■HUH 1 
 
 MODERN CRITICISM: 
 
 s 
 
 BEIN<; AN EXAMINATION OK THE 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 DKLIVERBD BY 
 
 PROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 MEETING OF THE COMMISSION OF THE GENERAL 
 ASSEMBLY OF THE FREE OHUROH OF SCOTLAND, 
 ON THE 27th OCTOBER, i 
 
 C. SEP 1881 
 
 Tim; Rev. GEORGE MACAI'L.^ 
 
 OK ROXBURGH FREE 
 
 CHURCH,*fc£>JNnn:o>l. 
 
 a 
 
 ^fourth (Edition. 
 
 GLASGOW: DAY ID BRYCE & SON. 
 
 EDINBURGH: JOHN MACLAKEN & SON. 
 
 LONDON: H ODDER & STOUGHTON 
 
 188 1 
 
0>\ 
 
 OF 
 NOV 30 1954 
 
 BS 511.2 .M3 1881 
 Macaulay, George 
 Modern criticism 
 
 *«i "scma (raoTAV9< 
 
 aaoNia ±3iHdwvd ! 
 INnowoiOHd 
 
MODERN CRITICISM: 
 
 BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED V.\ 
 
 PROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH 
 
 MEETING OF THE COMMISSION OF THE GENERAL 
 
 ASSEMBLY OF THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, 
 
 ON THE 27 th OCTOBER, 1880. 
 
 The Rev. GEORGE MACAULAY, 
 
 OF ROXBURGH FREE CHURCH, EDIK BURGH. 
 
 " I do much condemn that interpretation of the Scripture which is only after 
 the manner as men use to interpret a prufaue book." — Lord Bacon. 
 
 GLASGOW: DAVID BRYCE & SON. 
 
 EDINBURGH: JOHN MACLAREN & SON. 
 
 LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON. 
 
 1881. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 NARRATIVE. 
 
 PAO* 
 
 Sentence of the General Assembly, May, 1880, 5 
 
 Publication of the article " Hebrew Language and Literature," 6 
 
 Memorials from Presbyteries, 6 
 
 Meeting ok the Commission in August, 6 
 
 Meeting of the Commission in October, 7 
 
 PROFESSOR SMITH'S SPEECH EXAMINED. 
 
 His Protest, 8 
 
 Circumstances of the Defence, - - 8 
 
 Proposal to approve the Report generally, - - - - 9 
 
 Does the Report say too much or too little? 9 
 
 Alleged Insinuations, 9 
 
 The Committee's Report — 
 
 First Division : Charge of Irreverence, 10 
 
 Literary style of Books of the Bible, 10 
 
 Anonymous Broadsides, 11 
 
 Popular Literature in Israel, 12 
 
 Prophecy after the Exile, ------- 12 
 
 Second Division : God the Author of Scripture, 12 
 
 Chronicles, 13 
 
 The Song of Solomon, 14 
 
 Ezra, 15 
 
 Third Division : Scripture an Authentic Record of Facts, - 15 
 
 Earliest Laws and Lyrics : the Book of Jasher, - - - 15 
 
 The Laws written by Moses, 17 
 
 Testimony of Christ, 1!) 
 
 " Journal of Philology," 20 
 
 Hebrew History since David, 21 
 
 Ruth, 22 
 
 The Midrash, 23 
 
4 
 
 The Committee's Report: Continued — PAGE 
 
 Jonah, 23 
 
 Eber and the Genealogies, 24 
 
 Jeremiah l., 27 
 
 Fourth Division : Predictive Prophecy, 29 
 
 Isaiah xiii., xiv., --------- 29 
 
 Daniel, 31 
 
 The Law and the Prophets, 34 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 The Doctrine of the Chcrch, 36 
 
 Questions put to Ministers and Professors, 38 
 
 The Free Church Formula, 43 
 
 Conclusion, 44 
 
REC. SEP 1881 
 THEOLO 
 
 *f 
 
 MODERN CRITICISM. 
 
 NARRATIVE. 
 
 KKNTENCE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, MAY, 1880. 
 
 The General Assembly, after re-affirming the decisions of the 
 two preceding Assemblies finding relevant the libel against 
 Professor R. Smith, and after approving of the service of the 
 libel upon him by the Presbytery of Aberdeen, declared it ripe 
 for probation. Four motions were then submitted to the 
 Assembly — one to proceed to probation; another to withdraw 
 the libel, but remove the Professor from his Chair; a third 
 to pass from the libel, and repone the Professor with an 
 admonition, declaring at the same time that his views were 
 not the viewa of the Free Church ; and a fourth, which, by a 
 majority of seven, in a vote of 299 as against 292, became the 
 judgment of the Assembly, was in the following terms: — 
 
 "That the General Assembly, considering that the course of the case has 
 confirmed the Keport of the College Committee, that they had not found 
 any ground suflieient to justify a process for heresy against Professor 
 Robertson Smith, inasmuch as seven of the eight counts in the original 
 Libel have been found irrelevant; while, with regard to the remaining 
 count, the explanations offered by Professor Smith at various stages, and 
 in particular his answer to the Amended Libel, afford satisfactory evidence 
 that, in this aspect of the case also, there is not sufficient ground to support 
 a process for heresy, do resolve to withdraw the Libel against him. 
 
 " Further, the Assembly, finding that Professor Smith is blameworthy 
 for the unguarded and incomplete statements of his articles, which have 
 occasioned much anxiety in the Church, ami given oiFence to many brethren 
 zealous for the honour of the Word of God, instruct the Moderator to 
 admonish Professor Smith with due solemnity as to the past, in the con- 
 fident expectation that the defects referred to will be guarded against and 
 avoided in time to come. 
 
 "And, finally, the Assembly declares that, in declining to decide on 
 these critical views by way of discipline, the Church expresses no opinion 
 in favour of their truth or probability, but leaves the ultimate decision to 
 future inquiry in the spirit of patience, humility, and brotherly charity, 
 admonishing professors to remember that they are not set for the propa- 
 gating of their own opinions, but for the maintenance of the doctrine and 
 truth committed to the Church." 
 
 Professor Smith acquiesced in the foregoing judgment, and 
 submitted to a solemn admonition from the Moderator. 
 
PUBLICATION OF THE ARTICLE "HEBREW LANGUAGE 
 AND LITERATURE." 
 
 A few days after the procedure of the Assembly, the eleventh 
 volume of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" was issued, containing 
 several new articles by Professor Smith. Of these, two — 
 namely, those on the prophet " Haggai " and on the " Hebrew 
 Language and Literature " — immediately excited the serious 
 concern of many in the Church, as indicative of a method of 
 criticism not only illegitimate in itself, but also fitted to be 
 most injurious to the doctrine of the historical truth, supreme 
 authority, and Divine inspiration of holy Scripture. The 
 anxiety thus awakened was increased by the circumstances 
 under which the articles were published. For before they 
 were in the printer's hands the author had accepted service of 
 libel for views of a somewhat similar kind. He had also 
 submitted to the solemn censure of the Assembly without 
 affording the slightest indication that these articles were about 
 to appear. With his reasons for the suppression of this 
 important fact we have here nothing to do. There can be no 
 doubt, however, that had the contents of these articles been 
 known before the meeting of the Assembly, the decision given 
 in the case would have been widely different. 
 
 MEMORIALS FROM PRESBYTERIES. 
 
 Within a few weeks of the appearance of these articles, no 
 fewer than twelve Presbyteries memorialized the August 
 Commission on the subject, requesting that such action should 
 be taken as might be necessary to prevent the Church from 
 sustaining any detriment in the grave emergency which had 
 arisen. A letter was also transmitted to the Commission by 
 the Presbytery of Aberdeen, which had been addressed to the 
 Clerk of that Court by Professor Smith. 
 
 MEETING OF THE COMMISSION IN AUGUST. 
 
 The interest felt on the subject throughout the country was 
 attested by the unusually large attendance of members at the 
 Commission in August. At this meeting, after several motions 
 had been brought forward and discussed, two were put to the 
 vote ; one proposing the appointment of a Committee, the other, 
 that no action should be taken in hoc statu. The former motion, 
 that of Dr. Wilson, was carried by a majority of 210 to 139, 
 and w T as in the following terms : — 
 
 " That the Commission, having respect to the letter of Professor Smith 
 transmitted by the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to the representations 
 
made to them by so many Presbyteries as to the writings of Professor 
 Smith, to which attention has been called since last General Assembly, 
 and considering the widespread uneasiness and alarm as to the character 
 of these writings, resolve to appoint a Committee maturely to examine 
 them and the letter of Professor Smith, and to consider their bearing upon 
 the accepted belief and teaching of the Church ; to report their opinion 
 and advice to an in huno ([tectum meeting of Commission, which is hereby 
 appointed to be held on '-J7th October next, at eleven o'clock, that they 
 may be prepared to take such action in this matter as may appear requisite ; 
 and the Commission hereby cite Professor Smith to appear lor his interest 
 at this in huno effeotum meeting, and instruct the clerks to see that a cita- 
 tion is served upon him in due form." 
 
 MEETING OF THE COMMISSION IN OCTOBER. 
 
 On the 27th of October, 1880, there assembled in Edinburgh 
 the most numerously attended meeting of Commission that 
 has ever been held in the history of the Presbyterian Church 
 in Scotland, no fewer than four hundred and seventy members 
 having recorded their votes. After the Committee's report on 
 the writings of Professor Smith had been submitted, and cer- 
 tain dissents from the report on the part of some members of 
 Committee had been read, as also a letter from Professor Smith 
 to the Principal Clerk, embodying a protest, the following 
 motion was proposed in the Commission : — 
 
 " The Commission receive the report of the Committee, and approve of 
 it generally; and considering that the Commission is instructed to advert 
 to the interests of the Church on every occasion, that the Church do not 
 luffer or sustain any prejudice which they can prevent ; considering also 
 that the various writings of Professor Robertson Smith, adverted to in 
 the report, which have created serious alarm and uneasiness in the Church, 
 as being fitted to produce upon readers the impression that the P>ible does 
 not present a reliable statement of the truth of God, and that God is not 
 the author of it, have been published since last Assembly, and were not in 
 view of the Assembly ; considering that these writings were prepared for 
 publication at a time when their author had accepted service of a libel 
 found relevant, charging him with cognate views ; and considering, 
 further, that the Church must sustain serious injury if she can be regarded 
 as giving any sanction to, or as concurring in, the views expressed in these 
 writings, declare that the Commission, as representing the Free Church, 
 and as charged with conserving its interests, cannot but protest against 
 the Church being implicated in the promulgation of them, and resolve to 
 transmit the report of their Committee to the General Assembly, that they 
 may take such action in the matter as to them may seem meet. Further, 
 in view of the whole circumstances of the case, instruct Professor Smith 
 to abstain from teaching his classes during the ensuing session, leaving 
 the whole question of his status and position in the Free Church to the 
 determination of the ensuing Assembly. The Commission also instruct 
 the College Committee to make provision for the teaching of those classes 
 during the ensiling session." 
 
 This motion was adopted by a majority of 268 to 202. 
 The Committee, in th3ir report, drew attention to 
 
8 
 
 (1.) Passages in which the books of Scripture are spoken of 
 in an irreverent manner: 
 
 (2.) Passages in which the books of Scripture are spoken of 
 in such a way as to render it very difficult for readers to 
 regard God as the Author of them: 
 
 (3.) Passages which naturally suggest that Scripture does not 
 give an authentic narrative of facts or actual occurrences : 
 and 
 
 (4.) Passages which discredit prophecy in its predictive 
 aspect. 
 
