^.mM.'M 
 
BX 9084 .M5 1877 
 Miller, William, fl. 1877. 
 A plain view of the case of 
 Professor W. Robertson 
 
... "^J. 
 
 A P L A fT^"' Yt'E W 
 
 Divisinn 
 
 THE CASE OF 
 
 Professor W. ROBERTSON SMITH. 
 
 Rev. WILLIAM MILLER, M.A. 
 
 MACLAREN & MACNIVEN, 138 PRINCES STREET. 
 
 1877. 
 
BW5S4CD 
 
A PLAIN VIEW 
 
 THE CASE OF 
 
 Peofessoe W. ROBERTSON SMITH. 
 
 Rev. WILLIAM MILLER, M.A. 
 
 MACLAREN & MACNIVEN, 138 PRINCES STREET. 
 
 1877. 
 
F.DINBUKGH : 
 
 I'RINTEU EV LORI.MER AXD GILLIES, 
 
 CLYDE STREET. 
 
)NE who, after long residence abroad, comes home to find 
 his Church in a state of considerable excitement, and to 
 some extent at war within itself, about a theological question 
 that has suddenly arisen, can hardly help inquiring into the 
 cause of the agitation around him. And any inquiry he may 
 make is made at least with this advantage — that he can judge 
 dispassionately with greater ease than those whose circumstances 
 have tended to draw them into argument before the issues were 
 clearly stated or fully understood. And if upon inquiry it appear 
 to such a one that much of the excitement is unnecessary, it is his 
 duty to do a little, if he can, to calm it, by stating the case as it 
 appears to an outsider in the controversy. 
 
 I make no other apology than that I find myself in some such 
 position as this for the few remarks that follow on the case of 
 Professor Smith — remarks to which I do not doubt that such 
 weight will be given as they may be found on examination to 
 deserve. About the abstruser aspects of the case I am not entitled, 
 because not fitted, to say much. Neither does it seem to me that 
 it would be right to touch on it in so far as it is now before a 
 Court of the Church. I wish to express no opinion as to whether 
 it is possible or impossible, right or wrong, to bring a libel against 
 Professor Smith. Questions of that kind must be left with those 
 to whom they properly belong. But behind these, there is the 
 question of the way in which ordinary members of the Church 
 ought to think of the views that have been propounded — of the 
 way in which they ought to feel towards one by whom such views 
 are brought forward. That is a question on which all connected 
 
with the Church are called in providence to make up their mind : — 
 a question that will retain its importance whatever may be the 
 course taken with regard to him by whom it has been raised. It 
 is but a plain and popular view of this question that I am com- 
 petent to take. But it seems to me, looking at the whole matter, 
 as I do, largely from without, that there is need for a calm, 
 and plain, and easily intelligible review of the whole case in this 
 particular connection. And, whether rightly or wrongly, I feel that 
 my providential circumstances make it a simple duty to contribute 
 what I can towards this. 
 
 It is evident that there are already two extreme parties in this 
 controversy — the one, (probably a very small one), prepared to 
 stand by the views propounded by Professor Smith, and to defend 
 him at all points ; the other, (not yet, it is to be hoped, a very 
 large one), consisting of those who, without any thorough examina- 
 tion of the positions that have been advanced, are so terrified at 
 their apparent consequences that nothing will content them short 
 of the removal of Professor Smith from his office, or such an 
 amount of censure as will make it impossible for him to retain it. 
 But the great body of the Church probably holds an intermediate 
 position. My own position is that of one whose main anxiety is 
 that nothing should be done in haste, lest, on the one side, 
 encouragement be given to opinions that may unsettle faith ; lest, 
 upon the other, injustice be done to an individual, and the Church 
 be deprived, by a premature decision, of any benefit there perhaps 
 may be in the views that have come before it. It seems to me 
 that this is the position which the Church also holds in its collec- 
 tive capacity at present. The recent decision of the Assembly to 
 relieve Professor Smith of next winter's duties was expressly 
 meant as a precautionary measure. It has been authoritatively 
 declared that no censure has been passed on him. Many of those 
 who voted in the majority probably sympathise with him quite as 
 much, and are as anxious that all should be done calmly and 
 deliberately, as any of those who voted in the minority. The only 
 question upon which the Church can be said as yet to have 
 expressed its mind is as to what is necessary in order that inquiry 
 
into the case may be calm and full. It appeared to the majority 
 that excitement could be soothed and fears allayed, (as all admit 
 that they must be before a judicial inquiry can be full and fair), 
 only by relieving Professor Smith from his duties for a time. 
 Some may have meant more by the vote they gave, but nothing 
 more is properly implied in it. Now, to many, if not to all who 
 voted in the minority, this object of soothing excitement and 
 allaying fear seems as eminently desirable as it can appear to any 
 one. The only question in their minds was as to whether the 
 step proposed was the right one to gain that end. There was no 
 doubt, I am certain, upon either side as to the end in view being- 
 good and right. The only doubt was as to the means suggested 
 being justifiable or otherwise. As far as things have gone as yet, 
 there is no reason why one who voted in the minority may not, 
 after full inquiry has been made, condemn Professor Smith ; nor 
 is there any reason why one who voted in the majority may not at 
 last acquit him. The step, however, whether necessary and right 
 or not, has been taken. The Church has declared its mind that it is 
 necessary for full and fair investigation, that Professor Smith should 
 cease to teach until the whole case takes end. That point is settled. 
 The present duty is therefore held by the Church to be that of patient 
 inquiry ; and to this inquiry it seems to me that every one who has 
 anything to say is bound to contribute what he can. All immediate 
 alarm has been sufficiently set at rest, and the ground is clear for 
 looking at the whole matter broadly, calmly, and impartially. 
 
