvert the Confession. But how does 
 it tend to subvert ■? By tending to let his students understand that he 
 does not hold the doctrines which he verbally affirms his assent to. That 
 is entirely a different case from this, and if that case had been raised, ten- 
 dency would have been perfectly fair, not in the major, but in the minor, 
 as part of the evidence against me, that I do not believe the Church's 
 doctrine of inspiration ; to show that I had used expressions, the tendency 
 of which was to undermine that doctrine ; that I had used expressions 
 that no man in his sober senses would have used, unless his desire had 
 been to shake people's faith in the doctrine so impugned b}^ him. The 
 allegation of tendency, viewed in the light of the Simpson case, has no re- 
 ference to the case now before the Court, for in that case tendency was 
 not put in the major as a crime, biit only in the minor as evidence — - 
 (applause). The third point in Dr. Brown's argument is the relation of 
 the present process to the statement of the College Committee, and the 
 question is whether the College Committee indicated in their report as de- 
 sirable, or at least pointed out as possible, such a charge of dangerous and 
 unsettling tendency as is now formulated. The question is not whether 
 they thought that in certain ways my views might be dangerous as tending 
 to shake people's belief in the doctrine of inspiration, but Mdiethcr this 
 was a case to be taken up in a Libel — (hear, hear, and applause) — and 
 the opinion they came to was that there was no middle course between the 
 prosecution for heresy and immorality or proceedings by the Presbyterj' 
 with a view to advice and admonition. On this very point Dr. Smeatou 
 had dissented, and in the answer to Dr. Smeaton's dissent the Court held 
 that it would have been competent for Dr. Smeaton to have moved for a 
 process for error tending to heresy, and that if he had raised such a case 
 it would have been within the function of the College Committee to have- 
 heard it. The College Committee did not of course take it upon them- 
 selves to express anything more than an opinion, and it is an opinion in 
 which they may be entirely wrong, and certainly that was the opinion of 
 several speakers who supported my suspension in the Assembly, and un- 
 less it had been the opinion of some part of the Church, it is not likely 
 that the members of the College Committee would have consented to my 
 suspension. They did not see their way to raising any Libel against me, 
 and thereupon the functions of the Committee ceased. But their functions 
 would not have ceased if they had seen their way to bring a Libel — (hear, 
 hear). The College Committee evidently assumed that they were entitled 
 to initiate all that can be managed by means of Libel. But neither thej-, 
 nor the Act of 1861, under which they are ajjpointed, ever dreamt that 
 anything but a process for heresy or immorality Avould ever give rise to a 
 Libel, or could call upon the Church to appoint a public prosecutor. The 
 powers of the Committee are such as to show that at the time these powers 
 were given, neither the Committee nor the Church dreamt that there could 
 be any such thing as a Libel, except for heresy and immorality. Just as 
 the Established Church, which has the same rules, I believe, as ourselves 
 on this matter, has not up to this moment ever dreamt that such a thing, 
 would ever be possible. The College Committee; of course, might err, 
 
