-v^' 
 
 
 ^^..^^^K 
 
 ,^..Mk^ /•* 
 
 ••§•. • 
 
 •• •• 
 
 
 . •••/ 
 
 •Nk/i 
 
 
 r ,•• ..,^^>;-.». ...i • 
 
 

 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 ?« 
 
 Presented by "Dr. F. L,?a^-to-n 
 
 BX" 9084 .F58 1878 
 
 Free Church of Scotland. 
 
 General Assembly. 
 Free Church of Scotland 
 
k 
 
/ 
 
 ^>i Sf n;,,^ 
 
 Imt §\nn\ 0f I 
 
 ASSEMBLY PAPERS, 
 
 PART II. 
 
 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 1878. 
 
 ^rhttfb for tlje d^ciural ^sscmblg 
 
 JOHN GREIG & SON, 57 FREDERICK STREET, 
 
 EDINBURGH. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Case of Eev. Professor Smith— 
 
 Form of Libel 
 
 Answer to the Form of Libel 
 Minutes of Presbytery of Aberdeen 
 Minutes of Synod of Aberdeen . 
 Eeasons of Dissent and Appeal, &c. 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 87 
 
 155 
 
 160 
 
 Case of Rev, Marcus Dods, D.D.— 
 
 Preface to Sermon ...... 165 
 
 Sermon ....... 170 
 
 Report of Committee ...... 183 
 
 Correspondence ....... 190 
 
 Dissents by Members of Committee . . . 192 
 Minutes of Presbytery of Glasgow . . . .196 
 
 Reasons of Dissent and Complaint against judgment of Presbytery 200 
 Answers to Reasons of Dissent and Complaint against judgment 
 
 of Presbytery ....... 202 
 
 Minutes of Synod of Glasgow and Ayr .... 203 
 
 Reasons of Protest and Appeal against judgment of Synod . 207 
 / iswers to Reasons of Protest and Ajjpeal against judgment 
 
 Synod 209 
 
CASE 
 
 EEV. PROFESSOE SMITH. 
 
CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 FORM OF LIBEL. 
 
 THE FREE PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 MR WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH. 
 
 MR WILLIAM EOBERTSON SMITH, Professor of A 
 Oriental Languages and Exegesis of the Old Testament at 
 Aberdeen, you are indicted and accused, at the instance of 
 the Free Presbytery of Aberdeen : — 
 
 That whereas the publishing andi3romulgating of opinions 
 which contradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the imme- 
 diate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of B 
 the Holy Scriptures, or any part or parts thereof, as set 
 forth in the Scriptures themselves, and in the Confession of 
 Faith, and to the doctrines of prophecy and angels therein 
 set forth ; as also the publishing and promulgating of 
 opinions which are in themselves of a dangerous and 
 unsettling tendency in their bearing on the doctrine of the C 
 immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority 
 of the Holy Scriptures, or any part or parts thereof, as set 
 forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of 
 Faith, and in their bearing on the doctrines of prophecy 
 and angels therein set forth ; as also the publishing and 
 promulgating of writings concerning the books of Holy D 
 Scripture, which writings, by their neutrality of attitude in. 
 
 1 
 
2 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A relation to the said doctrines, and by their rashness of 
 statement in regard to the critical construction of the Scrip- 
 tures, tend to disparage the Divine authority and inspired 
 character of these books, as set forth in the Scriptures 
 themselves and in the Confession of Faith, are severally 
 offences, especially in a Professor of Divinity, which call for 
 
 B such censure or other judicial sentence as may be found 
 adequate ; and more particularly : — 
 
 Primo : — Albeit the opinion that the Aaronic priesthood, 
 and at least a great part of the laws and ordinances of the 
 Levitical system, were not divinely instituted in the time of 
 Moses, and that those large parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and 
 C Numbers, which represent them as having been then insti- 
 tuted by God, were inserted in the inspired records long 
 after the death of Moses : — 
 
 Sccundo : — Albeit the opinion that the book of inspired 
 Scripture called Deuteronomy, which is professedly an 
 historical record, does not possess that character, but was 
 made to assume it by a writer of a much later age, who 
 therein, in the name of God, presented in dramatic form, 
 instructions and laws as proceeding from the mouth of 
 Moses, though these never were, and never could have been 
 uttered by him : — 
 