 The Committee further repudiated, and declared to be 
 altogether untenable, the interpretation put upon the judgment 
 of last Assembly by Professor Smith in his letter to the Clerk 
 of the Presbytery of Aberdeen. 
 
 Before the motion for the approval of the report was dis- 
 cussed, Professor Smith was heard " for his interest." 
 
 PROFESSOR SMITH'S SPEECH EXAMINED. 
 
 HIS PROTEST. 
 
 He spoke under protest. This protest asserted the procedure 
 to be first, unconstitutional and incompetent, and secondly, 
 fitted to be injurious to "himself personally," and to the 
 Church. It might have possessed some force had the proposal 
 before the Commission been to originate a formal process 
 against him. But this was so far from being the case that all 
 the Commission proposed to do was to protect the interests of 
 the Church till next Assembly. This the Commission was 
 bound to do in accordance with a special clause in the Act of 
 Assembly defining its duties and powers. 
 
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENCE. 
 
 The Professor complained that the report had only been 
 put into his hands at eleven o'clock that morning. He 
 admitted having seen the dissents on the previous night. 
 
 In reply to this objection it is enough to say, first, that it 
 is well known that he was kept informed from time to time 
 of the proceedings of the Committee ; and, secondly, that the 
 objections likely to be taken to his writings must have been 
 all along present to his mind. But, in addition to this, 
 Professor Lindsay's long and elaborate dissent from the finding 
 of the Committee is, in substance, identical with the speech 
 delivered by Professor Smith. 
 
THE PROPOSAL TO APPROVE THE REPORT GENERALLY. 
 
 The Professor complained of the vagueness of this proposal, 
 and of the obscurity of expression which, he alleged, was 
 characteri tic of the report. 
 
 Considering the circumstances under which the Commission 
 had assembled, and the nature of (lie report, it would have 
 been altogether unreasonable to ask or expect more than a 
 general approval. The " obscurity of expression" objected to 
 is nothing else than the extreme guardedness of the Language 
 used by the Committee, indicating that the report had been 
 composed with the greatest deliberation and care. 
 
 DOES THE REPORT SAT Tim MUCH OR TOO LITTLE? 
 
 The Report would have said too little if the Commission 
 had been instituting a formal process against Professor Smith 
 — a course which it was not proposed the}' should adopt. The 
 Report does not say more than is necessary in order to vindi- 
 cate the reputation of the Church from the suspicion of being 
 implicated in the views expressed in his recent writings. 
 
 ALLEGED INSINUATIONS. 
 
 The Report contains no insinuations against Professor Smith, 
 but gives, in general terms, a description of the character and 
 tendenc}" of his recent writings. 
 
 The following statement was here made by the Professor : — 
 
 " Such remarks as are made about the general tendency of 
 my writings are not new, and are similar to those for which I 
 was formerly tried, and upon which I was acquitted, — I say 
 'on which I was acquitted' for these reasons, — because the 
 libel formulated against me was in greater pa' t withdrawn, 
 and the part which was left never went on to probation ; and, 
 therefore, never went on to judgment — and in the judgment 
 of every court, a man is acquitted if he is not condemned" 
 (Speech, j>. S). 
 
 In answer to this, it is to be observed that the libel was not 
 withdrawn till its relevancy (in respect of the Deuteronomy 
 count) had been affirmed by three successive Assemblies; and 
 the withdrawal of the libel at last Assembly by no means 
 involved the acquittal of the Professor, the effect of that 
 decision being merely to repone him in his chair after admo- 
 nition. The departure from some of the charges in the original 
 libel is no proof that the views challenged by these charges are 
 not contrary to, or inconsistent with, the Confessional doctrine 
 
10 
 
 of the Church. Moreover acquittal and censure do not generally 
 proceed from a court in the same case and at the same time. 
 
 THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT. 
 FIRST DIVISION. — THE CHARGE OF IRREVERENCE. 
 
 In vindicating himself from the charge of irreverence, the 
 Professor says — 
 
 " A person may speak in an irreverent manner of Scripture 
 — it is done every day — without denying that it is Scripture." 
 (Speech, p. 8). 
 
 This statement, if true, only shows that in daily life the 
 authority of God is lightly regarded ; but irreverence prepares 
 the way for the acceptance of theories inimical to the truth 
 and inspiration of Holy Scripture. Grave theologians are not 
 accustomed to speak irreverently of Scripture. 
 
 The Professor states that he has spoken of Scripture in the 
 language of scholarship. The Committee in the report object 
 not to his scholarship, but to his irreverent application of it. 
 " Not learning, but unsanctified learning," as Halyburton 
 remarks, "has done much injury to the Church of God." 
 
 The Professor declares that he has set certain statements of 
 facts down in plain language, and that it has been characteristic 
 of Scotchmen, " because holy things were very real and 
 practical to them in daily life, to speak of them with that 
 plainness and bluntness with which all men are accustomed to 
 speak of things that are real, and not simply things they are 
 accustomed to hear in church with their hats off." 
 
 In treating of all matters connected with the Bible, professors 
 and others should remember the word to Moses, "Put off thy 
 shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is- 
 holy ground " (Exod. iii. 5). 
 
 He pleads the duties of his office as a justification of the 
 manner in which he has dealt with the Hebrew language and 
 literature. But it was surely as possible for him as for his 
 predecessors in similar offices in the Church to discharge these 
 duties with becoming reverence. The structure and historical 
 variations of the Hebrew language can be treated without 
 incurring the charge of irreverence. But they have not so 
 been handled by him. 
 
 FIRST DIVISION. — FIRST PARTICULAR. 
 THE LITERARY STYLE OF BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 In vindication of the statement that "the memoirs of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, the colourless narrative of the Chronicles, and 
 
11 
 
 even the book of Esther, are singularly destitute of literary 
 merit," the Professor says : — 
 
 "It is undoubtedly true that God might, had He wished, 
 have bestowed upon the author of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, 
 and upon the author of the book of Esther, the supernatural 
 and miraculous gift of such beautiful and splendid Hebrew 
 diction as belongs to Isaiah ; but T hold that He did not work 
 such a miracle. It is a fact that Ho did not work such a 
 miracle, and I cannot see why Dr. Wilson and his Committee 
 should take it upon them to say, not that God did work such 
 a miracle — which is not true — but that it is irreverent in any 
 one to say that He did not" (Speech, pp. 9, 10). 
 
 This is an evasion, not a reply. Professor Smith here vindi- 
 cates himself from a charge which the Committee have not 
 brought against him. Had he merely affirmed that the style 
 of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Esther is not equal to that 
 of Isaiah, he could not have been accused of irreverence. But 
 his statement is very diffei'ent from this, characterising these 
 books as "singularly destitute of literary merit." It is easier 
 to reply to imaginary than to real charges. The doctrine of 
 inspiration does not imply the extinction of the individuality 
 of the inspired writers. 
 
 FIRST DIVISION. — SECOND PARTICULAR. 
 ANONYMOUS BROADSIDES. 
 
 Here also the Professor evades the charge against him by 
 explaining away, as by an after- thought, what he had said 
 respecting " anonymous broadsides" published by the prophets. 
 By these, he tells us now, that he means anonymous broad- 
 sheets. According to his view the prophets of the captivity 
 " instead of waiting till they had a large book," " put a single 
 individual short prophecy upon parchment, upon a broadside — 
 that is, upon a single open sheet of parchment — and sent it 
 through among the people, in order that in that way they might 
 have the word of God." If this statement is not irreverent, it 
 certainly proceeds upon the unwarranted assumption that the 
 thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Isaiah, and other portions 
 of that book, were not written till the time of the Babylonian 
 captivity. Besides, it has never been a chai^acteristic of God's 
 inspired messengers to shrink from danger in the proclamation 
 of the truth, as is implied by Professor Smith in the following 
 passage : — 
 
 " How could these prophets get up in the market-place, 
 under the eyes of the Babylonian police, and there preach a 
 
12 
 
 sermon that Babylon was to be destroyed ? We know what 
 would have happened." 
 
 Well, what did happen when, as Professor Smith himself 
 admits, Jonah went to Nineveh and preached, saying, " Yet 
 forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown " ? 
 
 FIRST DIVISION. — THIRD PARTICULAR. 
 POPULAR LITERATURE IN ISRAEL. 
 
 There is nothing in what the Professor here says as to the 
 history, when told " in plain, popular story," " being full of 
 God, the Redeemer, and the King," to meet the charge of 
 irreverence brought against him by the Committee. All that 
 is here said might have been stated by a critic of the most 
 destructive school. Nor can it be deemed either reverent or 
 just criticism to speak of a portion of the book of Genesis as 
 containing " the loves of Jacob and Rachel." Of the popular 
 literature in Israel apart from what has come down to us 
 under the seal of inspiration, we know nothing. 
 
 FIRST DIVISION. — FOURTH PARTICULAR. 
 PROPHECY AFTER THE EXILE. 
 
 The Professor, besides saying, as in his published speech, 
 p. 11, that "the brief revival of spoken prophecy after the exile 
 lacks the old fire," stated, in the article complained of, that it 
 "presents no notable literary feature, except the use of some- 
 what fantastic symbolic imagery, the prototype of the later 
 apocalyptic literature." If this, taken in connection with 
 other statements of a similar kind, is not an irreverent 
 treatment of Scripture, it would be difficult to establish a 
 charge of irreverence against any man. It is the method, 
 manner, and form of expression characteristic of the destruc- 
 tive school of Biblical Criticism. He admitted in his address 
 before the Commission that, had he expected his words to be 
 so narrowly scrutinized, he would have been more guarded in 
 his language. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. — GOD THE AUTHOR OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 The Committee's second charge is given under the heading 
 — "Passages in which the books of Scripture are spoken of in 
 such a way as to render it very difficult for readers to regard 
 God as the author of them. " Here the Professor draws 
 attention to the language of the Committee when he says 
 
13 
 
 " difficult, not impossible, you observe." But it should be noted 
 that the Committee do not pronounce whether it is impossible 
 or not. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. — FIRST PARTICULAR. 
 CHRONICLES. 
 
 Professor Smith adduces no evidence of any weight in 
 favour of the statement that " the Chronicler no longer 
 thoroughly understood the old Hebrew sources from which he 
 worked." What he alleges concerning the decay of the 
 language and its having been written latterly rather as a dead 
 than as a living language by some of the writers, and con- 
 cerning the alleged mistake of the Chronicler as to the ships 
 of Tarshish and one or two other faulty expressions, is unsup- 
 ported b}' proof. But even if it were proved that in those 
 places there appeared what to the critical student seemed to be 
 faulty expressions, neither this fact nor any of his other alle- 
 gations could give warrant for the sweeping assertion that "the 
 Chronicler no longer thoroughly understood the old Hebrew 
 sources from which he worked." It must not be forgotten that, 
 at this time of alleged ignorance of the old Hebrew sources, 
 some of the books of Scripture which are written in the purest 
 He I new were, according to the Professor's own statement, 
 composed, and, besides these, a large part of the Psalter. It is 
 for him, not for us, to reconcile these contradictory statements. 
 
 Sweeping assertions like those to which we have referred, 
 generalised from inadequate data, render it very difficult for 
 readers to regard God as the author of holy Scripture; and 
 this difficulty is not lessened, but much increased by the illus- 
 tration given by the Professor from the Latin writings of 
 Luther and Calvin. For as no one maintains that they wrote 
 under inspiration, the only effect of the supposed analogy is to 
 reduce the inspired writer of Chronicles to the level of unin- 
 spired writers such as Calvin and Luther. 
 