 Perhaps it may seem desirable to some that the need for laborious 
 examination should be removed by Professor Smith's resigning his 
 office, and so relieving the Church from the difficulty that has come 
 on it. Possibly a few may be half inclined to go even further in 
 this direction, and to hold that whether his views are right or 
 wrong, allowable or not allowable, it is better in either case to 
 have done with Professor Smith, and rather remove him from 
 office than have contention and alarm propagated in connection 
 with him. To act, however, upon either of these views would be 
 to fly in the face of providence. To carry the latter idea into 
 effect, (much as one who loves the peace of Zion, may feel tempted 
 
6 
 
 at times to wish to do so), would simply amount to doing evil in 
 order that good might come. The difficulty must be fairly faced. 
 Even if got over by less direct means for the time, it would be 
 certain to recur soon, and to recur probably in some form much 
 less manageable. That is what always happens when difficulties 
 that come in the course of providence are not fully and sufficiently 
 dealt with. The object of removing contention and putting an 
 end to alarm is certainly a good one; for the Church, like the 
 poet's cloud, should " move altogether if it move at all." Yet, 
 even for this object, we may not turn aside from the simple path 
 of straightforward duty. And the object will equally be gained if 
 it should turn out on examination, as I trust it may, that the 
 difficulty is by no means so formidable as it at first appears. One 
 who has climbed a Highland hill in the mist, knows what it is 
 to come upon something that seems to be a precipice so steep 
 and high as to render all further ascent impossible, and yet to find 
 when the cloud has trailed away and the sun shines clear, that it 
 is but a little ridge which a few careful steps suffice to leave 
 behind. Whether it be thus at last or not with the difficulty that 
 confronts us now, it must be met fairly and met in faith. If it be 
 so met, it will, like all other difficulties, be made the means of 
 leading the Church into fuller knowledge of the God who so often 
 sends His blessings in disguise, and of bestowing on it completer 
 strength to do His perfect will. 
 
 Now, there are two sides to the difficulty tliat has arisen. Each 
 of them has its own imijortance ; each of them requires full 
 examination. But it is needful that they should be looked at 
 separately, and that considerations drawn from the one should not 
 be allowed to affect the judgment that may be formed upon the 
 other. The first concerns the way in which Professor Smith 
 has brought his views before the public — the style and tone in 
 which he has given expression to them. The second concerns the 
 substance of the views themselves. 
 
 I. As regards the first, it seems impossible to acquit Professor 
 Smith of a certain want of consideration ; such a want of considera- 
 
tion indeed, as must, with the utmost kindness to him, be called 
 blameable. The tempest he has raised is enough to prove this, 
 Whether his views, when fully understood, turn out to be innocent 
 or hurtful, he deserves blame. For, in either case, it is manifest 
 that he has propounded views for which his Church was wholly 
 unprepared ; and these views were unaccompanied by a word of 
 explanation to help the Church rightly to appreciate them. He 
 has taken too little pains to show the consistency of these views 
 with the truths most cherished by the Church — if indeed such con- 
 sistency there is. In the article that has raised the storm, he has 
 hardly taken the pains even to affirm it. 
 
 It is no doubt true that in other and earlier publications, Pro- 
 fessor Smith has, to a considerable extent, made clear the position 
 that he holds. I beKeve it would be possible for his defenders to 
 bring forward a very large amount of explanation of his views by 
 a careful collation of his writings. This should not be forgotten 
 by those who are inclined, as I am inclined, to blame him. But 
 it should not have been forgotten either by one who is the trusted 
 agent of a Church, how few there are in any Church who have 
 either the inclination or the skill to piece together detached frag- 
 ments of theological exposition for themselves. 
 
 It may, perhaps, be admitted that an independent theological 
 inquirer is not bound to be always thinking of the views and 
 feelings of the Christian world around him, though even such a one 
 may be expected in accordance with the Christian spirit to take care 
 that he does not needlessly make any, even of the " little ones," 
 to stumble. But however it may be with an isolated thinker, the 
 case is very different with one whom a Church has entrusted with 
 high and honourable work. He, at least, is bound to take thought 
 of the state of opinion and feeling in the Church that trusts him. 
 He is bound, if he thinks he has new light to give, to give it in 
 such a way as to make it harmonise as well as possible with the 
 light already gained, that so the Church may quietly grow, and the 
 continuity of its inner life be uninterruptedly preserved. 
 
 The defence may, doubtless, be set up that since he regarded 
 his views as harmless, or even beneficial. Professor Smith had 
 
8 
 
 no idea that the simple statement of them would raise so much 
 alarm. But the reply is very obvious, namely, that in his position 
 it was a solemn duty to be so far in sympathy with the Church as 
 to know how his views would strike it, and then to take the time 
 and place, and manner of expounding them, into serious and 
 prayerful account. So far then as concerns the mode of uttering 
 his views, and that absence of sympathetic appreciation of the 
 Church's actual mind and feeling of which his inconsiderateness 
 appears to be the sign, it seems impossible for any one, unless a 
 thorough-going partisan, to refrain from attaching to Professor 
 Smith a considerable amount of blame. 
 