 E Tertio : — Albeit opinions which lower the character of the 
 inspired writings to the level of uninspired, by ignoring 
 their divine authorship, and by representing the sacred 
 writers as taking freedoms and committing errors like other 
 authors ; as giving explanations that were unnecessary and 
 incorrect ; as putting fictitious speeches into the mouths of 
 
 ■p their historical characters ; as giving inferences of their own 
 for facts ; as describing arrangements as made use of in 
 their complete form at a certain time which were not com- 
 pleted till long afterwards ; and as writing under the influ- 
 ence of party spirit and for party purposes : — 
 
 Quarto: — Albeit the presentation of opinions which 
 discredit the authenticity and canonical standing of books 
 of Scripture by imputing to them a fictitious character ; by 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 3 
 
 attributing to them what is disparaging; and by stating^ 
 discrediting opinions of others, without any indication of 
 dissent therefrom : — 
 
 Qninto : — Albeit the opinion that the portion of Scripture 
 known as Canticles, although included among the books 
 which in the Confession of Faith are declared to have been 
 immediately inspired by God, is devoid of any spiritual signi- B 
 ficance, and only presents a high example of virtue in a 
 betrothed maiden, without any recognition of the Divine law, 
 and that its deletion from the Canon was providentially 
 prevented by the prejudice in favour of an allegorical inter- 
 pretation, to the effect that "from verse to verse the song 
 sets forth the history of a spiritual, and not merely of an 
 earthly love" : — 
 
 Sexto : — Albeit opinions which contradict or ignore the 
 testimony given in the Old Testament, and also that of our 
 Lord and his apostles in the New Testament, to the author- 
 ship of Old Testament Scriptures, upon which authorship 
 most momentous teaching was sometimes based : — 
 
 Septimo : — Albeit oj)inions which disparage prophecy by 
 representing its predictions as arising merely from so-called 
 spiritual insight, based on the certainty of God's righteous 
 purpose, and which exclude prediction in the sense of direct 
 supernatural revelation of events long posterior to ther^ 
 prophet's own age : — 
 
 Octavo: — Albeit the opinion that belief in the superhuman 
 reality of the angelic beings of the Bible is matter of assump- 
 tion rather than of direct teaching; and that angels are 
 endowed with special goodness and insight analogous to 
 human qualities appears as a popular assumption, not as a F 
 doctrine of revelation : — 
 
 Albeit that all these opinions, or one or more of them, do 
 contradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate 
 inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in 
 the Confession of Faith as aforesaid, and to the doctrines of 
 
;4< CASE OF REV. PROFESSOE SMITH. 
 
 A prophecy and angels therein set forth ; as also are in them- 
 selves of aclangerous and unsettlingtendencyin their bearing 
 on the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, 
 and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, as set forth in 
 the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith as 
 aforesaid, and in their bearing on the doctrines of prophecy 
 
 B and angels therein set forth ; as also that the writings con- 
 taining these opinions do exhibit neutrality of attitude in 
 relation to the said doctrines, and rashness of statement in 
 regard to the critical construction of the Scriptures, tending 
 to disparage the divine authority and inspired character 
 of the books of Holy Scripture, as set forth in the Scriptures 
 
 C themselves and in the Confession of Faith as aforesaid : — 
 
 Yet, true it is, and of verity, that you, the said Mr William 
 Robertson Smith, are guilty of the said offence of publishing 
 and promulgating opinions which do contradict or are 
 opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infal- 
 D lible truth, and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or 
 IDart or parts thereof, as set forth in the Scriptures them- 
 selves and in the Confession of Faith, and to the doctrines 
 of prophecy and angels therein also set forth : or otherwise 
 of the said offence of publishing and promulgating opinions 
 which are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling ten- 
 IE dency in their bearing on the doctrine of the immediate 
 inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of the H0I3' 
 Scriptures, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in 
 the Confession of Faith, and in their bearing on the doc- 
 trines of prophecy and angels also therein set forth : or 
 otherwise of the said offence of publishing and promulgating 
 F writings concerning the books of Holy Scripture, which writ- 
 ings, by their neutrality of attitude in relation to the said 
 doctrines, and by their rashness of statement in regard to the 
 critical construction of Holy Seriptures, tend to disparage 
 the divine authority of these books, as set forth in the Scrip- 
 tures themselves and in the Confession of Faith, in so far as 
 you, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, have published 
 and promulgated or concurred in the publishing and pro- 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. ^ 
 