 The Professor's allegation that the apostles were not perfect 
 Hebrew scholars because they very often used the Septuagint 
 is a singular specimen of the logic of the higher criticism. 
 Should the Free Church follow him in this style of reasoning, 
 it will soon become, to use his own expression, " the laughing- 
 stock of Christendom." Because a man, in addressing Greeks, 
 speaks Greek, is it a legitimate inference that he is not a perfect 
 Hebrew scholar ? Because the apostle Paul, " a Hebrew of the 
 Hebrews," in addressing those whom he knew to possess the 
 Septuagint, chose very often to quote from that version, is he 
 to be pronounced an imperfect Hebrew scholar ? 
 
14 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. — SECOND PARTICULAR. 
 THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 
 
 Respecting the Song of Songs, the Professor had said — 
 " This lyric drama has suffered much from interpolation, 
 and presumably was not written down till a comparatively late 
 date, and from imperfect recollection, so that its original shape 
 is very much lost." 
 
 Let this statement be analysed — 
 
 1. "We do not possess the Song in its original shape. This is 
 an assertion without proof. 
 
 2. It was written from imperfect recollection. This is also 
 an unproved assertion. 
 
 3. It has suffered much from interpolation. This is another 
 groundless assertion. 
 
 4. It was presumably not written till a comparatively late 
 date. Of this assertion there is no proof. It is a mere con- 
 jecture of the critics. 
 
 And all these assertions together are as destructive as they 
 are destitute of proof. The removal of the alleged interpol- 
 ations from the book might, in the opinion of Professor Smith, 
 facilitate the faith of many modest and humble Christians, but 
 this would at the same time destroy faith in the canonical 
 authority of the Scriptures. The removal of the whole book 
 from the canon, would be in keeping with the Professor's 
 theory of the book according to which it is one of the many 
 love adventures of Solomon, written in the form of a lyric 
 drama. 
 
 After a disquisition on the Septuagint as a version fitted to 
 be of use for the purposes of emendatory criticism, he concludes 
 thus : — 
 
 " We have not got the whole Song of Solomon, and we have 
 got something more. Something has been lost, and something 
 has been added." 
 
 These statements are characteristic of his method. "Where 
 others hesitate, he presumes to dogmatize ; and, forgetting that 
 the Free Church is not a young men's speculative society or 
 debating club, he speaks of the Canticles, as of the other 
 Scriptures, in such a way as to render it very difficult to 
 believe that God is the author of them, or that they are given 
 by inspiration of God. No allegations about " fragments " in 
 the New Testament or in the Old, or about lost books of song 
 or history, (such as the book of Jasher, or the book of the Wars 
 of Jehovah,) render credible, or even plausible, the Professor's 
 destructive assertions regarding the Song of Solomon. 
 
15 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. — THIRD PARTICULAR. 
 THE BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 He admits that the question he has raised about the book of 
 Ezra is very complicated. He complains that the Committee 
 did not quote the following sentence from the same article 
 (Haggai) : — 
 
 " What had actually been effected during these years for the 
 restoration of the temple is a question of some difficulty. It 
 seems safest to start from the explicit contemporary evidence 
 of Hag. ii. 18 (cf. ii. 15 and Zech. viii. 9), which gives the 
 ninth month of the second year of Darius — after Haggai had 
 begun to preach — as the date when the temple was founded 
 by Zerubbabel and Joshua." After this admission and com- 
 plaint, he proceeds to say — 
 
 " There is a little disorder in the text. There is a little 
 transposition of some of the sources, as there often is in manu- 
 scripts." In other words, in order to vindicate his own 
 exegesis of one or more passages, he assumes, contrary to 
 evidence, that " the Chronicler has somewhat dislocated the 
 order of events." He has no hesitation in assigning to an 
 oversight on the part of the inspired historian what, according 
 to his exegetical method, he explains by assuming the correct- 
 ness of his own theory. But this is the way to multiply 
 difficulties, not to remove them. 
 
 THIRD DIVISION. 
 
 SCRIPTURE AN AUTHENTIC RECORD OF FACTS. 
 
 He begins his reply to the third main charge of the Com- 
 mittee under the heading " Passages which naturally suggest 
 that Scripture does not give an authentic narrative of facts or 
 actual occurrences," by saying, " naturally suggest, let it be 
 observed," " the Committee are afraid to trust themselves far." 
 On this it is sufficient to remark that the meaning " naturally 
 suggested " by any composition is the interpretation put upon 
 it by ordinary readers. 
 
 THIRD DIVISION. — FIRST PARTICULAR. 
 
 EARLIEST LAWS AND LYRICS; THE BOOK OF JASHER. 
 
 The Professor states that he is prepared to show, by a 
 hundred proofs, that " the earliest products of Hebrew author- 
 ship " circulated orally. This fact has never been questioned, 
 and the proof of it is, therefore, unnecessary. The Confession 
 
16 
 
 of Faith admits that there was a time when the revelation of 
 God and His will had not yet been committed to writing. 
 
 It is true that we have notices of early written collections 
 that seem to have been prior to some parts of our present 
 historical books. But it does not follow from this that these 
 books were not composed at the early time at which they bear 
 to have been written. That part of the book of Numbers, 
 chapter xxi., in which mention is made of the book of the 
 Wars of Jehovah must have been written a short time before 
 the death of Moses, and there is nothing contrary to, or incon- 
 sistent with, this fact in the reference that is there made to 
 the book of the Wars of Jehovah. Besides, it is quite possible, 
 nay, probable, according to the views of certain learned, 
 judicious, and devout theologians, that this reference in the 
 book of Numbers may have been made by a later hand than 
 that of Moses. 
 
 The book of Jasher is expressly mentioned in Joshua x. 13, 
 and 2 Sam. i. 18. Here we make no account of the conjectural 
 reference to it (according to Wellhausen) in connection with 
 the building of Solomon's temple. That conjecture needs 
 verification; and one of our chief complaints respecting our 
 Professor is that, without pausing to deliberate and to test the 
 truth and worth of proposed emendations, he is too ready to 
 accept them on the authority of others. What is said in 
 Joshua respecting this book is, " And the sun stood still, and 
 the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves 
 upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?" 
 
 What is said in 2 Sam. i. 17, 18, is "And David lamented 
 with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son 
 (also he bade them teach the children of Israel the bow ; be- 
 hold it is written in the book of Jasher)." 
 
 These references to the book of Jasher, and quotations from 
 it, whatever be their value, are in parenthetical form; and, in 
 both cases, the references are in such general terms as not to 
 warrant the conclusions which Professor Smith deduces from 
 them. It is much more probable that they were inserted by 
 a later hand than that the historical books of Scripture were 
 not completed till the date assigned to them by Professor Smith 
 and the modern critics. A similar remark would apply to the 
 reference tothebook of Jasheralleged to have been discovered by 
 Wellhausen in the Septuagint translation of the book of Kings. 
 This alleged reference to the book of Jasher occurs in the Septua- 
 gint version of 1 Kings viii. 53. In that place, however, the 
 book of Jasher is not mentioned. The book there spoken of is 
 entitled " the Book of the Ode/' whereas in the two places in 
 
which the Septuagint refers to the book of Jasher, it is 
 rendered the book of the Upright (tou 'evdovs). An ingenious 
 attempt, indeed, has been conjecturally made to identify "the 
 Book of the Ode" (Ixx. 1 Kings viii. 53.) with the book of 
 Jasher. It cannot be said that this attempt results in any- 
 thing more than a conjecture. But, besides this, the verse in 
 which it occurs in the Septuagint is separated by more than 
 forty verses from the place in Solomon's prayer proposed to be 
 assigned to it. Further, the absence of this reference to " the 
 Book of the Ode" from the original Hebrew text affords a 
 strong presumption against attaching any real value to the 
 passage as found in the Septuagint. Accordingly, Professor 
 Smith's assertion, grounded on this conjectural emendation, 
 that the book of Jasher is not earlier than the time of Solomon, 
 is not warranted by the facts. But even in the Septuagint 
 text, the words referring to " the Book of the Ode" are mani- 
 festly parenthetical, and form no part of the original narrative 
 there given. The sum of the whole matter respecting the 
 book of the Wars of Jehovah and the book of Jasher is that 
 we have no clue to the age of either of these books, and know 
 little or nothing of their character or contents. 
 
 THIRD DIVISION. — SECOND PARTICULAR. 
 THE LAWS WRITTEN BY MOSES. 
 
 In vindication of the statements that " it may fairly be made 
 a question whether Moses left in writing any other laws than the 
 commandments on the tables of stone, and that even Ex. xxiv. 
 4 and xxxiv. 27 may, in the original context, have referred to 
 the ten words alone," Professor Smith says that the whole 
 point lies in the word " writing," and adds, " All that I 
 have asked is, ' How much was put in writing V " Let us 
 ascertain what is implied in this statement and question. It 
 implies (1.) that the statements in the Pentateuch, in which 
 it is affirmed that Moses wrote certain statutes and laws 
 may be false ; (2.) that all those places in the Old Testament 
 generally in which reference is made to the law of Moses, a 
 body of precepts, statutes, and commandments, of which we 
 have no knowledge except in their written form, may be false; 
 (3.) more particularly, that the statement concerning the " Book 
 of the Law of Jehovah " found in the temple in the time of 
 Josiah (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14), that it was "by the hand of 
 Moses," may be false ; for what does a book by or in a man's 
 hand mean but a book written by that man's hand ? (4.) that 
 when the Lord Jesus Christ, with direct and express reference 
 
18 
 
 to a precept recorded in Deut. xxiv. 1, said, " For the hardness 
 of your heart he (Moses) wrote you this precept," the Lord 
 Jesus may. have spoken what was false. This is a specimen 
 of what comes of saying that "it is a fair question whether 
 Moses left in writing any other laws than the commandments 
 on the. tables of stone." 
 
 On what ground does the Professor's statement rest that 
 " even Ex. xxiv. 4 and xxxiv. 27 may in the original context 
 have referred to the ten words alone " ? It rests upon the 
 theory that, in the places referred to, there is a twofold narra- 
 tive put together by the hand of an editor. In chapter xxiv. 
 the verses 1, 2, 9-11, 15-17 are said to belong to the one 
 document, while, in the same chapter, the verses 3-8, 12-14, 
 18, are referred to the other document. Manipulated in this 
 mechanical way, the words in verse 4, "And Moses wrote all 
 the words of Jehovah," are made to connect themselves with 
 the words in verse 12, " And Jehovah said unto Moses, Come 
 up into the mount, and be there ; and I will give thee tables of 
 stone, and a law and commandments which I have written ; 
 that thou mayest teach them." In a similar way the words 
 just quoted are made to connect themselves with those in 
 xxxiv. 27, " And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these 
 words ; for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant 
 with thee and with Israel ;" " these words " being held to mean 
 not those given in the immediately preceding context, but 
 those given on the tables of stone referred to in Ex. xxiv. 12. 
 According to this exegetical method, men may affirm or deny 
 what they please concerning any part of the written word of God. 
 
 It is to be noted that Professor Smith's definition of the law, 
 given in his article, " Bible," as consisting, for the most part, 
 till the time of the captivity, of collections of decisions orally 
 given by the priests, while compatible with his idea that Moses 
 may not have left in writing any other laws than the com- 
 mandments on the tables of stone, is altogether inconsistent 
 with the conception of law found in the history, the Psalms, 
 and the prophecies of the Old Testament. For (1.) it involves 
 the disintegration of the several parts of holy Scripture ; (2.) it 
 breaks the continuity of the record; (3.) it insinuates the 
 existence of contradiction between law and law, and between 
 law and history, as well as between the history, the Psalms, 
 and the prophecies. 
 