 Yet, even upon this point care must be taken, otherwise we may 
 fall into the very mistake which we are bound to condemn in Pro- 
 fessor Smith — that of acting without due regard to the circum- 
 stances and surroundings of the case. Haste, impatience, want of 
 consideration for the feelings and views of others, are defects to be 
 expected in a young man, and within due limits they are to be 
 made allowance for. It was the Church that raised Professor 
 Smith almost directly from the student's bench to the professor's 
 chair. It may be asked in all fairness to show large tolerance for the 
 natural consequences of its own action. The Church has undoubt- 
 edly reaped great benefit from the youthful freshness of Professor 
 Smith. If, therefore, it is practically made clear that the youthful- 
 ness of professors is not all gain, but that, like most other things, it 
 has its drawbacks as well as its advantages, the Church will surely 
 call to mind how often defects and excellencies are so bound up 
 together as to require the training of thoughtful years to disentangle 
 them, and will surely remember, in particular, that when a great gift 
 has been bestowed on any one, his duty is to take it as it comes, and 
 to wait for its full development, not to cast it away in haste because 
 imperfections come to light which are by no means beyond a cure. 
 In this world, things must be taken in the mixed condition in 
 which they commonly are — advantages and disadvantages together. 
 Not even Churches must expect both to eat their cake and have it. 
 
 As regards the manner, then, in which Professor Smith has 
 propounded his opinions, there seems to be a case for firm, but 
 
friendly admonition. It may be that after due considera- 
 tion, the Church will see cause with all gentleness, and yet 
 with all authority, to reprove him for his want of thought 
 about the state of mind and feeling of her members, to whose 
 edification, not to whose destruction, he was bound as the 
 Church's trusted agent to make all his learning minister. 
 Should this be done, I am much mistaken in Professor Smith 
 if he does not so profit by admonition conveyed in such a spirit as 
 to employ thereafter the gifts bestowed upon him, with constant 
 and loving thought about the interests of the Church at large. 
 
 II. But there is a difficulty about the views that have been 
 announced — not merely about the mode in which expression has 
 been given to them. Alarm and agitation have been roused by the 
 substance of what Professor Smith has said, as weU as by his 
 objectionable and one-sided way of saying it. I believe, indeed, 
 that had the same opinions been laid before the Church, with such 
 preparation and explanation as to make their real force and bear- 
 ing thoroughly intelligible and obvious, much less alarm, and 
 perhaps none at all, would have been raised. But it must not be 
 concealed that, apart altogether from the curtness and baldness of 
 statement, the views themselves contain something that is novel — 
 something, therefore, that it is right and wise to regard so far with 
 suspicion. Especially is this true with regard to the views promul- 
 gated about the authorship and history of the Book of Deuteronomy. 
 This, indeed, is the head and front of Professor Smith's offending. 
 If he can show us that he holds nothing contrary to sound faith 
 on this point, other matters will adjust themselves with com- 
 parative ease. His judgment on Deuteronomy is the extreme 
 development of his critical opinions ; — all that lies within it will be 
 virtually disposed of in disposing of that. Other points may, and 
 doubtless will remain, about which hesitation may warrantably be 
 felt by some ; but if the right mode of dealing with this opinion, and 
 with the man who has propounded it, be once agreed on, there 
 will be comparatively little difficulty about anything subsidiary 
 
 It may be well, therefore, in speaking of the views held by Professor 
 
 a2 
 
]0 
 
 Smith, to take this as a sufficient, because the extremest, example 
 of them all. It may be well, too, for the sake of clearness, to put 
 his view in the extremest possible form. 
 
 Let it be supposed, then, that the view has found this extreme 
 expression — that in the Book of Deuteronomy we have a religious 
 and moral treatise thrown into the form of history — not simple 
 history at all, but a didactic tale that is only based on history : — 
 a tale that has been put into the shape of history with the view 
 of bringing out clearly and vividly the lessons that are taught 
 in the history that constitutes its basis. How ought the Church 
 to meet such a view ? How ought she to act towards one who 
 holds it ? 
 
 I feel indeed that I owe an apology to Professor Smith, for 
 ascribing to him, even temporarily, and for the sake of argument, 
 any such view as this. For what he really has said is a long way 
 within this — a long way nearer than this to the ordinary ideas 
 on the subject. For instance, I do not understand him to deny, — 
 I believe him on the contrary to hold — that the author by whom 
 the substance of the Mosaic laws was spiritually applied in the 
 Book of Deuteronomy, used in his work a considerable amount of 
 genuine historic matter which the earlier books do not contain. 
 But, for the sake of putting the case in the very extremest form 
 that any one can imagine it to bear, the supposition I have made 
 may be allowed. Let it be supposed, then, that Professor Smith, 
 — or some one, — after investigation has came to the conclusion 
 that the Book of Deuteronomy is a religious and moral tale, not 
 historical in the strict sense, but only founded upon history : let 
 it be supposed that the assertion has been made, that in giving his 
 revelation to the world, God has employed this particular form of 
 composition in a certain part of it. The supposition certainly 
 covers all, and far more than all, that has been advanced by 
 Professor Smith, Now, what in such a case as this would be the 
 Church's duty ? 
 
 At first sight, undoubtedly the view is a very startling one. It 
 may even be called horrifying. It is a view which will not be, and 
 which ought not to be, received without careful and long investiga- 
 
11 
 
 tion. It is a view with which I at least cannot readily sympathise, 
 and which nothing short of the strongest evidence will induce me 
 to accept. Still, if it is steadily contemplated nntil it is thoroughly 
 understood, it may appear that — whether in the end it prove right 
 or wrong — there is nothing in it which must of necessity unsettle 
 faith, any more than in the statement that the earth moves round 
 the sun, and not the sun around the earth. That statement, when 
 it was first made, was as shocking as this one can be to the ordinary 
 reader of Scripture ; yet it is accepted everywhere without question 
 and without difficulty now. 
 