 mulgating the following articles and remarks, of which you ^ 
 are the author, videlicet: articles "Angel," " Bihle," " Can- 
 ticles," and "Chronicles," in the ninth edition of the Encij- 
 dopcedia Britannica ; also, article "The Sixteenth Psalm," 
 in Tlie Expositor, number XXIIL, of November 1876 ; and 
 article " The Question of Prophecy in the Critical Schools of 
 the Continent," in the British Quarterly Bevicic of April 1870 ; B 
 also, "Eemarks"by Professor W. E. Smith on a memo- 
 randum of the sub-committee on the article " Bible " in the 
 Encijclopcedia Britannica, published in the College Com- 
 mittee's report to the General Assembly ; all which publi- 
 cations being to be used in evidence against you, are lodged 
 in the hands of the Clerk of the Presbytery, that you may 
 have an opportunity of seeing the same ; of which articles 
 and remarks you have acknowledged yourself to be the 
 author, to the said Free Presbytery of Aberdeen, at its 
 meeting held there on the twelfth day of April eighteen 
 hundred and seventj^-seven ; in which articles and remarks 
 you, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, express opinions D 
 which do contradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the 
 immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority 
 of the Holy Scriptures, or part or parts thereof, as set forth 
 in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith, 
 and to the doctrines of prophecy and angels also therein set 
 forth : or otherwise you express opinions which are in them- E 
 selves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in their bear- 
 ing on the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible 
 truth, and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, as set 
 forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of 
 Faith, and in their bearing on the doctrines of prophecy and 
 angels therein also set forth: or otherwise the said articles F 
 and remarks, of which you are the author, exhibit neutrality 
 of attitude in relation to the said doctrines, and rashness of 
 statement in regard to the critical construction of the Holy 
 Scriptures, tending to disparage the divine authority and 
 inspired character of the booksof Scripture, as set forth in the 
 Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith. More 
 particularly and without prejudice to the said generality: — 
 
6 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A Frimo : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, 
 in the article " Bible," published in the foresaid edi- 
 tion of the Encyclopcedia Britannica, and at the pages 
 thereof aftermentioned, expressed yourself as follows, vide- 
 licet, page 638a : 1i " If then the Deuteronomic legisla- 
 tion is not earlier than the prophetic period of the 8th and 
 
 B 7th centuries, and, accordingly, is subsequent to the ele- 
 ments of the Pentateuchal history which we have seen to 
 be known to Hosea, it is plain that the chronology of the 
 composition of the Pentateuch may be said to centre in 
 the question whether the Levitico-Elohistic document, which 
 embraces most of the laws in Leviticus with large parts of 
 
 C Exodus and Numbers, is earlier or later than Deutero- 
 nomy. The answer to this question turns almost wholly 
 on achaeological inquiries, for there is, perhaps, no quite 
 conclusive reference to the Elohistic record in the Prophets 
 before the Exile, or in Deuteronomy itself. And here 
 arises the great dispute which divides critics, and makes 
 
 D our whole construction of the origin of the historical books 
 uncertain. The Levitical laws give a graduated hierarchy 
 of priests and Levites ; Deuteronomy regards all Levites as 
 at least possible priests. Bound this difference, and points 
 allied to it, the whole discussion turns. We know, mainly 
 from Ezekiel xliv., that before the Exile the strict hier- 
 
 E archical law was not in force, apparently never had been 
 in force. But can we suppose that the very idea of such a 
 hierarchy is the latest point of liturgical development ? 
 If so, the Levitical element is the latest thing in the Penta- 
 teuch, or, in truth, in the historical series to which the 
 Pentateuch belongs ; or, on the opposite view, the hier- 
 