119 
 
 and, on tlic other hand, the part which tliey had gone into might, when 
 more fully ex]")iscated, be found to be more grave than they had thought 
 it. That is, of course, possible, but there is no word in their report to 
 give anyone the right to suppose that they considered that my opinions 
 were dangerous and unsettling in their tendency in themselves, and in their 
 bearing on inspiration in the way that has been argued by some members 
 of this Court. Mr. Selbie and several others have given a definition of 
 tendency in itself, which practicallj'- amounts to constructive heresy, with 
 which the College Committee were not prepared to libel me. The College 
 Committee did certainly say that there was a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency in my opinions as applied to other people — that my opinions 
 might raise difficulties and unsettle the opinions of others, and that is all 
 the sense they put upon tendency. It was not said that there is an ap- 
 parent contradiction between my views and the views of other people 
 stated abstractly, but simply that certain thoughtful men would feel sub- 
 jectively that these opinions were wrong and inadmissible. To say that 
 an opinion will not generally command assent, and to say that it raises 
 trouble in the minds of people who do not assent to it, is a very different 
 thing from saying that the opinion in itself abstractly is dangerous of ten- 
 dency, in such a sense that it is practically and illogically inconsistent — - 
 (applause). So much, then, for the College Committee, and I think the 
 whole history that has been given by various persons here shows distinctly 
 that until now we have never contemplated dangerous and unsettling ten- 
 dency as a crime. It is not in the Simpson case, nor in any other heresy 
 case that I have seen. It is not mentioned in the College Committee's 
 report. It was a happy thought that struck Sir Henry Moncreiff when 
 speaking in the Assembly, and for myself I think I can see how a different 
 sense. may be put upon his statement. We shall again have a chance of 
 hearing him on the subject in the Assembly, and if he repeats this opinion 
 ■\ve shall hear it discussed, and if his ideas are approved of our forms will be 
 altered accordingly ; but in the meantime we have no other authority than 
 Sir Henry Moncreiff. I therefore appeal on this point to Mr. Clark, that 
 he is bound, if not to vote for me, to withdraw from the discussion, be- 
 cause he says he knows nothing about it except what he takes from Sir 
 Henry Moncreiff — (laughter and applause). He said he would yield to 
 Sir Henry Moncreiff, but you don't yield to an unauthoritative opinion in 
 order to make a new crime. The thing is unheard of — (applause). Let 
 us now come to the thing as it stands. The arguments before this Court 
 have all proceeded from one position, which I heartily assent to. It is 
 the position put forward by Mr. Anderson. I thoroughly agree with it, 
 but I do not see any bearing that it has on the question before us. The posi- 
 tion is that the Church is not subject to the Confession of Faith, but the 
 Confession to the Church. Mr. Anderson says very properly that it is 
 absurd to suppose that the Church is so bound by previous creeds and 
 standards that she has composed that she shall not be able to meet a new 
 emergency. That I admit as freely and fully and frankly as Mr. Ander- 
 son. The point was also raised by Dr. Binnie, who said that things might 
 come \\p of so serious a character that the Church could not possibly tole- 
 rate them though they were within the limits of her present position ; 
 
120 
 
 and I for one clieerfully admit it, and I would be very sorry to be in the 
 position of one of those churches Avhich, from the restrictions that are 
 placed over them by an outside power, are unable to have any control 
 over their Confession-^(applause). There are several most important 
 questions that have to be decided between that and the finding of this 
 charge relevant. In the first place it has to be inquired whether a judicial 
 process is the proper way of meeting a new danger, and then even although 
 that were granted, it would still have to be inquired whether the words 
 in this Libel described any ecclesiastical offence in such a form that it 
 would be possible to bring it to trial ; and thirdly, it would have to be 
 inquired whether in dealing with such a new offence the Presbytery is a 
 competent court. Firstly, then, I ask — Has the Church no other way of 
 dealing with this matter except by Libel 1 I understand Mr. Anderson 
 to argue that legislation would not properly meet the case in question, be- 
 cause, as he stated to me afterwards, we have here a complicated body of 
 detail which no legislative decision could cover. Xot only does he say in 
 effect that you should proceed to inflict the censures of the Church upon 
 a man for that which he could not know to be an offence against the 
 Church law by its previously being on the statute book, but you should 
 proceed to inflict the censures of the Church on a man for publishing and 
 promulgating opinions which the Church could not have contlemned 
 by legislative process— (applause). Is it proposed to condemn a 
 man not only for that which is not forbidden by her constitution, 
 but that which coulrl not possibly be forbidden in her constitution? — 
 (applause). Surely that is an extraordinary doctrine — (hear, hear). That 
 surely is a doctrine that cuts at the root not merely of individual liberty, 
 but it is a doctrine which reduces Church processes to chaos so absolute that 
 this Presbytery can never in the lifetime of its present members expect 
 to emerge from the gulf into which it is now to b(i precipitated — (applause). 
 Dr. Binnie repeated that legislation ought not to come in the beginning 
 of a controversy, but if legislation is not the way to begin controversy 
 neither surely is judicial condemnation — (hear, hear, and applause). The 
 thing is as clear as can be. If the Church is satisfled that I have deflected 
 from her Standards in such a way that she can prove my deflection then 
 the first step would be to say, " There may be other things on which to 
 raise a hirger question, but here is an office-bearer who is outside his con- 
 tract with us. He is outside the proposition on which our whole subse- 
 quent argument will be built when we go into this large controversy which 
 has been raised, and which we must go into with tlie aid of our previous 
 Standards and Confessions. Here is one person who turns against our 
 Standards, and unless he can show us need for revising them we will begin 
 by thrusting him aside, but after that we will go on and expiscate the 
 matter as fully as we are alfle to do." But how are we to do this 1 Surely 
 so as to give every member the right of speaking from an advantageous 
 position for asserting his opinion in the matter. Then at the end of a 
 long controversy it is possible that some difficulties may be removed, that 
 tendencies may have emerged into actualities. It is possible that the 
 thing may have been seen in a clearer light, that we may have seen what 
 the tendency actually is; and then we shall have the process of Libel over 
 