 In illustration of what has been said, it may be asked what 
 explanation could be given by Professor Smith respecting the 
 book of Jehovah mentioned in Isaiah xxxiv. 16, " Seek ye out 
 of the book of Jehovah, and read ; no one of these shall fail, 
 
19 
 
 none shall want her mate " '. Again it may be asked how, 
 according to his theory, would he explain the references made 
 to the law in Amos and Hosea, and more particularly to 
 the words, " I have written to him the great things (or 
 the many things) of my law"? (Hosea viii. 12.) What 
 was signified by this statement taken in connection with 
 the immediately preceding words, " Because Ephraim hath 
 made many altars to sin, altars shall be unto him to sin"? 
 To what period in Israel's history do the words apply that 
 are found in 2 Chron. xv. 3, " Now for a long season Israel 
 had been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, 
 and without law " ? Do they not describe Israel's condition 
 under the judges ? Did not Israel, in the days of the judges, 
 possess, in written form, the law of Jehovah and His command- 
 ments by Moses ? Did not Joshua, according to the written 
 instructions of Moses in Deut. xxvii. 2-4, build an altar unto 
 Jehovah, as narrated in Joshua viii. 30-35 ? Does this historic 
 record in Joshua, when taken in connection with the words of 
 Moses in Deut. xxvii. 2-4 and Deut. xxxi. 24-26, not conclu- 
 sively settle and for ever determine the question whether 
 Moses left in writing any other laws than the commandments 
 on the tables of stone ? 
 
 It is not here deemed expedient to give any formal refuta- 
 tion of the arguments by which Professor Smith attempts, but 
 in vain, to show that Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, 
 but by another prophet who used the name of Moses in giving 
 a new version of the Mosaic laws adapted to the altered 
 circumstances of a later time. Professor Smith repudiates the 
 idea of this involving, on the part of that prophet, the perpe- 
 tration of a pious fraud. He speaks of it merely as the adop- 
 tion of a legitimate literary form, sealed by inspiration of the 
 Holy Ghost. But this charitable interpretation of what looks 
 like a pious fraud is repudiated alike by evangelical and 
 rationalistic critics as inconsistent with any known doctrine or 
 conceivable theory of inspiration. 
 
 Professor Smith's observations as to Calvin do not bear out 
 the inference which he deduces from them. Between the 
 method of Calvin and that of Professor Smith there is nothing 
 in common ; and, accordingly, the latter arrives at conclusions 
 subversive of the fundamental positions maintained and vindi- 
 cated by the great Reformer. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. ' 
 
 The Professor states that " the words of our Lord could not 
 settle any detailed question about the Pentateuch, because He 
 
20 
 
 never had that question before Him in any answer or word He 
 used. Our Lord spoke distinctly and intelligibly and with 
 infallible truth on the points that He spoke to ; but I am not 
 able to see that there is any ground in theology for holding 
 that His words had any bearing on points He did not speak 
 to. He did not speak to this point, and upon this point 
 therefore it is not necessary to go further " (Speech, p. 16). 
 
 Here let the precise state of the question be set before us. 
 It is whether Moses left in writing any other laws than the 
 commandments on the tables of stone. Did or did not the Lord 
 Jesus speak to that point ? The reply to that question has been 
 already given, for we have found that, in answer to a question 
 put to Him by the people, the Lord Jesus, in terms the most 
 precise and emphatic, affirmed that Moses wrote, and did not 
 merely speak, the words recorded in Deut. xxiv. 1. Nor is it 
 an unfair inference from this statement of the Lord, taken in 
 connection with the many other statements in which He 
 testified, in terms both general and specific, that Moses spoke 
 and wrote of Him, and from the terms in which He spoke of 
 the law, that the Lord Jesus put His seal upon the 
 Pentateuch as written by Moses. He spoke to the precise 
 point in question and settled it. He spoke of the general 
 question and settled it. The criticism, therefore, that disputes 
 this settlement of the question before us by the Lord Jesus, is 
 both irreverent and hazardous, notwithstanding what Professor 
 Smith says about calling in the name of the Lord, and degrad- 
 ing it by making it the instrument of a theological agitation. 
 Criticism should stand in awe in the presence and at the 
 voice of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Professor, beyond his 
 attempted vindication of the critical exegesis given by him of 
 Exodus xxiv. 4, and xxxiv. 27, avoids any reference to the 
 complaint that his statement respecting the written laws of 
 Moses " appears irreconcilable with many express statements 
 made in the Pentateuch." 
 
 THIRD DIVISION. — THIRD PARTICULAR, 
 
 JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 With respect to the extract given by the Committee from 
 the article which appeared in the Journal of Philology, 
 containing a statement relating to the law of marriage in 
 Israel, the Professor, repeating what he had said on a former 
 occasion, remarked, " If you cannot admit that it is legitimate 
 for an office-bearer in the Free Church to hold that, under 
 divine sanction, there was a gradual development of the 
 
21 
 
 Mosaic legislation, and an adaptation of it to the growth of 
 society and changing circumstances of the nation, then I must 
 Leave the < Ihurch; but if you admit that there may have been 
 growth and development, then I contend I am within the 
 < Ihurch ; and the Chuch decided I was to remain holding this 
 view." Here let it be noted : — (1.) That the Church gave no 
 judgment on the question of the alleged development of 
 the Mosaic legislation ; (2.) That a certain development 
 of law has never been denied by any competent theologian, 
 for all have admitted a three-fold development proceeding from 
 the will of God according to the dispensations of grace in the 
 times of the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; (3.) What is 
 denied is that there was such a development of law as is main- 
 tained by the Professor. For this development, in the particular 
 referred to, by inverting the order of history, leaves Israel 
 without a detailed and written marriage law until the return 
 from the captivity, when according to the Professor, the 
 l.ivitical code was formulated. To impartial criticism it must 
 be evident that what is said in Deuteronomy respecting mar- 
 riage is a mere supplement or appendix to the marriage law 
 given and recorded in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. 
 
 The development theory contended for by Professor Smith 
 applies not only to the marriage law, but to the entire history 
 of religion in Israel. It pre-supposes a primitive polytheism, 
 if not also fetichism, out of which, through successive ages, 
 Israel gradual^ emerged till, in the times of the prophets, the 
 grand conception of the unity and spirituality of God as 
 Jehovah was reached, and became the symbol of Israel's dis- 
 tinctive glory among the nations of the earth. In harmony 
 with this theory, but in direct contradiction to the facts of 
 revelation, are the statements of the Professor regarding the 
 development of law and religious ordinances in Israel. 
 
 Much more than was given by the Committee might have 
 been adduced from the article in the Journal of Philology in 
 illustration of the nature, character, and consequences of the 
 Professor's theory and method. 
 
 THIRD DIVISION. — FOURTH PARTICULAR. 
 HEBREW HISTORY SINCE DAVID. 
 
 What we should have desired to hear more fully from the 
 Professor is not what he thought of the Hebrew literature in the 
 interval between David and the time of Amos and Hosea, but 
 rather what were his views respecting Israel's literature from the 
 time of Moses to the time of David. There is nothing wrong in 
 
22 
 
 saying that in the interval between David and Amos there was 
 a flourishing " historical and legal literature " in Israel. The 
 question is not concerning that matter of fact, but it is, first 
 of all, concerning the authenticity, genuineness, and extent of 
 that literature ; and, in the second place, concerning the date, 
 origin, and composition of the same literature. Nothing said 
 by the Professor about the mode in which " writing has always 
 been gone about in the East," and particularly among the 
 Arabians — not even his belief that it was in this way that our 
 present historical books came together — furnishes any help in 
 answering the two questions before us. What he says, how- 
 ever, tends undoubtedly to throw suspicion on the historical 
 truth and reliableness, as well as divine inspiration, of the 
 Pentateuch and other portions of the written word. The fact 
 that we have one continuous history from the beginning of 
 the Bible to the end of the second book of Kings is in keeping 
 with the views of those who affirm that, guided by the Spirit of 
 God, and instructed in the Divine plan, each successive writer 
 took up the pen as it fell from the hand of him who went 
 before him, or that contemporaneous writers acted harmoni- 
 ously towards the same end. So remarkable is this continuity 
 of Scripture, that the ministry of John the Baptist, in the New 
 Testament, seems to begin, time being ignored, immediately 
 after Malachi has concluded his prophetic labours. This fact, 
 so note-worthy and important, is perverted by Spinoza and all 
 those who have adopted his method to promote the ends of a 
 destructive criticism. For the same ends it would almost seem 
 as if reference had been made to it by Professor Smith. 
 
 THIRD DIVISION. — FIFTH PARTICULAR. 
 THE BOOK OF RUTH. 
 
 Here the Professor asks, "Why should I not call Ruth a grace- 
 ful prose idyll? " and his language indicates his belief that it was 
 not written till the post-exile period. With regard to these two 
 points it need only be remarked : — (1.) That the designation 
 "graceful prose idyll" is fitted to produce the impression that 
 the book is a romance, not a record of historical events, and 
 under that designation this book is spoken of by those critics 
 whose methods, theories, and language have been adopted by 
 Professor Smith ; (2.) That, in support of the post-exilian date 
 of the book, he brings forward no argument of any kind, while, 
 at the same time, he would lay the burden of proving the book 
 not to be of that date on those who assign the composition of 
 it to an earlier age. 
 
23 
 
 Here he omits all reference to tlie post-exile Psalms, 
 although he bad said, in the article complained of, that they 
 "occupy a large part of the Psalter." It was due, to the 
 Church that he should specify somewhat definitely what Ik; 
 meant by "a large part of the Psalter." This was all the more 
 called for because of the extremely unsatisfactory views which 
 he had previously published respecting many of the Psalms. 
 It is well known that by what the Professor calls "a large 
 part of the Psalter," certain other critics mean almost all those 
 Psalms in which the excellence and perfection of the law 
 (tordh) are celebrated. 
 
 Till; MI MIASM. 
 
 The remarks made by the Professor on the Midrash in his 
 speech require no comment, provided the record in the book 
 of Chronicles is not confounded with what he calls the 
 sermonizing treatment of Old Testament history. At the 
 same time it should be noted that the Professor's rendering of 
 the word, as it occurs in Scripture, is not accepted by many 
 competent scholars and interpreters. 
 
 JONAH. 
 
 The Committee, in their report, present the following state- 
 ment from the article "Hebrew Literature" regarding: the 
 book of Jonah. " Alon^ with this came the be^inninsfs of 
 Haggada, the formation of parables and tales attached to 
 historical names, of which the book of Jonah is generally 
 taken as an early example, and which attains much greater 
 dimensions in the apocryphal additions to the Hagiographa." 
 
 Here let the Professor's position be clearly defined and 
 understood. (1.) He admits that Jonah was a historical 
 person. (2.) He neither commits himself nor the Church to 
 any theory regarding the book of Jonah. (3.) He states that 
 the book of Jonah is generally taken as an early example of 
 a parable or tale attached to a historical name — "that the 
 theory of donah as a parable is a current theory " (Speech, p. 19.) 
 (4.) He seems to some extent to favour this theory, of which 
 he gives an elaborate exposition and vindication. 
 