 F archie theory existed as a legal programme long before the 
 Exile, though it was fully carried out only after Ezra. As 
 all the more elaborate symbolic observances of the ritual 
 law are bound up with the hierarchical ordinances, the solu- 
 tion of this problem has issues of the greatest importance 
 for the theology as well as for the literary history of the 
 Old Testament" : Pages 634b and 635a: H" A just insight 
 into the work of the prophetic party in Israel was long 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 7 
 
 rendered difficult by traditional prejudices. On the one hand ^ 
 the predictive element in prophecy received undue promi- 
 nence, and withdrew attention from the influence of the 
 prophets on the religious life of their own time ; while, on 
 the other hand, it was assumed, in accordance with Jewish 
 notions, that all the ordinances, and almost, if not quite, 
 all the doctrines of the Jewish church in the post-canonical B 
 period, existed from the earliest days of the theocracy. 
 The prophets, therefore, were conceived partly as inspired 
 preachers of old truths, partly as predicting future events, 
 but not as leaders of a great development, in which the 
 religious ordinances as well as the religious beliefs of the 
 Old Covenant advanced from a relatively crude and imper-C 
 feet to a relatively mature and adequate form. M The 
 proof that this latter view, and not the traditional concep- 
 tion, is alone true to history, depends on a variety of argu- 
 ments which cannot here be reproduced. That the religious 
 ideas of the Old Testament were in a state of growth during 
 the whole prophetic period became manifest as soon as theD 
 laws of grammatico-historical exegesis were fairly applied 
 to the Hebrew Scriptures. That the sacred ordinances 
 were subject to variation was less readily admitted, because 
 the admission involved a change of view as to the author- 
 ship of the Pentateuch ; but here also the facts are decisive. 
 . . . But perhaps the clearest proof that, during the period E 
 of prophetic inspiration, there was no doctrine of finality 
 with regard to ritual law any more than with regard to 
 religious ideas and doctrines, lies in the last chapters of 
 Ezekiel, which sketch at the very era of the Captivity an 
 outline of sacred ordinances for the future restoration. 
 From these and similar facts it follows indisputably, that F 
 the true and spiritual religion which the prophets and like- 
 minded priests maintained at once against heathenism and 
 against unspiritual worship of Jehovah as a mere natural 
 deity without moral attributes, was not a finished but a 
 growing system, not finally embodied in authoritative docu- 
 ments, but propagated mainly by direct personal efforts. At 
 the same time, these personal efforts were accompanied and 
 
8 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A supported by the gradual rise of a sacred literature. Though 
 the priestly ordinances were mainly published by oral deci- 
 sions of the priests, which are, in fact, what is usually meant 
 by the word laiv (Torah) in writings earlier than the Capti- 
 vity, there can be no reasonable doubt that the priests pos- 
 sessed written legal collections of greater or less extent from 
 
 B the time of Moses downwards. Again, the example of Eze- 
 liiel, and the obvious fact that the law-book found at the 
 time of Josiah contained provisions which were not up to 
 that time an acknowledged part of the law of the land, makes 
 it probable that legal provisions, which the prophets and 
 their priestly allies felt to be necessary for the maintenance 
 
 C of the truth, were often embodied in legislative programmes, 
 by which previous legal tradition was gradually modified : " 
 Page 635b : 51 " Previous reformers had been statesmen or 
 prophets. Ezra is a scribe who comes to Jerusalem armed, 
 not with a fresh message from the Lord, but with * the book 
 of the law of Moses.' This law-book was the Pentateuch, 
 
 D and the public recognition of it as the rule of the theocracy 
 was the declaration that the religious ordinances of Israel 
 had ceased to admit of development, and the first step 
 towards the substitution of a canon or authoritative collec- 
 tion of Scriptures for the living guidance of the prophetic 
 voice : " Page 636b : ^ " But in its present shape the Pen- 
 
 j] tateuch is certainly subsequent to the occupation, for it uses 
 geographical names which arose after that time (Hebron, 
 Dan), refers to the conquest as already accomplished (Deut. 
 ii. 12, cf. ; Numb. xv. 32 ; Gen. xii. 6), and even presupposes 
 the existence of a kingship in Israel (Gen. xxxvi. 31). And 
 with this it agrees, that though there are marked differences 
 
 F of style and language within the book of Joshua, each style 
 finds its counterpart in some section of the Pentateuch. In 
 the subsequent books we find quite similar phenomena. The 
 last chapters of Judges cannot be separated from the book 
 of Samuel, and the earlier chapters of Kings are obviously 
 one with the foregoing narrative ; while all three books 
 contain passages strikingly akin to parts of the Pentateuch 
 and Joshua cf., for example, the book of Deuteronomy with 
 
rORM OF LIBEL. 9 
 
 Josh, xxiii., 1 Sam. xii., 1 Kings viii. Such phenomena not A 
 only prove the futility of any attempt to base a theory of 
 authorship on the present division into books, but suggest 
 that the history as we have it is not one narrative carried 
 on from age to age by successive additions, but a fusion of 
 several narratives -u-hich partly covered the same ground 
 and were combined into unity by an editor." B 
 