121 
 
 again ; but if we have it, it will not be for being of unsound tendency, 
 but because the controversy has ripened what was hidden into open and 
 clear heresy — -(hear, hear). I do not think it woukl be difficult to show 
 that the hypotlietical heresies suggested by Dr. Binnie are inconsistent 
 with the Confession, and on a trial of course they would be censured as 
 such. Eut if not, I would like the Church to discuss them until she saw 
 they were contrary to the Confession of Faith, or in some way subversive 
 of belief. And if I found them subversive of belief, and found it was 
 necessary to introduce a protest against new error, I would do so by a 
 legislative process. Dr. Binnie has appealed to the history of the Church, 
 and it is doubtless true that in the history of the Church new creeds have 
 been the end of controversy, but I have yet to learn that the way in 
 Avhich new creeds have been formulated has been by way of a heresy 
 prosecution. Surely the creeds Ave know have been the residts of councils 
 and discussions. It was so even in the case of the Synod of Dort. I ask Dr. 
 Binnie to throw aside this analogy. There is no member of Presliytery I 
 should more desire to see on my side in this case. The cause I am standing 
 up for here is far more important than anything that may happen to myself, 
 for I am pleading the cause of a constitutional question which in all pro- 
 bability will settle whether the Free Church of Scotland is to exist or not 
 — (hear, hear, and loud applause). I say this question will decide 
 whether our Church shall exist, for let me tell the Presbytery that what 
 Mr. Selkirk has already said about elders and deacons, I can say not only 
 with regard to them, but with regard to students and younger ministers. 
 I say anyone who can read the signs of the times will see that, not from 
 any unfaithfulness to the doctrine of the Church, but from that rising and 
 increased conscientiousness of feeling and solemn responsibility which 
 permeates the office-bearers of our Chm'ch in a way hardly ever ex- 
 perienced before, you will not get men to enter into the service of the 
 Church unless they know before what it is that the Church expects them 
 to believe and to teach. 'No, Moderator,- I appeal to those Avho have 
 thought that for the sake of expiscating the truth in this case it is desirable 
 to introduce so dangerous a precedent. I appeal to them to ponder what 
 they are doing. I ask Dr. Binnie, Mr. Sloan, and Mr. Clark, I ask all 
 Avho have stood in a hesitating position, whether they have weighed the 
 fact that we are no longer dealing with one case, but dealing with' the 
 whole constitution of the Church, and with the whole possibility of find- 
 ing office-bearers for it in the future — (loud applause). N'ow I adiiiit this 
 large view of the case is not the one urged by the speakers on the other 
 side, and I confess I was surprised at the puny basis on which they were 
 content to rest their argument. Once and again appeals have been made 
 to the letters written by me, and as to whether I liad or had not refused 
 to go into conference with brethren of the Presbytery ; and the argument 
 seems to be that such a charge as now stands on this Libel would have 
 been incompetent and unconstitutional unless for certain circumstances 
 that have already taken place in the history of the case. That was Mr. 
 Sloan's argument, and I would give every force to it, because it is evident 
 that those who put the argument in that way did it to avoid raising so 
 large a question as otherwise woidd have been the case. The argument 
 