 He professes, in his speech, to receive as historical certain 
 parts of tlu- book ; while he explains the miracle that befell the 
 prophet on his way to Nineveh, by saying it is nothing more 
 than a parable or a parabolic prophecy. But if this particular 
 miracle be nothing more than an allegory or parable, no matter 
 how ingeniously interpreted, why may not all the miracles of 
 
24 
 
 Holy Scripture be allegories or parables ? Nothing but the 
 improbability of the event dictates to the critics the idea of this 
 particular miracle being only a parable. The same improba- 
 bility dictates to many critics the idea that not even one 
 of the many miracles recorded in the Bible actually took 
 place. By applying this method of interpretation, Woolston, 
 the Deist, maintained that the miracles of Christ were 
 nothing more than prophetical and parabolical narratives or 
 figures of His mysterious and spiritual operations. Is there in 
 all Scripture a miracle better attested than this recorded of 
 the prophet Jonah ? The belief of it rests on the truth of the 
 inspired record ; but, besides this, it was one of those singled 
 out and sealed by the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Why, in the face of such testimony, accept part of the book of 
 Jonah as historically true — the journey to Nineveh — and at 
 the same time reject that part of the record in which the 
 miracle is narrated ? The only answer given by Professor 
 Smith is that, by most of the critics, the book, " as we have it 
 in its details," is treated as a parable. Regarding it in this 
 light, he has recourse to an ingenious artifice of interpretation, 
 by which, expounding it as a parable, he explains away the 
 miracle. " By taking the book of Jonah as a parable," he 
 says, " we are able to understand what our Lord meant by 
 ' the sign of the prophet Jonah ' in a way that the ordinary 
 view does not enable us to do." Of the truth of this state- 
 ment there can be no question. But, by so interpreting it, we 
 destroy the significaucy of the event in relation to the men of 
 Nineveh, and at the same time the direct and designed sioni- 
 ncancy of the event in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. For 
 wonderful though the miracle was as " a sign to the men of 
 Nineveh," it loses much of its wonderfulness when it is com- 
 pared with the resurrection of Christ from the dead — that sign 
 to mankind in all ages proclaiming and demonstrating that 
 Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of the living God. 
 
 THIRD DIVISION. — SIXTH PARTICULAR. 
 EBER AND THE GENEALOGIES. 
 
 The statements made regarding the genealogical tables con- 
 tained in Gen. x.-xi., destroy the historical relations between 
 Shem, Abraham, and Israel. For not only are names occurring in 
 the tenth chapter represented as " ethnological or geographical 
 abstractions," but personal names given in the eleventh chapter, 
 in the direct historic line between Shem and Abraham, are 
 represented as being nothing more than "ideas personified;" 
 
25 
 
 ana so great is the importance attached to this view that the 
 choice is asserted to lie between the acceptance of the Pro- 
 fessor's exegesis and the admission of contradictions in the 
 record of Scripture. But surely there is a more excellent way. 
 And it is found by a careful investigation of the tables before 
 us. This investigation is all the more necessary because the 
 whole of the historic and prophetic Scriptures, in their refer- 
 ences to the nations outside the commonwealth of Israel, 
 proceed upon the historical reality of the names given in the 
 tenth chapter. And the genealogy of the Lord Jesus, if it is 
 not to be regarded as mythical, necessarily implies that the 
 names in the eleventh chapter were names of real persons, and 
 not of " ideas personified." 
 
 The distinction between the genealogical tables in the tenth 
 and those in the eleventh chapter, is obvious on the slightest 
 examination. In order, however, to put this beyond the reach 
 of doubt, let the following considerations be duly weighed : — 
 
 (1.) In all Scripture respect is had to a twofold relation of 
 the divine providence towards men ; the one depending upon 
 nature, the other upon grace : 
 
 (2.) Corresponding with this twofold relation are the divine 
 names Elohim and Jehovah : 
 
 (3.) In the fourth chapter of Genesis there is given a gen- 
 ealogical list of the descendants of Cain, illustrative of the 
 natural relationship in which men stand to God — Elohim : 
 
 (4.) In the fifth chapter we find a parallel record, in gen- 
 ealogical form, of those successively from Adam to Noah under 
 the covenant of grace, illustrative of the relationship of men 
 to God — Jehovah : 
 
 (5.) The intimation of the approaching judgment of the flood, 
 which concerned the whole world, was made by God — Elohim : 
 (6.) The actual grace vouchsafed to Noah and his family, 
 is represented as proceeding from God — Jehovah : 
 
 (7.) The genealogical natural line is continued in the tenth 
 chapter, in which Shem takes rank as the ancestor of many 
 nations, in the same way as Ham and Japheth. The distin- 
 guishing feature of this table is that it presents a genealogy of 
 nations rather than of individuals. In other words, the 
 pedigree of nations is traced to the individuals specified as 
 their remote ancestors. Here Shem is said to be the father of 
 all the children of Eber (Gen. x. 21), just as Canaan (Gen. x. 
 16) is represented as the father of the Amorite, the Girgasite, 
 and the Jebusite. In this table Aram is said to be a son of 
 Shem ; but whether a son by immediate descent, or remotely, 
 like the children of Eber, of whom Shem was the father, 
 
26 
 
 cannot be determined conclusively from what is said in the 
 record. The probability is that the Aram here mentioned is 
 the remote descendant of Shem, whose name occurs in the 
 genealogy of the Aramaeans given in Gen. xxii. 20-24. In that 
 case, the Professor's argument falls to the ground so far as 
 Aram is concerned, and unless Professor Smith can identify 
 the Huz of Gen. xxii. 21 with the Uz of Genesis x. 23, his 
 demonstration is equally unsatisfactory with regard to Uz. 
 He has failed to show that there is any necessity for the 
 assumption that, unless the records be received as mythical, 
 they must be regarded as mutually contradictory. 
 
 The statement in Deut. xxvi. 5, "A Syrian [an Aramaean] 
 ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt," 
 fairly interpreted, involves no question of genealogy ; alJ such 
 questions being otherwise determined. Jacob, who went 
 down to Egypt, might for many reasons be described as an 
 Aramaean. His mother was an Aramaean (Gen. xxii. 20-24), 
 his wives were Aramaeans, and he himself had resided in 
 Aramaea for a. long period of years. But, irrespective of all 
 this, as Reuss remarks, it seems to be the intention of the 
 writer, in this part of Deuteronomy, to give prominence to the 
 contrast between the wandering and unsettled life of Jacob, 
 and the life of his descendants in the settled possession of a 
 fruitful land. 
 
 Thus there is no contradiction either between Genesis and 
 Deuteronomy, or between one part of Genesis and another. 
 
 . (8.) The genealogical line of grace, given in the fifth chapter, 
 is continued in the eleventh. Here Shem and his descendants 
 in the line of Arphaxad are discriminated from the world at 
 large. The distinguishing feature of this table is that it is a 
 genealogy in which the line of succession, beginning with 
 Adam (chap, v.), extends, through persons whose names are 
 specified, onwards to Abraham (chap. xi.). This is with propriety 
 termed the line of the Messianic genealogy ; — a line reaching 
 forward through Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and others, to 
 Jesus, who was the son of David, the son of Abraham, the son 
 of Adam, the son of God. By reducing several of the names 
 in this list to " ethnological abstractions " or " ideas personified," 
 Professor Smith destroys the historic line according to which 
 Jesus can be vindicated to be truly and properly descended 
 from Adam. A genealogy of abstractions, while preserving 
 the unity of Professor Smith's theory, destroys the reality of 
 the patriarchal history. It does more. It destroys the reliable- 
 ness of the genealogy of the incarnate Son of God as given in 
 the Old Testament and the New. 
 
27 
 
 Besides the way which has been indicated, there is another, 
 
 in which it can be shown that the genealogical statements in 
 the Pentateuch do not involve the contradictions which 
 Professor Smith thinks can only be avoided by the acceptance 
 of his theory of ethnological and geographical abstractions. 
 He has no right to assume that there was only one person of 
 the name of Aram, any more than that there was only one of 
 the name of Nahor, Gad, or Nathan. According to the view 
 now referred to, Aram, the son of Kemuel, in Gen. xxii. 21, is 
 a different person from Aram, who, in Gen. x. 22, is said to be 
 the son of Shem. Similarly Uz, the son of Aram (Gen. x. 23), 
 is not to be confounded with Huz, the son of Nahor and 
 nephew of Abraham (Gen. xxii. 21); and in Deut. xxvi. 5, where 
 Jacob is referred to as a Syrian or Aram;ran, this term does 
 not necessarily signify more than a dweller in the land of 
 Aram, in which Jacob had resided for many years. 
 
 Considering what has now been advanced, it is surely bold, 
 and even reckless, in Professor Smith to assert that the state- 
 ments of Scripture " would not be accurate but self-contra- 
 dictory if they were not taken in the interpretation which " he 
 has " put on them " {Speech, p. 21). This is surely a method 
 of criticism not becoming a devout, modest, or learned theo- 
 logian. It is a method, however, which, as applied by the 
 Professor, yields " passages which naturally suggest that 
 Scripture does not give an authentic narrative of facts or 
 actual occurrences." 
 
 THIRD DIVISION — SEVENTH PARTICULAR. 
 JEREMIAH L. 
 
 Here it is stated by the Professor that " an exact parallel 
 to this prophecy, in the sense in which " he speaks " of it, is to 
 be found in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews.'' He must 
 have strange ideas as to what constitutes an exact parallel, and 
 his logic must be as lawless as his method. For he reasons 
 thus : — The Epistle to the Hebrews is not said in the original 
 text to have been written by Paul, therefore it was not written 
 by the apostle. The prophecy in Jeremiah 1., li. is said in the 
 original text to have been written by him ; therefore he did 
 not write it. But the matter is too serious to be treated 
 lightly. Let the reader open his Bible in the authorised 
 version. He will there find as the first verse in chapter L. 
 these words : — 
 
 " The word that the Lord spake against Babylon, and against 
 the land of the Chaldeans, by Jeremiah the prophet." 
 
28 
 
 Let hira now turn to the conclusion of this prophetic message 
 as given in chapter li. 59-64, and there, in a variety of forms, 
 and in language the most explicit, he will find it stated that it 
 was written by Jeremiah. Professor Smith nevertheless alleges 
 that it was an anonymous prophecy ! He makes this assertion 
 on the ground that, in the Septuagint, the prophecy is not, in 
 the first verse of chapter 1., ascribed to Jeremiah. But if not 
 in that place of the Septuagint said to be by Jeremiah, it is, in 
 the concluding verses of chapter li., repeatedly declared to have 
 proceeded from him (see LXX., Jer. li. 59-64). The absence of 
 the words " by Jeremiah the prophet " from the first verse of 
 the fiftieth chapter, is the only argument adduced for ranking 
 this among other prophecies alleged to have been written 
 anonymously. Of these we have already considered Isaiah 
 xiii., xiv. Were these prophecies really anonymous, no argu- 
 ment against the inspiration or authority of Scripture could 
 be founded on the assertion that they were such. But, seeing 
 that in the original and authentic Hebrew text, they are not 
 anonymous, but given in the names of prophets who lived in 
 times well ascertained, the allegations made by Professor 
 Smith are fitted to bring into doubt both the inspiration and 
 the authority of Scripture, by suggesting that it " does not give 
 an authentic narrative of facts or actual occurrences." 
 
 The statement that " everyone now knows that the apostle 
 Paul did not write " the Epistle to the Hebrews, is character- 
 istic of the Professor's dogmatic style, which, like that of many 
 other critics, is strong in the power of unsupported assertions. 
 For there are scholars and theologians not a few who believe 
 and are able to prove that the apostle Paul, and none other 
 than he, was the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and 
 against their weighty arguments, the light, flippant and easy 
 assertions of Professor Smith avail nothing. But whatever 
 may be said on either side regarding a confessedly anonymous 
 document such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the case is 
 widely different when, in direct opposition to the original 
 text, Professor Smith describes as anonymous a prophecy that 
 bears the name of Jeremiah. It is no vindication of this 
 destructive criticism to allege that the titles of certain Psalms 
 are not integral parts of the inspired word. It is with the 
 body of the narrative and not with titles or headings that we 
 have here to do. Moreover, every such question must be 
 determined by its own appropriate evidence, not by general 
 statements. While we are to " prove all things," we are to 
 " hold fast that which is good." 
 