 Scaindo : — You, the said Mr William Robertson Smith, in 
 the foresaid article "Bible," published in the foresaid edition 
 of the Encyclopci'dia Britannica, expressed yourself, at page 
 G37b, as follows, videlicet : M " Now the book of Deuteronomy 
 presents a quite distinct type of style which, as has been already 
 mentioned, recurs from time to time in passages of the later 
 books, and that in such a connection as to suggest to many 
 critics since Graf the idea, that the Deuteronomic hand is 
 the hand of the last editor of the whole history from Genesis 
 to Kings, or, at least, of the non-Levitical parts thereof. 
 This conclusion is not stringent, for a good deal may beD 
 said in favour of the view that the Deuteronomic style, 
 ■which is very capable of imitation, was adopted by writers 
 of different periods. But even so it is difficult to suppose 
 that the legislative part of Deuteronomy is as old as Moses. 
 If the law of the kingdom in Deuteronomy xvii. was known 
 in the time of the Judges, it is impossible to comprehend E 
 Judges viii. 23, and above all 1 Samuel viii. 7. That the 
 law of high places given in this part of the Pentateuch was 
 not acknowledged till the time of Josiah, and was not 
 dreamed of by Samuel and Elijah, we have already seen. 
 The Deuteronomic law is familiar to Jeremiah, the younger 
 contemporary of Josiah, but is referred to hjno prophet ofF 
 earlier date. And the whole theological stand-point of the 
 book agrees exactly with the period of prophetic literature, 
 and gives the highest and most spiritual view of the law, 
 to which our Lord himself directly attaches his teaching, 
 and which cannot be placed at the beginning of the theo- 
 cratic development without making the whole history unin- 
 telligible. Beyond doubt the book is, as already hinted, a 
 
10 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A prophetic legislative programme ; and if the author put his 
 work in the mouth of Moses instead of giving it, with 
 Ezekiel, a directly prophetic form, he did so not in pious 
 fraud, but simply because his object was not to give a new 
 law, but to expound and develop Mosaic principles in rela- 
 tion to new needs. And as ancient writers are not accus- 
 
 B tomed to distinguish historical data from historical deduc- 
 tions, he naturally presents his views in dramatic form in 
 the mouth of Moses." As also, in your said " Remarks on 
 memorandum of the Sub-Committee on the article Bible," 
 expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, page 20 : ^ " When 
 my position is thus discriminated from the theories of those 
 
 C who like Kuenen ascribe the origin of Deuteronomy to a 
 pious fraud, I do not think that it will be found to involve 
 any more serious innovation in our conception of the method 
 of revelation than this — that the written record of the revela- 
 tion of God's will which is necessary unto salvation makes 
 use of certain forms of literary presentation which have 
 
 I) always been thought legitimate in ordinary composition, but 
 which were not always understood to be used in the Bible." 
 And at page 21 of the said Eemarks you expressed yourself 
 thus : IT " It is asked whether our Lord does not bear witness 
 to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. If this were so, 
 I should feel myself to be on very dangerous and untenable 
 
 E ground. But it appears to me that only a very strained 
 exegesis can draw any inference of authorship from the 
 recorded words of our Saviour." 
 
 Tertio ;— You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, in 
 the article " Chronicles," in the foresaid edition of the 
 F Encyclopa'dia Britannica, and at the pages after-mentioned, 
 expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, pages 708b- 709a : 
 1 "In general, then, it seems safe to conclude with Ewald, 
 Bertheau, and other cautious critics, that there is no founda- 
 tion for the accusation that the chronicler invented history 
 in the interest of his parenetic and practical purposes. 
 But on the other hand it is not to be doubted that in shaping 
 his narrative he allowed himself the same freedoms as were 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 11 
 