122 
 
 seems to he this, that last sjiring the Preshytery entered into conference 
 with me, and they did so because the Commission directed them to pro- 
 ceed against me according to the rules of the Church. After that, I did 
 refuse to ans\A''er certain questions, because it seemed to me that these ques- 
 tions were not according to the laws of the Church, and that I was beyond 
 the fair region of questioning. When the matter was before the Assembly, 
 and when I found that it was proposed to suspend me — a course which, 
 I venture to think, not with myself alone, but with a large minority in 
 the last Assembly, was an unconstitutional course — I at once made up my 
 mind to ask the Presbytery to frame a Libel against me. I did that in the 
 interests of the Church, and when I told Dr. Wilson himself the course 
 I proposed he was at first inclined to withdraw his motion of suspension. 
 He did not do so, because I believe that motion Avas really drawn out by 
 Dr. Begg and Dr. Kennedy, and put into his hands by them, and they 
 were not disposed to let him go back. 
 
 Principal Brown — ISTo, no. 
 
 Professor Smith — That is the fact as I understand. 
 
 Principal Brown — I hope that is not to be insisted on. 
 
 Professor Smith — -I have the highest respect for Dr. Wilson, and there 
 are fcAV men in the Free Church I respect more. I do not mean to blame 
 hira, but I mean to say when a man makes a motion for several other 
 people he is liable to such influences. 
 
 Principal Brown — I know the fact. It is not true. 
 
 Professor Smith — Sir Henry MoncreifF admitted it to me at last 
 Assembly. 
 
 Principal Brown — Sir Henry Moncreiff may admit what he likes, but 
 I am in the knowledge of the fact that it is untrue. 
 
 Professor Smith — It is a niatter of no consequence. I alluded to it 
 for the purpose of showing that in making a proposal of this kind to the 
 Assembly I had acted in conference Avith those Avho AA'ere not likely to re- 
 commend anything rash, and Dr. Wilson said that he thought I was right, 
 and his first impression was that it Avould relieve him of the necessity of 
 putting his motion. The reason I have given for Dr. Wilson persevering 
 in his motion may be wrong, but I am sure that Avhatever the reason is it 
 is npt discreditable to Dr. Wilson ; and the gentlemen avIio interrupt can 
 have nothing to do A\'ith it unless there is some history of the case AAdiich 
 we have not yet got — (applause). 
 
 Principal Broavn — I think it is a pity to make such remarks. 
 
 Professor Smith Avent on to detail the steps he had taken, explaining 
 that his reason for asking a Libel Avas that the state of matters Avas so 
 graA^e that nothing short of a Libel AA'Ould clear his feet. He had asked 
 a Libel in no spirit of recalcitration. I asked, he said, that all the charges 
 against me should be reduced to the form of a liihel. I did not ask that 
 things that Avere not charges and never could be charges should be made 
 charges and put into the form of a Libel — (hear, hear, and applause). 
 After Sir Henry Moncreiff's utterances on the subject, I was not to com- 
 mit myself to any ncAV-fangled charges ; and, in making my crave to the 
 Presbytery, I turned up the process book, and took the form for a heresy 
 Libel and copied the very expressions out of it — (applause). When the 
 