29 
 
 FOURTH DIVISION — PREDICTIVE PROPHECY. 
 FIRST PARTICULAR. ISAIAH XIII., XIV. 
 
 Prophecy, in the full sense of the word, denotes the revela- 
 tion of the will of God with respect to the past, the present, 
 and the future. The prophet is one who speaks for God, 
 having had made to him the communication of the Divine w ill. 
 Prophecy may thus assume the form of history in relation to 
 the past; of doctrine or instruction in relation to the present; 
 and of prediction in relation to the future. Yesterday, 
 to-day, and for ever are equally known to God, and in the 
 administration of His kingdom lie has, according to His 
 ure, revealed His will to His servants, the prophets. 
 Of the prophecies thus divinely given, those of Isaiah 
 occupy a prominent and even commanding place in holy 
 Scripture; and they are quoted and referred to in the New 
 iment, just as the writings of Moses are referred to, under 
 the name of the writer or prophet. In holy Scripture only 
 one Isaiah is recognized. We cannot, therefore, avoid regard- 
 ing with suspicion any attempt to reduce the book of Isaiah 
 to fragments. Here the doctrine of rationalistic probability 
 must not be our guide. For the application of that doctrine, 
 commencing with the reduction of books to fragments, leads 
 ultimately to the denial of there being any genuine prophecy 
 in Scripture. Professor Smith, against all evidence, as we 
 have seen, represents certain prophecies as having been given 
 in the form of "anonymous broadsides." This groundless 
 assertion was made by him in order to maintain his theory 
 respecting the dates of Mich prophecies. And this theory itself 
 springs out of a criticism which proceeds on the improbability 
 of there being in the Bible a single statement that can, with 
 strict propriety, be termed predictive. It is a product of the 
 naturalistic criticism of which the Professor thinks he can 
 avail himself, when at the same time affirming the super- 
 natural origin and divine inspiration of Scripture. Nothing 
 can be more vague, general, or unsatisfactory than the state- 
 ments made regarding prophecy in the articles "Bible" and 
 " Hebrew Literature." The Professor reiterates assertions 
 respecting inspiration, without giving any definition of that 
 term ; and he treats the so-called anonymous prophecies in 
 Isaiah in precisely the same way as they are treated by those 
 critics who deny their truly prophetic character. For the 
 ground on which the rationalistic critics assign Isaiah xiii., 
 xiv. to the Babylonian age is that, with their ideas of pre- 
 dictive prophecy, it was not oulj- improbable but impossible 
 
30 
 
 that they could have been spoken in the time of Isaiah. 
 This may be the Professor's idea of " the best line of defence" 
 against the aggressions of the rationalistic critics ; but defence 
 thus conducted by him is surrender. For as well might he 
 deny that the first or any part of Isaiah's book was by him, 
 as deny that he was the writer of the prophecies delivered by 
 him against Babylon. The introductory sentence of the first 
 prophecy is in these words : — " The vision of Isaiah the son of 
 Amoz which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem ;" and 
 the introduction to the prophecy against Babylon is in similar 
 terms : — " The burden of Babylon which Isaiah the son of 
 Amoz did see." Why accept the one and reject the other? 
 It cannot be on the ground that the first twelve chapters do 
 not reach forward to events far beyond the time of the Baby- 
 lonian captivity — events, some of which are even yet in the 
 future. On what other ground, then, we may ask is the 
 prophecy against Babylon assigned to the time of the exile ? 
 Must a theory of probability be assumed in this case in order to 
 delete from the text the words which give the historical date 
 of the prophecy, and which also vindicate the character of 
 the prophecy as strictly predictive ? Why should it seem 
 incredible that, in the visions of God with which Isaiah was 
 favoured, he should behold, passing before his view as in 
 panoramic order, the series of events by which God should 
 avenge his quarrel against Babylon ? To represent this as im- 
 probable or incredible is not only to " discredit prophecy in its 
 predictive aspect," but it is also to render all prophecy impro- 
 bable or incredible. Reasoning out the conclusions of 
 Professor Smith, we must assent to the words of Kuenen, 
 when, after having explained away all Scripture prophecy, 
 he says, " Thus the crown which a later generation had placed 
 upon the brows of the Israelitish prophets is in our time 
 removed ; but, stripped of that supernatural halo with which 
 they glittered, they reveal all the more clearly their own 
 personal greatness. But we have then no longer, in their 
 prophecies the Word of God Himself, which we, in common 
 with the Christian Church of all ages, thought that we possessed 
 in them. Do not lament that ! Each of their words that finds 
 an echo in your heart — and their number is great — is to you a 
 word of God" (Kuenen's "Prophets and Prophecy in Israel"). 
 Such is the sad but inevitable result of Professor Smith's 
 method and theory applied to what he calls the anonymous 
 prophecies recorded in the book of Isaiah. 
 
 The same reason that leads to the denial of the historical 
 worth of the brief introduction to Isaiah's prophecies against 
 
31 
 
 Babylon has led to the denial, on a far grander scale, of the 
 historical worth of all that certifies that the laws and prophe- 
 cies contained in Deuteronomy were written by Moses. For 
 while much is made of the alleged opposition between the 
 Deuteronomic laws and those given at Sinai, there can be no 
 question that a powerful reason for endeavouring to show that 
 Deuteronomy was not written till the times of Hezekiah or 
 Josiah, is derived from the fact that several very marked 
 prophetic announcements are made in that book. Hence, in 
 part, at least, the eagerness with which rationalistic critics 
 nave contended that Deuteronomy could not have been the 
 work of Moses. Reuss admits that history and law are so 
 interwoven in Scripture, that it is almost impossible to separate 
 them ; and this statement holds true respecting the connection 
 between history and prophecy, as well as between history and 
 law. The historical, legal, and prophetical elements are so 
 inwrought into each other in the narrative, and they seem so to 
 grow out of, and so to grow into, each other, that only to the 
 credulity of naturalistic criticism does it appear possible that 
 they should have been artificially patched or compacted together. 
 What is said respecting those who first published " anony- 
 mous broadsides," that this alleged practice indicated a 
 characteristic change from the method of " the former prophets, 
 who wrote only what they had first spoken to the people" is 
 a statement in support of which no proof is offered. And no 
 wonder. For (1.) as we have seen, no such anonymous broad- 
 sides are found in Scripture ; (2.) no such characteristic change 
 as is alleged is observable; and (3.) there is no indication that the 
 former prophets wrote only what they had first spoken to the 
 people. Others as well as Professor Smith form their opinions 
 by the best light they can get; and, by that light, are con- 
 strained to say, in direct contradiction to him, that, in the 
 »f Isa. xiii., xiv., the title of the prophecy in our ordinary 
 text has as much claim to be regarded as " part of the original 
 oook and of the word of God," as the prophecy itself or any 
 other portion of the Holy Scripture. 
 
 FOURTH DIVISION. — SECOND PARTICULAR. 
 DANIEL. 
 
 Professor Smith's reference to Daniel, in his article, is in the 
 following terms : — 
 
 "It is even probable that the Old Testament contains ele- 
 ments as late as the epoch of national revival under the 
 Maccabees (Daniel, certain Psalms)." 
 
32 
 
 There is not a little confusion in the statements made in 
 this part of the article. For, in a sentence preceding the one 
 just quoted, the writer says, that, "at the close of 'the Old 
 Testament period, the author of Ecclesiastes could speak of the 
 weariness of much study, and the endless sterility of book- 
 making." According to this statement, Ecclesiastes is placed 
 at the end of the Old Testament period. Nevertheless a place 
 still later seems to be assigned to Daniel. 
 
 In his speech the Professor attempts to vindicate the opinion 
 expressed in his article. Here, as usual, the rationalistic pro- 
 bability is his guide, for he remarks, " I only say it is probable 
 it was not written before that date." The grounds on which 
 this probability rests are : — (1.) That the book " is written in 
 two languages ; " and (2.) That " there are other considerations, 
 pointing to a late date and a peculiar history." These are the 
 only grounds from within the book itself advanced in favour of 
 the position that it must have been written as late as the time 
 of the Maccabees. Let these grounds now be examined. The 
 first, that the book is partly in one language (Hebrew) and 
 partly in another (Aramaic), so far from constituting a pro- 
 bability in favour of its belonging to the Maccabean period, is, 
 when viewed in connection with other characteristics, a very- 
 strong argument in favour of its having proceeded from the 
 pen of Daniel. For Daniel was well able to produce such a 
 work as bears his name, having been versed in all the learning 
 of the Hebrews and Chaldeans, as Moses was versed in all the 
 learning of the Egyptians. In this light the book reflects not 
 only the image of his time and circumstances, but the image 
 of the man. This peculiarity, therefore, in the composition 
 of the book is an argument in favour not only of its authen- 
 ticity but of its genuineness. But to the Professor it seems 
 otherwise. 
 
 The " other considerations, pointing to a late date and a 
 peculiar history," are not specified. They no doubt include, 
 such as the occurrence in the book of certain words and 
 phrases of foreign origin for the presence of which it is difficult 
 to account according to the doctrine of probability held by the 
 rationalistic critics who ignore everything that is unfavourable 
 to their own foregone conclusion. Among such unspecified 
 considerations, the apocalyptic character of the book, or the 
 so-called fantastic symbolic imagery contained in it, must be 
 taken into account. It has been customary with certain critics 
 to treat this species of prophetical literature in a spirit bor- 
 dering on contempt. But in this, as in every other case, God, 
 not man, is the competent judge of the form in which His 
 
33 
 
 will slioul.l be communicated. Any considerations grounded 
 on the history of the time tend all to the support ol the 
 position that the book was, as it bears to be, written by Daniel 
 the prophet. He it was who saw the visions recorded In the 
 book; and of him it is again and again stated that be wrote 
 the vision. The Lord Jesus spoke of him as Daniel the 
 prophet; and even Professor Smith admits part of the book 
 to be prophetical, that part, namely, which treats of Christ 
 and His kingdom, together with the resurrection of the dead. 
 But interpreting certain parts of the hook as descriptive of the 
 wars of Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy, Professor Smith 
 regards those parts as history rather than prophecy. In other 
 Words, he admits that the prophet Daniel had visions of events 
 that were to occur through the ages onwards till the end of 
 time, while he denies that Daniel foresaw and foretold events 
 which as interpreted by him, were to precede the first advent 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to this view there must 
 have been two or three Daniels concerned in the production of 
 this book ; and the work itself, instead of being authentic and 
 genuine, must be accounted spurious and apocryphal. It is 
 vain after this to speak of certain parts of the text as more 
 valuable than other parts for the Christian Church in the way 
 of edification, unless indeed, with many critics, Professor Smith 
 identifies edification with inspiration. But edification is a 
 precarious index of inspiration. For inspiration is an ob- 
 jective property of the written word of God, whereas 
 edification is a subjective condition of the reader's mind. 
 Unbelief does not take from, nor does faith add to, the 
 inspiration of Scripture. For, as the apostle Paul says, "All 
 Scripture is given by inspiration of God " (2 Tim. iii. 10), and 
 the apostle Peter says that "the prophecy came not in old 
 time by the will of man ; but holy men of God spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. i. 21) ; and among 
 these holy men of God, according to the testimony of Ezekiel, 
 confirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ, Daniel occupies a place of 
 signal distinction and honour. Nor does it need any prophetic 
 gift to afHrm with certainty that the book of Daniel will 
 survive the criticism of Professor Smith. Meanwhile, on the 
 Church in which he holds office there devolves a most weighty 
 and solemn responsibility for the light discharge of its duty to 
 the word and to the name of Christ. The Church must not 
 shut its eyes, and blindly tolerate the criticism that would ' 
 destroy the prophetic character of the writings of Daniel, 
 Jeremiah, and Moses the man of God. It must use caution, 
 but it must also use courage in vindication of the trust com- 
 
34 
 
 esus 
 lise, 
 will 
 
 mitted to it, and in the discharge of its duty to the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, if it would receive the commendation and the promise 
 " Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also 
 keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon 
 all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth " (Rev. iii. 
 10). 
 