 taken by other ancient historians, and even by early copyists, ^ 
 and it is the business of historical criticism to form a clear 
 conception of the nature and limits of these freedoms with 
 a view to distinguish in individual passages between the 
 facts derived by the Chronicler from his written sources and 
 the literary additions, explanations, and inferences which 
 are his own. In particular : IF 1. His explanations of verbal pj 
 and material difliculties must be critically considered. Thus 
 even Keil admits an error in 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37, where the 
 Tharshish-ships, that is ships fit for a long voyage, which 
 Jehoshaphat built on the Eed Sea (1 Kings xxii. 48), are 
 explained as ships voyaging to Tartessus in Spain. Such 
 criticism is especially necessary where remarks are intro- q 
 duced tending to explain away the differences in religious 
 observances between early times and the period of the 
 Chronicler. Thus in 1 Chron. xxi. 28, sqq., an explanation 
 is given of the reasons which led David to sacrifice on the 
 threshing-floor of Oman instead of going to the brazen 
 altar at Gibeon. But it is certain that at the time of David j) 
 the principle of a single altar was not acknowledged, and 
 therefore no explanation was required. In 1 Kings iii. 3, 4, 
 Gibeon appears only as the chief of many high-places, and 
 it is difiicult to avoid the conclusion that the chronicler has 
 simply inferred from the importance of this sanctuary that 
 it must have possessed a special legitimation, which could jj 
 only consist in the presence of the old brazen altar. IF 2. A 
 certain freedom of literary form was always allowed to 
 ancient historians, and need not perplex anyonewho does not 
 apply a false standard to the narrative. To this head belongs 
 especially the introduction of speeches like that of Abijah in 
 2 Chron. xiii. This speech is no doubt a free composition, p 
 and would be so understood by the author's contemporaries. 
 By such literary devices the author was enabled to jDoint a 
 lesson without interrupting the thread of his narrative by 
 reflections of his own. Similar remarks apply to the psalm 
 in 1 Chron. xvi., which is made up of extracts from Psalms 
 cv., xcvi., cvi. IT 3. A usage not peculiar to the Chronicler 
 among Old Testament writers, and which must be carefully 
 
1 2 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A taken into account by the historical critic, is that of giving 
 statistical information in a narrative form. ... A 
 different application of the same principle seems to lie in 
 the account of the institutions of Levitical service which is 
 introduced in connection with the transference of the ark 
 to Jerusalem by David. The author is not concerned to 
 
 B distinguish the gradual steps by which the Levitical organi- 
 sation attained its fall development. But he wishes to 
 describe the sj^stem in its complete form, especially as 
 regards the service of the singers, and he does this under 
 the reign of David, who was the father of Hebrew psalmody, 
 and the restorer of the sanctuary of the ark :" Pages 706b- 
 
 C 707a : H "What seems to be certain and important for a 
 right estimate of the book is that the author lived a con- 
 siderable time after Ezra, and stood entirely under the 
 influence of the religious institutions of the new theocracy. 
 This standpoint determined the nature of his interest in the 
 early history of his people. ^ The true importance of 
 
 D Hebrew history had always centred in the fact that this 
 petty nation was the people of Jehovah, the spiritual God. 
 The tragic interest which distinguishes the annals of Israel 
 from the forgotten history of Moab or Damascus lies wholly 
 in that long contest which finally vindicated the reality of 
 spiritual things and the supremacy of Jehovah's purpose, in 
 
 E the political ruin of the nation which was the faithless 
 depositary of these sacred truths. After the captivity it 
 was impossible to write the history of Israel's fortunes 
 otherwise than in a spirit of religious pragmatism. But 
 within the limits of the religious conception of the plan and 
 purpose of the Hebrew history more than one point of view 
 
 F might be taken up. The book of Kings looks upon the 
 history in the spirit of the Prophets — in that spirit which 
 is still. echoed by Zechariah (i. 5, 6) : 'Your fathers, where 
 are they ? And the prophets, could they live for ever ? 
 But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my ser- 
 vants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers ? so 
 that they turned and said. Like as Jehovah of Hosts thought 
 to do unto us . . . so hath he dealt with us.' But long 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 13 
 