 It should be noted carefully at this point that Professor Smith 
 neither expresses nor implies the slightest charge of deceit or fraud 
 in the composition of the book in question. His position is, that 
 even now — not less, upon any computation, than two thousand five 
 hundred years after the book took on its present form — the marks 
 of its not being direct and simple history are plainly visible to 
 any one who will thoroughly examine it. If such marks are as 
 visible as he says they are to those who live after the lapse of these 
 millenniums, how much plainer must they have been to those among 
 whom the book was first made public ! They at least must, 
 according to Professor Smith, have understood thoroughly what 
 the book professed to be, and what it was. 
 
 Now, we have among ourselves things by no means unlike what 
 he alleges. Tales founded upon history are rather a favourite form 
 of literature in our own day. Our ordinary religious literature 
 abounds with them. We have got accustomed to them. It never 
 occurs to us to accuse their authors of wishing to deceive the public. 
 They bear upon the face of them evidence of what they are, and 
 there is no danger of an ordinary reader being led astray by them. 
 
 So, too, John Bunyan has never been charged with deceit or 
 fraud, though in his immortal allegories he has put into the 
 form of history things that never literally took place — things 
 which have not even that foundation in fact which a historical 
 tale always presupposes. And why has he not been accused of 
 deceit and fraud ? Simply because his works bear evidence — nowhere 
 directly stated, at least in the body of the work, but everywhere 
 
12 
 
 implied — that they are not fact, but fiction. The public for whom 
 he wrote were in a position to see exactly what he meant ; and 
 every one feels at once that the charge of wishing to deceive would 
 be simply an absurd one, if it should ever be brought against him. 
 A still better illustration has been suggested to me by a friend of 
 mine — a Caithness minister. He reminds me of a style of 
 preaching once very common in the Highlands, and not yet, 
 perhaps, unknown. The whole, or a great part, of a doctrinal 
 sermon used to be thrown into the form of a dialogue between the 
 Apostle Paul and some objector. The speeches attributed to Paul 
 were often of great length, and contained minute statement and 
 careful illustration of the doctrines of grace, and practical applica- 
 tion of them to particular cases. All was put into the mouth of 
 Paul, so that one totally ignorant of the actual contents of Scripture 
 — if such a one had happened to be listening — would have supposed 
 that the preacher was repeating words that had actually and 
 literally been spoken by the apostle. It was a form of preaching 
 that was particularly favoured by some of those whose names are 
 most honoured to this day by us in the utmost North. I have never 
 heard that any one of them was accused of wishing to deceive his 
 hearers into the belief that he had got some information that 
 others had not, about the sermons or epistles of St. Paul. H any 
 such preacher had ascribed to Paul statements not fairly implied 
 in the apostle's actual writings, fault w^ould speedily have been 
 found ; but so long as he gave the real gist of apostolic teachings 
 no offence was taken at the form he pleased to put it in. His 
 audience thoroughly understood what he meant, and would only 
 have been amused, or more probably indignant, if any one had 
 accused their minister of wishing to deceive them. 
 
 Similarly, the theory of Professor Smith, whether it be right or 
 wrong, not only allows, but requires us to believe that the writer or 
 writers of the Book of Deuteronomy had a thorough understanding 
 with the public for whom they wrote ; so that the book was 
 accepted as what it really was. It may indeed — according to this 
 theory — have been unthinkingly supposed by many in later ages 
 to be something different from what it professed to be, or was 
 
13 
 
 meant to be ; but tliat would be said — and, from his own point of 
 view, said rightly by Professor Smith — to prove nothing but the 
 want of attention and want of thought of those who fell into the 
 error. And to that error, he would add, the Church has taken 
 care never to commit herself. For I believe I am correct in saying 
 that no Church has ever formulated an opinion upon the human 
 authorship of many of the books in which revelation is expressed. 
 Certainly our own Church has never done so. Those who have 
 supposed — through ignorance, as Professor Smith would say — that 
 Deuteronomy is plain, direct history — though, according to him, it 
 is manifest enough that it was never meant to be so understood — 
 have been simply allowed by the Church to think on this subject as 
 they pleased. Por their error — if it be an error — the Church is 
 not responsible. Rather she implies, by her studied silence, that the 
 whole question about the authorship of such books is as yet unsettled. 
 
 These remarks are made not because I agree with the views 
 that have been advanced about the origin of Deuteronomy. I do 
 not agree with them, and, shall not do so unless compelled by 
 evidence too cogent to resist. But it is important that the 
 position taken up should be rightly understood, and especially 
 important that those who have to form an opinion on the case, 
 should have their minds thoroughly cleared of the idea that any 
 accusation of deceit is made by Professor Smith against the writers 
 of the book in question, or that such an accusation is in any way 
 implied in the views that he maintains. 
 
 It is important also to remember that no question has been 
 raised about the divine authority of the book. Professor Smith 
 has made it clear, and I should hope is willing to make it clearer 
 still, if necessary, that he holds to this as strongly as any one 
 can do. He accepts Deuteronomy as a portion of Divine Reve- 
 lation, and as in the fullest sense inspired. About his doing 
 so himself, and doing it most heartily, no reasonable doubt is 
 possible. There is the question still, however, whether his views 
 about the form and origin and intention of the book are, when 
 fully followed out, fairly reconcileable with its inspiration and 
 divine authority? In other words, the question may be stated 
 
14 
 
 thus : — Is it permissible to believe that a fiction founded upon 
 history — (putting, be it remembered, the view of Professor Smith 
 in a much extreraer form than he has ever put it, or would 
 probably consent to have it put), — is it permissible to believe that 
 a fiction based on history is one among the forms in which God 
 designed that His revelation should be made ? 
 