123 
 
 questions were put I answered — and the letter is in the minutes — that I 
 was precluded at that stage from making any answers to the questions. 
 I did this out of no disrespect to the Presbytery. I have never denied 
 that there are many things in my writings that must be expiscated ; and 
 I have asked that the following reasonable course be observed — that it be 
 first seen whether I am in rebellion against the constitution of the Church. 
 I stand by my opinions. I make no effort to conceal them. I am ready 
 to discuss them fully and frankly with anyone, and I have not shown the 
 least disinclination to do so. I am rather surprised that Mr. Sloan should 
 go back and sav' that his reason for supporting this motion was that I 
 kept out of a frank and friendly conference, and that in order to get at 
 this frank and friendly conference a new instrument of torture is to be 
 invented in the shape of a Libel for dangerous and unsettling tendency — 
 (laughter, " oh ! oh ! " and applause). I hear cries of " oh ! oh ! " and I 
 will show why it is an instrument of torture. Torture according to the 
 practice of the medieval couTts — (laughter) — is an application to suspected 
 persons of a pressure by which they may be drawn forth to give statements 
 which could not have been got from them by any ordinary means — 
 (laughter and applause, again and again renewed). Torture is a process 
 applied to persons who are in a strong suspicion of being guilty in order 
 that, if possible, something may be drawn from them. Torture is a pro- 
 cess by Avhich a suspected person is assumed to be guilty until he has 
 proved himself to be innocent — (laughter and applause) — and that, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Selbie's speech, is a precise definition of the Libel now before 
 us — (laughter and applause). I sympathise with Mr. Sloan's desire that 
 we should get much fuller explanations, but I do not think that the in- 
 formation will be got by the use of the mediaeval method I have been 
 characterising — (applause). Professor Smith then proceeded to take up 
 the arguments which at the preceding meeting had been adduced by Mr. 
 Clark. It seemed to be Mr. Clark's desire that this matter should be 
 fully discitssed ; and in order to this biung done it was necessary that he 
 (Professor Smith) should be put at the bar, or, at all events, in a position 
 such as he now occupied of being practically in the position of defender in 
 the Presbyterial investigation that was now going on. This was a most 
 extraordinary doctrine, and he could see the results of it in the excitejnent 
 that had taken place over the case. There was the intervention of the 
 Commission at stages never heard of before in Church procedure ; the 
 suspension of the person accused before the charges against him were for- 
 mulated ; constant excitement kept up by pamphlets ; the heated state of 
 feeling which necessarily arises when such questions of vital importance 
 are discussed in a large Presbytery across the table. Taking all these 
 things together, was this the atmosphere for a calm and effective discus- 
 sion of questions which it is not now pretended in any way contradict 
 the Confession ? The effect of this had been that for the last eighteen 
 months he had been kept in a constant whirl of excitement. He had been 
 hurried on from one part of the case to another. He had had no oppor- 
 tunity, even although so disposed, of drawing out anything like a new 
 argument. A hasty three weeks had been given him to bring forward 
 his only written Defence, and even that had been grudged him by certain 
 
124 
 
 memljers of the Presbytery ; and lie would ask in these circumstances 
 had he received the facilities that it was desirable he should receive for 
 doing what the Presbytery desired and making his arguments clear. The 
 same thing might hapjten to other people if this sj'stem were adopted, 
 for anyone might be accused if this method of conducting procedure were 
 allowed; and he did not think that this was the way in which the 
 Church, with honesty and decency, could proceed to the discussion of 
 such important questions as these. He turned to Dr. Binnie and asked 
 him to recal his historical parallel, and say when he remembered of im- 
 portant theological questions being settled, and settled to the satisfaction of 
 the Church, by means of such a judicial process preceding the legislative 
 declaration of the Church — (applause). Speaking of the reference that 
 had been made by Dr. Brown to the form of process. Professor Smith 
 said that the Act of Assembly on the subject was an authoritative part of 
 the Constitution, and though Sir Henry ]\Ioncreiflf's book was useful for 
 guidance, the Assembly had carefully abstained from giving the produc- 
 tion its imprimatur. 
 
 Principal Brown — I quoted from the hook that contains the form of 
 process. 
 
 Professor Smith — Exactly ; just in the same way as the Bible may be 
 said to contain all that about King James and " the bright occidental 
 star," which, however, has not the authority of the Scripture — (laughter 
 and applause). Professor Smith quoted from Sir Henry INfoncreiff to show 
 both that his exposition went beyond the Form of Process, and that all 
 which he asserted Avas that a minister may decline to be dealt with until 
 the charges against him be put in black and white, but he does not mean 
 that when they are put in black and white the minister ceases to have 
 the right to say afterwards that one of the things yf>u have put in the 
 charge is not a competent ground of accusation at all. And this is the 
 extraordinary thing in the present case. Because certain things have got 
 into the state of a Libel, because there is a regularly arranged statement 
 of charges it is maintained, and has been seriously argued, again and again, 
 that we have no right to ask whether these charges are charges, but that 
 we have just to assume them to be so. I think I can find some better 
 meaning to what Sir Henry said in .last Assembly than the meaning 
 which has hitherto been put upon it. He has expressed himself very 
 incautiously, but he has never denied that it is the privilege of any 
 member to stand up and argue that this is a charge which is not a charge 
 at all, and that we must pass from the whole matter. 
 
 Principal Brown — At the right stage. 
 