 FOURTH DIVISION. — THIRD PARTICULAR. 
 THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. 
 
 A graceful exit is to a player what an impressive peroration 
 is to an orator. The conclusion of Professor Smith's speech 
 was neither graceful nor impressive. For, in replying to the 
 statement that in attributing the rise of written prophecy to 
 the eighth century B.C., he appeared to be at variance with 
 the plain teaching of our Lord who says (John v. 46) " Had 
 ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of 
 me ; " by the exercise of a little verbal dexterity unworthy 
 of the occasion, he avoided the charge grounded on his own 
 words respecting the date of written prophecy in Israel. 
 Attaching one meaning to the phrase "written prophecy" as 
 used by the Committee when he must have known that the 
 phrase was employed by the Committee in a different and 
 more comprehensive sense, he sa}^s, " Our Lord always speaks 
 of the Law and the Prophets as two distinct things. I do the 
 same, and, doing so, state the undoubted fact that the earliest 
 of the prophetic books were written in the eighth century." 
 Now on this let it be remarked : — (1.) That it is an interesting 
 specimen of the hair-splitting in which the Professor indulges 
 when put on his defence ; (2.) That the statement, like many 
 others made in the defence, is not true — our Lord did not 
 always speak of the LaAv and the Prophets as two distinct 
 things; and (3.) That when the Lord used the words " Moses 
 wrote of me," His words, according to the concession made by 
 the Professor for the sake of argument, signify that Moses as 
 a prophet wrote concerning Christ. But in that case prophecy 
 began to be written long before the eighth century. It was 
 not, as insinuated by the Professor, either from ignorance or 
 captiousness, any more than from disregard of the fact that 
 the Hebrew Bible is divided into the Law, the Prophets, and 
 the Hagiographa, that the Committee stated in their report 
 that the Professor's words appeared " to be at variance with 
 the plain teaching of our Lord." 
 
 But it should not be forgotten that the Professor's words, 
 in concluding his speech, proceeded on a concession made 
 merely fur the sake of argument. The concession is only 
 
35 
 
 verbal. " Let us accept the whole traditional view," he says, 
 "and say that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch." His 
 speech, beginning with a protest, ends with a quibble. For at 
 the time when he was speaking of Moses as having written the 
 whole Pentateuch, he could not have forgotten that, according 
 to statements made by him on a previous occasion, the name 
 of Moses, as used on many occasions by the Lord, means " no 
 more than" the name of " the old dispensation.*' " It is in this 
 broad sense," he alleges, "and not with limited reference to 
 any one passage, that, in John v. 4G, Moses is said to bear 
 witness to Christ" (Additional Ansiver to the Libel, p. 88). 
 Here let it be noted: — (1.) That, according to the Professor's own 
 showing, the Lord spoke in such comprehensive terms of Moses 
 and the law as to include the prophets, for the old dispensa- 
 tion is surely comprehensive of both law and prophecy ; and, 
 (2.) That by tins interpretation the name of Moses becomes 
 nothing more than an ethnological or dispensational abstrac- 
 tion. Extremes meet. At variance with the plain teaching 
 of our Lord, the statements of Professor Smith coincide with 
 those of the mystic Swedenborg, who interprets the names of 
 Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and many others, not as 
 names of persons and prophets, but as names of "dispensations." 
 This is what comes of applying an illegitimate critical method 
 and theory to the written word of God. "But I do much 
 condemn that interpretation of the Scripture," says Lord Bacon, 
 " which is only after the manner as men use to interpret a 
 profane book." This method of interpretation, enunciated by 
 Ernesti before the time of the publication of the Wolfenbuttel 
 fragments (1774-1778), was soon applied in its full rigour by 
 the rationalistic critics of Germany. First, by it the Bible 
 was dismembered or broken into fragments — its unity des- 
 troyed; second, the dismembered fragments were alleged to be 
 mutually contradictory — the consentaneousness or self-con- 
 sistency of Scripture being destroyed ; third, the inspiration of 
 the sacred record, incompatible with a writing abounding in 
 self-contradictions, was denied ; and fourth, miracle, prophecy, 
 and historical truthfulness, as belonging to the idea of the 
 Bible, were altogether disowned and repudiated. With this 
 lesson before it, let not the Church be deceived. The appli- 
 cation of an illegitimate method will yield in Scotland the 
 same sort of fruit that it has produced in other lands. For, 
 by their fruits, methods as well as men are knowm. " Of 
 thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather 
 they grapes " (Luke vi. 44). 
 
36 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The doctrine of the Church concerning the word of God is 
 stated in the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith. Of that chapter let the following summary suffice : — 
 
 Holy Scripture, that is, " the word of God written," is the 
 gracious revelation of the will of God concerning His own 
 glory and man's duty. All this written word is given by 
 inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. The 
 authority of Scripture is intrinsic — within itself — because it 
 is the word of God. It abundantly proves itself to be the 
 word of God by " 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, 
 with its many other excellencies, and its entire perfection." 
 These arguments demonstrate that holy Scripture is the word 
 of God. But " our full persuasion and assurance of the infal- 
 lible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward 
 work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word 
 in our hearts." Scripture is perfect and complete, containing all 
 things necessary to the ends for which it was given. For these 
 ends it is sufficiently intelligible and perspicuous, although in 
 it there are some things hard to be understood. Immediately 
 inspired of God, the original text is genuine and authentical, 
 that is, the text is inspired and pure, therefore of supreme 
 authority in all controversies of religion. It is its own infallible 
 rule of interpretation. It admits of no appeal except to God, 
 the Holy Ghost, speaking in the written word. Thus is the 
 inspired word at once witness, rule, and judge, in all matters 
 pertaining to the glory of God, and the faith, life, and salva- 
 tion of man. 
 
 In all the statements of the Confession it is implied or 
 expressly declared : — 
 
 First, That holy Scripture as the word of God, " who is 
 truth itself," is true ; that is to say it is true to fact, time, 
 person, place, — historically true ; self- consistent in its testi- 
 mony, not self-contradictory. 
 
 Second, That holy Scripture as the word of God is infallibly 
 true. Originating in the grace of God, it communicates to man 
 the will of God with infallible truth, resting on the veracity 
 of God, its author. 
 
 Third, That, historically true and infallibly true, it has been 
 
37 
 
 given by inspiration of God, and is therefore of supreme and 
 exclusive authority as the rule of faith and manners. 
 
 The preceding statements contain a condensed summary of 
 the Confessional doctrine of the Church concerning holy 
 Scripture. How then does Professor Smith speak of ilii-; first 
 and fundamental article of the Free Church? Referring to 
 the date and character of the book of Ruth, he says, "It is not 
 practical study of Scripture, it is not knowledge of or regard 
 for Scripture that makes men so ready to bring accusations of 
 this sort, but it is a dogmatic prejudice which, if it is ever 
 allowed in this Church to come between us and Scripture — if 
 by it we are to be reduced to the position of nourishing our 
 life from the expressions of the first chapter of the Confession 
 when we ought to be nourishing it from the words of Christ's 
 gospel, and the words of Christ's prophets — then I, for my 
 part, care not how long I remain in the Free Church" (Speech, 
 p. 19). 
 
 The words of the. Professor as thus given are both significant 
 and characteristic. 
 
 For (1.) They ascribe to dogmatic prejudice and t<> ignorance 
 of holy Scripture a view of the book of Ruth, which has been 
 the catholic and historic belief. of the Church of God in every 
 age and country, although rejected by Professor Smith and 
 certain modern critics. 
 
 (2.) They proceed on the assumption that no one who had 
 prayerfully and laboriously investigated the matter could 
 differ from the Professor's conclusion respecting it; — a con- 
 clusion arrived at by the "sweat of his brow" in translating 
 into English the views of continental critics and theologians. 
 
 (3.) They assume that those who maintain the comparatively 
 early date, and the strictly historical character of the book of 
 Ruth, are unacquainted with, the complicated details of 
 Scripture, and do not nourish their spiritual life from the words 
 of the Lord Jesus and His prophets, but from the expressions 
 of the first chapter of the Confession of Faith — an assumption 
 which, if it means anything, implies that, in that chapter, there 
 is something at variance with the words of the Lord Jesus 
 and His prophets. 
 
 (4.) They intimate or imply that those whose views do not 
 coincide with those of the Professor, threw the first chapter of 
 the Confession as a bar in the way of free and searching 
 inquiry into the words and facts of holy Scripture. 
 
 (5.) As for the assertion that he, for his part, cared not 
 how long he remained in the Free Church, unless he could 
 enjoy within it all the license which he claimed for himself — 
 
38 
 
 a license to make his views or convictions the measure and 
 standard of doctrinal belief to the Church — all that need be 
 said is that it is in keeping with his whole procedure in this 
 case. For he has hitherto strained every nerve, and has had 
 recourse to every technicality, in order to avoid the probation 
 of a libel three times found relevant against him. 
 
 Till the first chapter of the Confession of Faith cease to be 
 the fundamental article of the creed of the Free Church, or till 
 Professor Smith cease to be a minister of that Church, he is 
 bound to the utmost of his power, in his station and office, to 
 assert, maintain, and defend the doctrine therein set forth, and 
 solemnly professed by him when he was ordained to the office 
 of a professor of theology in the Free Church of Scotland. All 
 this will be abundantly evident from the questions answered 
 and the formula subscribed by him when he was admitted to 
 his position as a minister and professor. 
 
 QUESTIONS PUT TO MINISTERS AND PROFESSORS. 
 
 Every minister or professor, on admission to office in the 
 Free Church, gives affirmative answer to certain questions put 
 to him on the occasion. Among these are the following : — 
 
 "I. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testaments to be the word of God, and the only rule of faith 
 and manners V 
 
 The answer to this question covers all that is said in the 
 first chapter of the Confession respecting the historical and 
 infallible truth, self-consistency, divine inspiration, and supreme 
 authority of Holy Scripture; and what we maintain is, that 
 Professor Smith's views, tenets, or opinions respecting the his- 
 torical, legal, and prophetical elements of Scripture are contrary 
 to and inconsistent with the faith professed in the Church 
 that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the 
 word of God. For 
 
 (1.) By reducing the names which occur in the genealogies 
 in the early portions of Scripture to ethnological or geogra- 
 phical abstractions, he destroys the historical foundation of 
 the Bible: 
 
 (2.) By his theory respecting the date, character, and mode 
 of composition of the Hebrew literature up to the time of 
 David and before Amos and Hosea, he throws suspicion on the 
 credibility or historic truth and reliableness of that literature — 
 reducing much of it to nothing else than legends, fables, or 
 myths, set skilfully and brilliantly in the forms of patriarchal 
 history : 
 
39 
 
 (3.) By his .statements respecting Moses and his writings, he 
 brings into doubt the authenticity and genuineness of those 
 writings, leaving open tile whole question concerning the 
 legislation given and the prophecy spoken and written by 
 
 Moses : 
 
 (4.) By his doctrine concerning the Sinaitic and the Deutero- 
 nomic law, he sets law against law — the laws given at Horeb 
 against those mven on the borders of the Land of Promise : 
 