 Now when the question is thus cleared from the entanglement 
 arising from the supposed accusation of deceit, and when it is 
 clearly seen that no attack is meant upon the divine authority or 
 inspiration of the book, the statement that it is permissible to 
 believe this is no longer so very horrifying. It is still doubtless 
 a statement not quite easy to receive — not very credible to 
 the ordinary mind — but at least it is one that need not shock 
 the feehngs of any intelligent Christian man. For it should at 
 once occur to such a one, that whether fiction based on history is 
 employed or not as a vehicle of divine revelation, other forms of 
 writing in which an element of fiction is equally present, are used 
 to convey the mind and will of God, and that repeatedly and even 
 one may say habitually. It is a mere truism to say that Scripture 
 generally, and the Old Testament in particular, is not always to 
 be interpreted with absolute literality. Figures of speech for 
 example of the most high-wrought kind are of continual occur- 
 rence. It is said that " the stars in their courses fought against 
 Sisera," but it would be rightly held to be nothing better than 
 a profane joke, if any one insisted on this being understood as a 
 statement of historical fact. To the parables it is needless to 
 refer. In them manifestly there is fiction : — fiction but not 
 deceit ; for their being fictitious is discernible at the first glance. 
 The householder who went into a far country having let out his 
 vineyard unto husbandmen, was never imagined, I should think, 
 by any one, to have been an actual historical personage. So, too, 
 there is allegorical fiction in Scripture ; and indeed it seems to be 
 one of the charges against Professor Smith, that he will not 
 recognise this kind of fiction where it is seen by most. Somewhat 
 inconsistently, those who are most displeased at his maintaining a 
 non-historical element in the book of Deuteronomy, seem equally 
 
15 
 
 displeased because he holds the Song of Solomon to be more 
 literally historical than they do. But whether the Song of Songs 
 be pure allegorical fiction, as is commonly supposed, or some- 
 thing like a poetical record of actual fact, as Professor Smith 
 appears to make it, — no one will deny that fiction of the allegori- 
 cal kind finds a place in the communication of revelation. And, 
 again, it appears not only to professed interpreters, but to many 
 even among ordinary readers, that in the Book of Job we have 
 a dramatic fiction. It is not generally supposed, I think, that 
 the speeches it contains were literally spoken. The book in fact is 
 accepted as poetry and not prose. It is commonly enough main- 
 tained that the very form of it is meant to show, that in this case 
 revelation — and revelation of the very highest kind — is given in a 
 dramatic dress ; that is to say, in a dress that is to a large extent 
 a form of fiction. 
 
 If, therefore, it be admitted, as it will be admitted, I suppose, 
 without question everywhere, that God has, as matter of fact, seen 
 good to use in giving revelation, figures of speech, parable and 
 fable, allegory and drama — all of them forms that are more or less 
 fictitious and not literally or narrowly true — then the statement 
 seems no longer so unparalleled or terrifying, that He has employed 
 as a vehicle for revelation that form of fiction also which is based 
 upon historic fact. 
 
 It is true that any one who makes such a statement, ventures 
 upon a further step than is implied in admitting the existence 
 in Scripture of the various forms of fiction that have been 
 enumerated. And this further step is a step which I do not 
 wish to conceal that I feel great difliculty about taking for myself 
 at present. I find it easier to believe that God has used those 
 other forms in which literal truth (in the narrowest sense) is 
 not preserved, than to believe that any book of Scripture par- 
 takes of the nature of a tale based on history, even though it be 
 with the view of bringing out the lessons of the history. Still, I 
 also feel that the analogies adduced render it a step that may be 
 taken safely, if the simple facts of the case should render it 
 necessary to do so, — a step that may be taken without shocking 
 
16 
 
 any Christian feeling or unsettling any man's Christian faith. It 
 becomes, when thus regarded, simply a question of the right 
 interpretation of Scripture — important no doubt, as all things are 
 important that bear to any extent on the views we form about the 
 living Word of God, but not necessarily touching in any way 
 upon the fundamentals of the Christian faith. 
 
 But be this as it may, the statement in question, or one that tends 
 towards it, has been made ; made, it may be presumed, after con- 
 siderable thought, by one who is certainly well qualified to judge ; 
 made not by an enemy of revelation, but by one of its warmest 
 friends ; made by one, who while he makes it, retains most fully his 
 belief in the inspiration and the divine authority of the book about 
 which he speaks. This question, therefore, must be faced, — On 
 what pri7ici2)les is an individual inquirer, on what principles is 
 the Church at large, to deal with such a statement ? Now it may 
 be dealt with by saying that the very idea of fiction based on history 
 being used as a vehicle for divine revelation, or as the expression 
 of divine inspiration, is too shocking to be listened to for a moment, 
 and that any one who broaches the idea must be regardedas an enemy 
 of the truth. That is the ground which the extreme opponents of 
 Professor Smith seem determined to take up. It is in this 
 determination that the great danger of the case lies. It is the 
 fear lest by the force of this determination on the part of men 
 otherwise most worthy of respect, the Church be led unknowingly 
 into a most dangerous and most heterodox position, — it is this fear 
 that has overcome my reluctance to engage in this discussion. It 
 is no vain or empty fear, for by the same path into which some 
 would urge us at present, Churches have lapsed from orthodoxy 
 before, and have suffered complete extinction of their light and 
 life. 
 