 Professor Smith — And the right stage to pass from an incompetent 
 charge is the very moment you find it incompetent — (hear, hear, and loud 
 applause). Upon the contrary, this is Dr. Brown's proposal, which he 
 has repeated frequently, that you can go into the whole case whether the 
 charge is competent or not. But is it the privilege of the Church that it 
 is to drag one of its members through a lengthy discussion when the 
 ground of the whole investigation is itself incompetent 1 Surely not — 
 (applause). There must be other ways of the Church getting what light 
 she wants ; there must be other ways of discussing and disposing of such 
 
125 
 
 questions witliout inventing a new crime and without putting a person to 
 answer it in circumstances which make it impossible for the Church to 
 get new light on the subject — (applause). I think I have gone over a 
 great many of the points which have been raised, and I now return to my 
 positive argument which, in the speeches on the other side, has scarcely 
 been touched upon. In cases of heresy which I have been reading I find 
 that the form of motion was something like this: — "Having lieard the 
 objections of so and so, do repel these objections." I have not heard one 
 word of repelling the objection which I take in my reply. That objec- 
 tion is based upon this, tliat our form of process limits the power and 
 authority of the Presbytery in such a matter by declaring that " nothing 
 ought to be admitted by any Church judicature as the ground of a pro- 
 cess for censure but what hath been declared censurable by the Word of 
 God, or some Act or universal custom of this national Church agreeable 
 thereto." JS'o attempt has been made to show that my opinions do 
 violence to a declared censure of the Word of God or some Act or univer- 
 sal custom of this Church. Mr. Anderson, at a previous stage, referred to 
 what is said in Eevelation as to the consequences of adding to or taking 
 away from that book, but the offence charged in the Libel is not interfer- 
 ing with the book of Eevelation, it is teaching of a dangerous and un- 
 settling tendency, and nobody has declared that this has been said to be 
 punishable by the Word of God. The expression Avhich I have quoted 
 obviously means — by that which has been declared censurable by the Word 
 of God— that which was common to all churches, the forbidding of immoral 
 acts which were distinctly condemned in the Bible ; and, I presume, also 
 the forbidding of heresy in its stricter sense, as including things directly 
 blasphemous and opposed to the central beliefs. Then further it says — 
 " Some Act of this national Church." There is no Act of this national 
 Church which deals with dangerous and unsettling tendency, and, as I 
 have already said, it has been argued that the very reason why we are to 
 proceed with the judicial process is because it cannot be brought under 
 an Act. Then as to " universal custom." I have already pointed out 
 that the Simpson case is not a precedent, because tendency occurs not in 
 the major but in the minor, and is used in quite a different relation to 
 what is in the present charge. And apart from this case, is a single act 
 in a special case to be taken as establishing a universal custom of the 
 Church, and applied iinder a form of process as a precedent to a new easel 
 What are the laws of the Church which are spoken of so slightingly 1 They 
 are the precautions against wrong use of Church power, which our fore- 
 fathers well knew always lies near to sinful human nature. They are 
 these precautions against the infirmities and sins of human nature even in. 
 Church Courts, which are always liable to come in when people are heated 
 by lively questions — (hear, hear, and applause). We have got laws from 
 our ancestors that questions like the present may be discussed by calm 
 wisdom, and not in a torrent of popular feeling — (applause). In con- 
 clusion. Professor Smith repeated that they must look upon this charge 
 as an alternative charge in the Libel, notwithstanding Mr. Selbie's view 
 that he had fallen into a fallacy, and that his contention was illogical. 
 Curiously enough, Mr. Selbie had always charged fallacy on any attempt 
 