 (•">.) By his statements that the words said to have been 
 spoken and written by Moses in Deuteronomy were not spoken 
 or written by him, but by another prophet personating the 
 great law-giver, he not only undermines the grounds of the 
 historic credibility of Deuteronomy, but, in effect, propounds 
 the doctrine that holy men of God, in declaring the divine will, 
 made use, in order to give their words authority, of a literary 
 form, which all reasonable men, notwithstanding what the 
 Professor may allege to the contrary, cannot but deem a 
 literary forgery or a pious fraud. To affirm the divine inspira- 
 tion of such a composition is to affirm what is unreasonable, 
 incredible, and absurd : 
 
 (6.) By representing the Levitical code or law as consisting 
 for the most part, of decisions orally given by the priests, and 
 transmitted onwards, whether in written form or by word of 
 mouth, to the time of the exile, when they were reduced to 
 system, "on lines first drawn by Ezekiel," the Professor in- 
 verts the order of history, destroys the idea of law or Torah in 
 Israel, together with the authority of that law, and renders it 
 impossible, with any show of reason, to maintain that such 
 preposterous history, and such a collection of priestly decisions 
 should be regarded as given by inspiration of God : 
 
 (7.) By disjoining the historical record from the law recorded 
 in it — a procedure characteristic of the Professor's whole 
 method — he not only invalidates the law, but destroys also the 
 truly prophetic or predictive announcements embedded in the 
 history and the law as given in Holy Scripture. Thus, when 
 Moses is represented as saying, "A prophet shall Jehovah your 
 God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me," words 
 which are expressly and repeatedly ascribed to Moses in the 
 New Testament, according to the Professor's view the words 
 are not those of Moses, but of another personating the great 
 of Israel's prophets. Like unto that other, therefore, not like 
 unto Moses, must be the prophet whose advent is foretold in 
 this part of Deuteronomy, unless indeed, Moses is here, as 
 elsewhere he is alleged to be by the Professor, a synonym for 
 the old dispensation. In that case, the words might be thus 
 
40 • 
 
 rendered, " A prophet shall Jehovah your God raise up unto 
 you of your brethren like unto the old dispensation : " 
 
 (8.) By his statements respecting law and history, he 
 introduces contradiction between the facts in Israel's history, 
 and the worship of Jehovah in Israel. For undoubtedly the 
 prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple pre-supposed 
 the facts, laws, and records of the Pentateuch, as certainly as 
 all these were implied in the reformation effected in the times 
 of Josiah, and in the setting up anew, after the primitive model, 
 of the ordinances of divine worship in the days of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah. More particularly in this respect are the Psalms 
 rendered meaningless or incredible. For certain Psalms that 
 cannot be proved not to have belonged to the time of David 
 and Solomon, necessarily imply that before they were com- 
 posed and sung, Israel was in possession of the Pentateuchal 
 history and law : 
 
 (9.) The date assigned to the Pentateuch by the Professor's 
 theory renders unintelligible and incredible the charges given 
 by Moses to Joshua his successor, and those afterwards given 
 to him by Jehovah Himself : 
 
 (10.) By what the Professor says respecting the Song of 
 Songs, the book of Jonah, and certain portions of the books of 
 Isaiah and Jeremiah, the historical and infallible truth, and 
 the divine inspiration and authority of those writings are 
 impugned, and the grounds on which these can be vindicated 
 are undermined : 
 
 (11.) The right to a place in the canon of such books as 
 Esther, Ruth, the Song of Songs, Jonah, and Daniel, can never 
 be maintained and vindicated ; that is, their inspiration cannot 
 be affirmed if they were composed in the way described by the 
 Professor, and if they are, in their contents and character, what 
 he pronounces them to be : 
 
 (12.) The theory of personation which pervades the criticism 
 of the Professor is altogether subversive of the fact of inspira- 
 tion, and of the doctrine maintained by the Church of God 
 concerning holy Scripture. The idea, itself derived from the 
 rationalistic schools, may be compatible with the method of 
 those schools, and with theories that represent the Bible from 
 beginning to end as nothing more than a collection of parables 
 or allegories ; but it is contrary to and inconsistent with the 
 solemn declaration made by the Professor when he was 
 ordained, that he believed the Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testaments to be the word of God, and the only rule of faith 
 and manners. Who will believe this, if informed that Levi- 
 ticus, from beginning to end, and the book of Deuteronomy 
 
41 
 
 ■were composed according to a theory of personation — that the 
 words said in the former book to be spoken to Moses, and in 
 the latter book by Moses, were spoken only to and by one who 
 personated Moses? By this theory these books are really 
 reduced to the level of apocryphal literature, that is of books 
 given to the world under false names, in order to add to their 
 otherwise defective authority. To the same level (and for 
 substantially the same reasons) must the books of Ecclesiastes, 
 Jonah, and Daniel be reduced. So subtle, so flexible, and so 
 capable of universal application is this idea that there is no 
 reason why, in carrying out the Professor's theory, the whole 
 Bible should not he represented as unhistorical, parabolical, 
 and incredible, consisting of a congeries of "cunningly devis* d 
 fables." To allege of such a collection, or of books, or portions 
 of books composed according to the theory of personation, that 
 they are to be received as given by inspiration of God, is to 
 state what is alike inconsistent with the laws of reason and 
 the facts and findings of historical criticism. Besides this, 
 contrary to all that is revealed in holy Scripture regarding 
 the character and ways of God, it represents Him not only as 
 accessory to, but as virtually the author of, a series of pious 
 frauds, designed to form part of a book given to be the only 
 rule of faith and life to mankind. 
 
 It should not be forgotten that the theory of inspired per- 
 sonation, as held b}* the Professor, is by him not restricted to 
 Peuteronomy, but, as we have seen, is applied to the Levitical 
 portions of the Pentateuch, as also to Ecclesiastes, to the 
 prophet Jonah, and to the prophet Daniel. The Levitical 
 legislation is ascribed to a personator of Moses who lived after 
 Ezekiel, while Ecclesiastes is ascribed to a personator of 
 Solomon, writing after the return from the exile. It is 
 difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile these opinions with the 
 honesty of the writers; yet, according to Professor Smith, the 
 personators were inspired, and consequently inspired to per- 
 sonate. While holding this view, he refuses to associate the 
 idea of fraud with the composition of these books. But in this 
 he stands alone among the critics who agree with him in hold- 
 ing the theory of personation. Nor is this to be wondered at, 
 for the rationalistic critics are too shrewd to believe in per- 
 sonation without an adequate motive — the motive, namely, 
 of procuring for a book an authority and acceptance greater 
 than its author's own name could obtain for it. It is to 
 be hoped that the day is far distant when the Free Church 
 will sanction the teaching in her halls of any such theory of 
 inspired personation. 
 
42 
 
 (13.) Once more. The theory according to which law and 
 religious ordinances underwent progressive development in 
 Israel, as affirmed by the Professor, is not only irreconcilable 
 with all that is stated concerning this matter in the Old Testa- 
 ment and in the New, but it overturns the foundations of law 
 and prophecy in Israel. This theory, however, is a mere 
 twig or branch, from the stem of the rationalistic criticism. 
 It proceeds on the idea developed in the article on " Animal 
 Worship," in the Journal of Philology, that the ancestors of 
 the Hebrews, in common with the progenitors of the other 
 families of mankind, were originally and for many ages 
 worshippers of " creeping things, birds, and four-footed beasts." 
 According to this theory, the continuity of the promise and of 
 the worship of God in the line of Seth, Enoch, Noah, Shem, 
 and Abraham, is historically incredible. This view may 
 coincide with the Professor's statements respecting the " eth- 
 nological abstractions " in Genesis ; but it contradicts the 
 Scriptures, and, instead of the word of God, leaves to us false 
 history, false law, false prophecy, and a false gospel ; all of 
 which, nevertheless, we are expected to believe has been given 
 by inspiration of God. 
 
 The second question put to ministers or professors at their 
 admission to office is in these terms : — 
 
 " II. Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine 
 contained in the Confession of Faith approven by former 
 General Assemblies of this Church to be founded upon the 
 word of God ; and do you acknowledge the same to be the 
 confession of your faith ; and will you firmly and constantly 
 adhere thereto, and, to the utmost of your power, assert, 
 maintain, and defend the same, and the purity of worship as 
 presently practised in this Church ? " 
 
 The third question is : — 
 
 " III. Do you disown all Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, 
 Erastian, and other doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever, 
 contrary to and inconsistent with the aforesaid Confession of 
 Faith ? " 
 
 The affirmative answer to the two preceding questions is 
 the ground on which constitutional action can be originated 
 and prosecuted against any minister or professor chargeable 
 with holding, teaching, or promulgating opinions contrary to, 
 or inconsistent with, the Confession of Faith. Such opinions 
 may or may not, in so many direct terms, oppose or contradict 
 the statements of the Confession. It is enough to warrant 
 procedure that the opinions, doctrines, or tenets, in any given 
 case, be contrary to, or inconsistent with, the Confession. 
 
43 
 
 Such opinions maybe far more destructive than others that 
 directly contradict Confessional declarations or statements of 
 doctrine. 
 
 Omitting other questions which have no direct bearing on 
 our subject, the sixth question may here be given: — 
 
 " VI. Do you promise to submit yourself willingly and 
 humbly in the spiril of meekness unto the admonitions of the 
 brethren of this Presbytery, and to he subject to them, and 
 all other Presbyteries and superior judicatories of this < 'hurch 
 
 where God in His providence shall cast your lot; and that, 
 according to your power, you shall maintain the unity and 
 peace of this Church, notwithstanding of whatsoever trouble 
 or persecution may arise; and that you shall follow no divisive 
 courses from the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government 
 of this Church?" 
 
 The affirmative answer to this question binds him who 
 gives it not only to submit to the admonitions of his brethren, 
 and to be subject to the judicatories of the Church, but also to 
 maintain unity and peace against error and schism, and to 
 maintain the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of 
 the Church as against the following of divisive com 
 
 THE FREE CHURCH FORMULA. 
 
 After having answered the foregoing and other questions, 
 every minister or professor, at the time of his admission to 
 office, subscribes what is called the Formula, that is the 
 engagement by which he is formally bound to live, teach, 
 and act, according to the answers given to the questions 
 put to him. The parts of this engagement directly and 
 immediately bearing on the case under consideration are the 
 following : — 
 
 "I do hereby declare that I do sincerely own and believe the 
 whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven 
 by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be the truths 
 of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith 
 . . . . I promise that, through the grace of God, I shall firmly 
 and constantly adhere to the same, and, to the utmost of my 
 power, shall, in in}' station, assort, maintain, and defend the 
 said doctrine .... and I promise that T shall follow no 
 divisive courses from the doctrine, worship, discipline, govern- 
 ment, and exclusive jurisdiction of this Church, renouncing 
 all doctrines, tenets, or opinions whatsoever contrary to, 
 or inconsistent with, the said doctrine, worship, discipline, 
 government, or jurisdiction." 
 
44 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 It is fdr the Church to determine whether the opinions, 
 tenets, or theories of Professor Smith are or are not in accord- 
 ance with the declaration solemnly made by him at the time 
 when he was admitted to office. It is also for the Church to 
 determine and conclude whether, holding the opinions reported 
 on by the Committee, and other similar opinions, he can be 
 permitted to retain the office of a public teacher within the 
 communion of the Free Protesting Church of Scotland. With 
 a view to the determination of this grave question, it is the 
 duty of every Christian man to pray that the God of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto the ministers 
 and elders of the Church, with whom the decision of this 
 question rests, the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the 
 knowledge of the truth, so that the judgment given shall be 
 such as shall tend to promote the prosperity of the Church, 
 and the glory of God. 
 
i 
 
KViltf - ■ 
 
 BW5546.S65M2 
 
 Modern criticism : being an examination 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library