 In fact, I can scarcely conceive anything more full of peril 
 than the attempt to put down such views as are ascribed to 
 Professor Smith, by declaring them too shocking to be listened 
 to, or condemning them on the ground of the consequences to 
 which they seem to lead. Por such a line of thought assumes 
 that human opinion, human reason, is fit to sit in judgment 
 
17 
 
 upon God's procedure — assumes that we have materials within 
 ourselves for settling a priori what methods of communicating 
 His will it is fit for God to use. This is rationalism, and 
 rationalism of the most dangerous kind — all the more dangerous 
 because it has the appearance of being used on the side of faith 
 and of the truth. No one, I hope, will accuse those who wish us 
 to take this line — certainly I do not accuse them — of consciously 
 playing into the hands of that rationalism which is the deadliest 
 of all enemies to the faith ; but danger is not removed, it is only 
 increased, when a slippery path that shelves downwards to a 
 precipice is entered upon unawares. In the interests of old- 
 fashioned orthodoxy, in the interests of all that evangelical Pro- 
 testants value most, this danger must be guarded against at every 
 hazard, and at any sacrifice. The only true and safe position that 
 the Church can assume towards God is that of a humble learner 
 of what He has done. She must not attempt to judge of what He 
 ought to do. He has done many a thing that, to our weak and 
 blinded reason, seems incredibly strange, and that yet when it has 
 been seen to be done by Him, and has been reverently studied with 
 humble willingness to learn, is found to commend itself to the 
 highest reason, and to be conformable to the dictates of the deepest 
 wisdom. It may be so in the case before us now. I do not say, 
 nor am I at present disposed to think that it will be so ; but it is 
 all too bold of any one to deny the possibility that it may. The 
 fact is that it is only in weakness that the Church is strong. So 
 long as she bends an open eye and a listening ear to every indica- 
 tion of the will of God, who is present with her day by day — so 
 long as she is willing to go on step by step in the path that He 
 points out, and to inquire into everything that may become the 
 means of leading her into a fuller understanding of His mind and 
 will — so long, but so long only, the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against her. The moment that she begins to trust to her own wisdom 
 or her own might, the moment that she ceases to depend upon the 
 immediate touch of the one surely guiding hand, that moment her 
 strength is taken from her, and she becomes weak as others. And 
 she wiU be trusting to her own wisdom if, in a case like the pre- 
 
18 
 
 sent, she settle ofF-hand the mode in which Divine revelation must 
 be made. The only line that humble faith can follow is that of 
 patiently inquiring into the actual facts. 
 
 Not many, it may be said, are fit to conduct such an inquiry, 
 and the process of investigation must in any case be long. But 
 whether they be few or many, there is no other route by which 
 a decision can be reached such as should content a believing and 
 a humble Church. And whether the time required be short or 
 long, the Church may calmly wait for the result of the fullest 
 investigation. She knows that however the book in question may 
 have originated in so far as it is human — she knows that whatever 
 may turn out at last to be its exact scope, or plan, or form, it is 
 part of the lively oracles of God. The use made of it by our Lord 
 Himself, and the testimony of the Spirit speaking in it, are proof 
 enough of that. And neither Professor Smith, nor his warmest 
 advocate within the Church, has evinced the slightest wish to shake 
 her faith in it as a precious and authoritative gift from God. 
 And she may be certain, too, that the truth when it is determined, 
 whatever it may be, will only lead into a deeper acquaintance with 
 God's glorious and mighty plan. Better far this attitude of 
 humble, patient expectation, than to enter into a dangerous league 
 with rationalism, however specious may be the plea for doing so. 
 
 But I shall be reminded here that the danger of falling into 
 rationalism through an off-hand decision is not the only danger to 
 which the case exposes us. It will be said that the views of Pro- 
 fessor Smith are not unlikely to lead others much farther than he 
 himself has gone — to lead them perhaps to a denial of revelation 
 altogether. It will be said that in other lands, views similar to his 
 have developed into absolute unbelief It is quite true ; but it is to 
 be answered in the first place, that the ijossihility of injurious 
 deductions being drawn from a doctrine is no proof that it is false, 
 and no reason, therefore, for refusing to inquire into it calmly. It 
 would put an end to all attempts to promote the living growth of 
 the Church, if we charged upon reformations all the excesses that 
 follow them, and upon doctrines all the deductions that have been 
 drawn from them. The most precious doctrines of our faith have 
 
19 
 
 often been misused, and most dangerous conclusions fastened on 
 them, by those who professed to be their defenders. Inspiration 
 tells us that the teaching of Paul himself, in the very age when it 
 was given, was wrested by " the unlearned and the unstable " even 
 " to their own destruction." 
 