126 
 
 to reduce this case to strict logical principles. In fact, his definition of 
 fallacy seemed to he that which was in accordance with the ordinary rules 
 of logic — (laughter and applause). The Presbytery having dismissed the 
 graver charge of the alternative Libel, those wlio dissented must either 
 abstain from voting or accept for the purposes of this argument the de- 
 cision of the majority. Mr. Selbie having challenged the speaker, Pro- 
 fessor Smith called attention to his (Mr. Selbie's) definition of the cliarge 
 — namely, that his opinions seemed to be inconsistent with the Confession, 
 and that Professor Smith required to prove that they were not really so, 
 and showed that this reversed the usual rules of justice and threw the 
 burden of proof on the person accused. The " seem " seemed to be the 
 subjective opinion of those who voted in the minority on the previous and 
 graver charge, and Mr. Selbie's argument was that having then failed to 
 convince the Presbytery of what "seemed" to them, they were now entitled 
 to make their seeming the ground of a new charge — (loud applause). If 
 the charge was to be allowed as a precedent, they would never again see 
 a charge of heresy without this alternative, and the difficulties thus raised 
 would be perfectly enormous, for as a man was never charged for heresy 
 unless there was some peculiarity in his opinions, every one who was 
 offended by these peculiarities would be enabled to vote against him on 
 the alternative charge, a state of things which no Church could possibly 
 contemplate — (loud applause). 
 
 Mr. Anderson, in replying, said that nothing which Professor Smith 
 or any one else had said had shaken liis chief proposition, which was, he 
 remarked, in general that '' tendency" had been too much viewed by it- 
 self, and thus caricatured ; that this charge was seen to be definite and 
 fair when viewed in its surroundings ; that the words " in themselves" 
 denoted inherent danger — such as that of a stab in the direction of the 
 heart, or a serious disease ; and that when this charge was applied to 
 separate opinions, it loses its vagueness. It was obvious at once how the 
 theory of Deuteronomy was dangerous to inspiration, by suggesting the 
 idea of fraud. What was dangerous came so close to the evil threatened^ 
 that the one was almost as distinct as the other. It Avas its shadoAV. He 
 feared that there would be more uncertainty in the voting in the Assembly 
 on the first charge, and Professor Smith might be voted heretical for all 
 sorts of reasons ; a word in the Confession^ — ^a sentence — its very tone and 
 " tendency." He maintained that separate legislation for everything that 
 the Church thought wrong looked Avell in theory, but would be awkward 
 in practice, and would result in a huge appendix to the Confession, and 
 would not restrain those already in office — not even Professor Smith — 
 that the Church of Christ had an inherent power of self-preservation 
 which she could not part with— that in framing confessions, making con- 
 tracts with her office-bearers, and guarding their legal rights, she could 
 not lay aside this ; that if deadly error is insidiously sown in her midst, 
 she had at least the right of dealing judicially with the suspected party 
 and protesting against his errors ; and that a Libel was the fairest way of 
 getting at the truth — even when that offence was supposed to be a minor 
 one — not one of heresy. 
 
127 
 
 The vote was then taken with the following result : — 
 
 For Mr. Anderson's ^notion — Dr. Brown, Dr. Longmuir, Dr. Biiiuie, 
 Messrs. W. L. Mitchell, Leslie, Craven, Arthur, Hendry, Dalgarno, 
 Bannatyne, Selbie, Anderson, Goodall, Masson, Clark, and Fitzpatrick, 
 ministers ; and Messrs. W, W. Milne, D. Mitchell, Aberdein, Wildgoose, 
 and Dr. Gordon, elders — 21. 
 
 For Mr. Tale's amendment — Dr. Spence, Professor Smith, Messrs. 
 Moir, Yule, Johnstone, Selkirk, E. A. Mitchell, Low, Iverach, Semple, 
 Innes, and Macqueen, ministers ; and Messrs. Collie, Paterson, Moir, W. 
 Gordon, Barnett, W. MUne, Valentine, and Fleming, elders — 20. 
 
 Professor Smith explained that he voted in this instance so that he 
 might have the right of appeal. 
 
 Mr. Stephen declined to vote. 
 
 The result of the vote was received with loud hisses. 
 
 Professor Smith in his own interest dissented and complained to the 
 Synod against the finding, and some six or seven members adhered. 
 
 Mr. Yule gave in the following reasons of dissent from the finding of 
 the Presbytery : — 
 
 1. Because the charge of tendency is too vague to be dealt with under a Libel? 
 where definite proof is required of every alleged fact. 
 
 2. Because, granting that a dangerous and unsettling tendency does exist, there 
 IS a competent and convenient way of dealing with it open to the Presbytery if the 
 graver charge is found irrelevant by the Courts of review. 
 