 And it is to be answered, in the second place, that the fact of 
 many having fallen upon a rugged and an upward path, does not 
 prove that no one will ever walk safely in it. There are signs 
 that the time is not far off when God means the Church at 
 large to enter on a deeper inquiry than has been made hitherto 
 into such questions as Professor Smith has, as it certainly 
 appears to me, somewhat rashly and prematurely raised — 
 questions about the origin on the human side, about the human 
 scope and plan and purpose of the books of Old Testament 
 scripture. Those who doubt this, and those, too, who think it 
 possible to settle the matter in a moment by a reference to New 
 Testament quotations without any patient or deep examination, 
 should read the recent speech of Dr. Rainy — a speech which every 
 one who wishes to form an opinion on the present case is bound 
 not only to read, but to master and thoroughly to digest. Now, if 
 some forward steps must be taken along a route comparatively 
 unexplored, it must not be supposed that they can be taken with- 
 out danger — danger especially to the guides who lead the way. 
 They run the risk — it is their duty to run the risk — of mistaking 
 the proper path, and of stumbling and falling themselves. All the 
 greater is the need for commending them affectionately to God in 
 prayer, and for waiting patiently the full results of their investiga- 
 tion. And surely this is the feeling that should be mainly cherished 
 towards one like Professor Smith, who, whatever his faults may be 
 in the way of inconsiderateness and haste, is yet loyal to his 
 heart's core to the Chm-ch, to her doctrines and her standards. 
 He may, I cannot yet decide even for myself, but he may have 
 gone some steps astray in this matter of the human authorship of 
 Deuteronomy ; yet surely it is safer far even for those who feel 
 most sure that he has erred, to trust that one so sound on all the 
 deeper points of truth will ere loug find out his error and adopt a 
 
20 
 
 safer course, than to hound him on by clamour and suspicion into 
 error far more fatal. For the Church in all her branches would do 
 well to ask how far she is herself responsible for the admitted fact, 
 that so many of those who set themselves to new lines of thought or 
 new subjects of inquiry go fatally astray. Some prophecies have 
 the strongest tendency to fulfil themselves. The way in which 
 everything that has a shade of novelty is too often treated as 
 incipient heresy, has had no little share in driving many away 
 from the paths of truth, who if they had only met with generous 
 confidence and forbearance, might have remained through life 
 among the Church's most faithful sons and most valued servants. 
 I am reminded here of the figure under which I often think of 
 the Church when it is called in providence to go deeper into the 
 heart of the truth which is its heritage. It is like an army 
 that in its onward march comes to a difficult defile or a range of 
 rugged rocks. If that be safely passed, a new country will open 
 out, in which over fertile plains, and beside gentle streams, it may 
 journey on pleasantly for a time. But before that pleasant land 
 is reached, the obstacle requires to be surmounted by which its 
 l^rogress is in the meantime barred. Men go forward to pick out 
 the way. They are exposed in any case to the danger of missing 
 their footing, and perhaps of falling headlong with injury to life 
 or limb. But that danger would be indefinitely increased if the 
 army as it stands below were to set up a shout of indignation and 
 of horror at every slip each guide might make among the rocks, 
 or at each appearance of his finding himself momentarily at fault. 
 It would be an unwise army that would act in such a way. 
 Every one sees at once that its only prudent course would be to 
 wait patiently and firmly till the pass had been explored, and till 
 the guides returned to tell that the way at last was clear. And 
 the prudent course equally with one like Professor Smith, who 
 though no more perfect than other men, is yet so earnest and 
 devout, so firm a believer in the authoritative revelation of God, 
 and so faithful to his Church's view of its contents ; surely the 
 prudent course towards such a one is to bear patiently with him 
 till the path before him and before us all has been made a little 
 
21 
 
 plainer than it is at present, Eather this than on the first 
 opportunity for doubt to become alarmed, and under the influence 
 of alarm to rush unknowingly into the abyss of rationalism. 
 
 And now to sum up the whole discussion as it appears to me. 
 The Bible is a book perfectly human and yet perfectly divine — 
 perfectly divine and yet perfectly human too. With all reverence 
 I claim for it the same position among books as the Saviour in 
 whom it centres, holds for ever among men. He is two natures 
 in one person. To deny His perfect humanity is a heresy as great 
 as to deny His full divinity. Similar is the claim I make for the 
 written Word of God. It can be placed no higher than thus to 
 have its position paralleled with that of the Redeemer. It can 
 be placed no higher, and not for a moment can I consent to its 
 being placed any lower. Now it seems to the most thoughtful and 
 deepest-minded Christians, that God in the course of His provid- 
 ence, is calling us to inquire more thoroughly than has been done 
 hitherto into the origin and history of this book upon its human 
 side. About the divine nature that is in it, there is no question 
 within the Church, and no question has been raised by the present 
 controversy. If then God be calling us to inquire into its 
 human origin and history, and if the parallel I have instituted be 
 a true one, then the self-same question is now presented to us 
 about the book that was presented to the Church about our Lord 
 at the time when the gospels were composed. About Jesus being 
 the Messiah and the Son of God, Christians had no doubt in those 
 days. But for a time, considerable ignorance evidently pre- 
 vailed about the place and manner of His birth, about the details 
 of His mighty works, and other elements in His human history. 
 Many set themselves to remove this ignorance, as St. Luke informs 
 us in the preface to his gospel. In such inquiries there was a 
 certain danger — danger of the error into which those men fell, 
 who said, in the lifetime of our Lord — " Is not this Jesus, the Son 
 of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? how is it then 
 that he saith, I came down from heaven V It may have been — 
 indeed history makes it all but certain — that many of those who 
 set themselves to inquire into the human origin and history of 
 
22 
 
 Christ, were led by too exclusive attention to that side of things 
 to forget His true divinity ; even as, notoriously, too many of those 
 who have busied themselves about the origin and history of the 
 Bible on its human side, have been led to make light of its 
 divinity, or alas, even to deny it. There was an undoubted 
 danger here, but it was a danger that it was necessary for the 
 Church to meet and to overcome — a danger that by the hand of 
 God upon it, it did meet and did overcome. So too, there was the 
 lesser danger of error about details, and dates, and facts. It is plain 
 enough, that not all of those who had taken in hand to set forth 
 the Life of Christ in order, were free from errors upon points 
 like these. We may easily suppose that some of the writers to 
 whom the preface of St. Luke refers, were so misled through lack 
 of information or imperfect use of it, as to give out that Christ 
 was born at Nazareth instead of Bethlehem ; that He was brought 
 up at Capernaum, which was sometimes called His own city — or 
 that His ministry began some years earlier, or some years later 
 than was actually the case. Every one feels at once, however, 
 that mistakes like these, if they were committed, did not go down 
 to the foundation of the faith ; no more do mistakes about the 
 authorship or the date of a book of Scripture. And yet such 
 mistakes were to be lamented, for even the smallest of them 
 lessened the Church's acquaintance with the ways of God, and 
 tended to obscure the glorious fulfilment of all the prophecies. 
 It was necessary that in due time the mistakes should be corrected 
 and the fulness of the truth made known. But by what means, 
 through what process, on what principles, was the necessary 
 correction made ? That is the point to attend to if we wish to 
 know the right course to follow in the inquiry to which we are 
 called. St. Luke himself informs us of the plan he took, and to 
 which accordingly the sanction of inspiration has been given. 
 "It seemed good to me also, having accurately examined" (or 
 accurately followed out, for such is the full force of irapr]- 
 KoXovOrjKOTi aKpi^o)^) : — " It seemed good to me also, having 
 accurately examined all things from the very first, to write 
 unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." He did not jn-o- 
 
23 
 
 ceed on a priori grounds. He did not draw inferences from pre- 
 conceived opinions. Nor, inspired though he was, did he .think 
 that inspiration alone would give him the knowledge that he 
 sought. He set himself to make diligent inquiry into the common 
 details, into the plain facts ; and while so inquiring patiently into 
 what God had actually done, heavenly wisdom met and guided him. 
 Such is the only course that God can be expected to direct 
 and bless in our dealing with the cognate question that has come 
 to us for settlement. It is God Himself that calls us to con- 
 sider this question of the origin of Scripture upon its human side. 
 Of many of the books that make it up, at all events in the case of 
 the Old Testament part of it, it cannot even be pretended that we 
 know the authorship or the history sufficiently already. They 
 come to us without a human name. "We know, indeed, that they are 
 Divine, but if we learn all that can be learnt about their human 
 origin, about their mode of composition and their early history, 
 their divinity will shine with a brighter lustre, and commend itself 
 more impressively to the minds of men. "We stand towards many 
 of these books in the position held towards Christ by men who 
 saw His miracles and heard and felt His words of power, without 
 knowing where He had been born, or where brought up, or how 
 minutely the prophecies and the whole plan of God had been ful- 
 filled in the details of His human history. Most rightly, even in such 
 circumstances, did Nathaniel exclaim, " Eabbi, thou art the Son of 
 God ; thou art the King of Israel." He did so when he was still 
 ignorant of the facts of our Master's human history, nay, even 
 when he held positively erroneous views about them. Yet it was 
 well that in due time men like Nathaniel should make themselves 
 acquainted with the minute details of that human life which had 
 impressed them so deeply with its divinity already. For us, like- 
 wise, the time has probably arrived, or is close at hand, for patient 
 reverent inquiry into the humanity, so to speak, of the volume, the 
 divinity of which is so precious to us all. In conducting that 
 inquiry there may be temporary slips and mistakes — there may be 
 imperfection of view and some confusion possibly for a time. A 
 certain amount of such things is inseparable from genuine inquirv 
 
24 
 
 in our present earthly state. But I have little fear about the 
 inquiry bearing blessed and glorious results ere long, if it be con- 
 ducted by men who hold so strongly and reverently as Professor 
 Smith to the one central truth, that Scripture, whatever be the 
 history or the origin on the human side of the books that make it 
 up, is the inspireil revelation of the will of God. And I should 
 have no fear at all about the issue, if men like him were on the 
 one hand guided and restrained by kindly admonition when they 
 are in danger of running on too fast, and on the other upheld, as 
 they ought to be, by the prayers and the sympathy of the Church, for 
 whose good they labour. But I should fear for the future of the 
 Church in the face of intelligent heathenism and cultured infidelity, 
 if anything induce it to quit the path of patient diligent inquiry 
 into what God has actually done, the only path for a calm and 
 humble faith — if anything induce it to take up rationalistic 
 ground and to condemn by implication the conduct of St. 
 Luke. 
 
 In the whole of the difficulty with which it is confronted now, 
 the Church has need to lay to heart the message with which 
 the prophet was charged to Israel when the chosen nation was in 
 danger of rushing in excitement to premature conclusions — " Thus 
 
 SAITH THE LOED GOD, THE HOLY OnE OF ISRAEL, IN EETTTRNING 
 AND REST SHALL YE BE SAVED ; IN QUIETNESS AND CONFIDENCE 
 SHALL BE YOUR STRENGTH." 
 
 Thurso, July, 181 
 
 LORI.MER AND lilLLIES, PRINTERS, CLYDE STREET, EUINBURUH. 
 
Date Due 
 
 «\it_-L-fiil— { 
 
 Uii- i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f> 
 
 
 
 
.'pamphlet BINDER 
 
 ^ Monufocturnd by 
 iftAYLORD BROS. »f«. 
 * SvracuM, N.Y. 
 [ Stockton, Collf. 
 
m 
 
 ^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 ,N^