 3. Because we believe that to allow a charge for tendency, as distinguished from 
 a charge for contradicting or being inconsistent with the Standards, to stand in a Libel, 
 is a dangerous and unsettling innovation on the previous practice of this Church. 
 
 Professor Smith requested that the Presbytery should adjourn for a 
 fortnight, in order to give him time to prepare a statement to lay before 
 the Court in exposition of his views on the eight points embraced under 
 this charge. The proposal was at first opposed by Mr. Selbie, Dr. Brown, 
 and Mr. D. Mitchell, but after discussion, and in view of the approaching 
 sacrament and meeting of Synod, the Presbytery unanimously agreed to 
 adjourn further consideration of the Libel till after the Synod had dis- 
 posed of the appeals now pending in the case, and to allow Professor 
 Smith to lay the statement to which he had referred before the Court. 
 
 The Presbytery adjourned at five o'clock. 
 
LIST OF BOOKS 
 
 KEPT IN STOCK BY 
 
 ALEXANDER MURRAY, Bookseller, 
 
 216 UNION STREET, ABERDEEN, 
 
 Published Prices aj)pended to each Book, from ichich a liberal Discount 
 will be allotved. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vols. I. to VIL, cloth, 30s. each. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vols. I. to VIL, half Eussia, 36s. each. 
 
 Encyclopedia Britannica, in Parts, 7s. 6d. each. 
 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 3 vols, cloth, £5 5s. 
 
 Alford's Greek New Testament, 4 vols., cloth, £5 2s. 
 
 Alford's Greek 'New Testament, 4 vols., morocco, £6 6s. 
 
 Picturesque Europe, 2 vols., cloth, £4 4s. 
 
 Picturesque Europe, 2 vols., morocco, .£10 10s. 
 
 Farrar's Life of Christ, 2 vols., cloth, 24s. 
 
 Earrar's Life of Christ, 2 vols., morocco, £2 2s. 
 
 Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social 
 
 Science, Aberdeen Meeting, 12s. 
 Ellicott's New Testament Commentary for English Eeaders. Vol. L, 
 
 cloth, 21s. 
 Hodge's Systematic Theology, 4 vols., cloth, 43s. 6d. 
 Memoir of Charles Kingsley, 2 vols., cloth, 36s. 
 Memoir of I^orman Macleod, 2 vols., cloth, 26s. 
 Memoir of Norman Macleod, 1 vol., cloth, 9s. 
 The Study and the Pulpit, cloth, 8s. 
 Dowden's Studies in Literature, 1789-1877, cloth, 12s. 
 Memoir of Dr. Eobert Buchanan, cloth, 12s. 6d. 
 Guthrie's Autobiography and Memoir, 10s. 6d. 
 Winer's Grammar of New Testament Greek, 15s. 
 Brooke's The Light of Eaith, 7s. 6d. 
 Brooke's Christ in Modern Life, 7s. 6d. 
 Ashley's Promptuary for Preachers, 2 vols., 24s. 
 Bruder's Concordance, 2 vols., paper, 31s. 6d. 
 Studies for the Pulpit, 9s. 
 
 Stier's Words of the Lord Jesus, 4 double vols., 42s. 
 Spurgeon on the Psalms, 4 vols., cloth, 32s. 
 French's Notes on the Parables, 12s. 
 French's Notes on the Miracles, 12s. 
 Cook's Monday Lectures, 2 vols., 4s. 6d. each. 
 Smith's (Professor) Answer to the Form of Libel, Is. 
 Kay's Original Portraits and Caricature Etchings, 2 vols., £5 7s. 6d. 
 liev. Dr. Macgilvray's Ministry of the AVord, 2s. 6d. 
 
 Price 6d. — 
 A Sermon preached in St. George's Free Church, Edinburgh, on the 
 Afternoon of Sabbath, 27th May, 1877 (during the Sitting of the 
 General Assembly), by Professor Eobertson Smith, M.A. 
 
 Edinburgh : Maclaren & !Macniven, and all Booksellers. 
 
 ^^ 
 

 
 *!! 
 
 1 
 
 BW5546 .S65F8 
 
 The libel against Professor William 
 
 Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00038 7367 
 
 '•'^m^