 before the Chronicler wrote, the last spark of prophecy was \ 
 extinct. The New Jerusalem of Ezra was organised as a 
 municipality and a Church, not as a nation. The centre 
 of religious life was no longer the living prophetic word, 
 but the ordinances of the Pentateuch and the liturgical 
 service of the sanctuary. The religious vocation of Israel 
 was no longer national but ecclesiastical or municipal, and £ 
 the historical continuity of the nation was vividly realised 
 only within the walls of Jerusalem and the courts of the 
 Temple, in the solemn assembly and stately ceremonial of 
 a feast day. These influences naturally operated most 
 strongly on those who were officially attached to the 
 sanctuary. To a Levite, even more than to other Jews, q 
 the history of Israel meant above all things the history of 
 Jerusalem, of the Temple, and of the Temple ordinances. 
 Now the author of Chronicles betrays on every page his 
 essentially Levitical habit of mind. It even seems possible 
 from a close attention to his descriptions of sacred ordin- 
 ances to conclude that his special interests are those of a j) 
 common Levite rather than of a priest, and that of all 
 Levitical functions he is most partial to those of the singers, 
 a member of whose guild Ewald conjectures him to have 
 been. To such a man the older delineation of the history 
 of Israel, especially in the books of Samuel and Kings, 
 could not but appear to be deficient in some directions, while -g 
 in other respects its narrative seemed superfluous or open 
 to misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and that 
 without condemnation, things inconsistent with the Penta- 
 teuchal law. The history of the ordinances of worship holds 
 a very small place in the older record. Jerusalem and the 
 Temple have not that central place in the book of lungs n 
 which they occupied in the mind of the Jewish community 
 after the Exile. Large sections of the old history are 
 devoted to the religion and politics of the ten tribes, which 
 are altogether unintelligible and uninteresting when mea- 
 sured by a strictly Levitical standard ; and in general the 
 whole problems and struggles of the prophetic period turn on 
 points which had ceased to be, cardinal in the life of the New 
 
34 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A Jerusalem, "which was no longer called to decide between the 
 claims of the Word of Jehovah and the exigencies of political 
 affairs and social customs, and which could not comprehend 
 that men absorbed in deeper spiritual contests had no leisure 
 for the niceties of Levitical legislation. Thus there seemed 
 to be room for a new history, which should confine itself to 
 
 B matters still interesting to the theocracy of Zion, keeping 
 Jerusalem and the Temple in the foreground, and developing 
 the divine pragmatism of the history, not so much with 
 reference to the prophetic word as to the fixed legislation of 
 the Pentateuch, so that the whole narrative might be made 
 to teach that the glory of Israel lies in the observance of the 
 
 C divine law and ritual : " Page 707b : ^ " In the latter history 
 the ten tribes are quite neglected, and political affairs in 
 Judah receive attention, not in proportion to their intrinsic 
 importance, but according as they serve to exemplify God's 
 help to the obedient and his chastisement of the rebellious. 
 That the author is always unwilling to speak of the misfor- 
 
 D tunes of good rulers is not to be ascribed with some critics 
 to a deliberate suppression of truth, but shews that the book 
 was throughout composed not in purely historical interests, 
 but with a view to inculcate a single practical lesson. The 
 more important additions which the Chronicler makes to 
 the old narrative consist partly of statistical lists (1 Chron. 
 
 E xii.)^ partly of full details on points connected with the 
 history of the sanctuary and the great feasts or the archae- 
 ology of the Levitical ministry . . . and partly of narratives 
 of victories and defeats, of sins andpunishments, of obedience 
 and its reward, which could be made to point a plain reli- 
 gious lesson in favour of the faithful observance of the law 
 
 F . . . The minor variations of Chronicles from the books of 
 Samuel and Kings are analogous in principle to the larger 
 additions and omissions, so that the whole work has a con- 
 sistent and well-marked character, presenting the history in 
 quite a different perspective from that of the old narrative. 
 f Here, then, a critical question arises. Is the change of per- 
 spective wholly due to a different selection of items from 
 authentic historical tradition? May we assume that every- 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 1 5 
 
 thing which is new in the Chronicles has heen taken exactly A 
 from older sources, or must we judge that the standpoint of 
 the author has not only governed the selection, hut coloured 
 the statement of historical facts? Are all his novelties new 
 data, or are some of them inferences of his own from the 
 same data as lie before us in other books of the Bible?" 
 
 B 
 Quarto: — You, the said Mr William Robertson Smith, in 
 the said article "Bible," published in the foresaid edition of 
 the Encyclopcedia Britannica, and at the pages after-men- 
 tioned, expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, page 639b : IT 
 "In the book of Job we find poetical invention of incidents, 
 attached for didactic purposes to a name apparently derived (j 
 from old tradition. There is no valid a 'priori reason for 
 denying that the Old Testament may contain other examples 
 of the same art. The book of Jonah is generally viewed as 
 a case in point. Esther, too, has been viewed as a fiction 
 by many who are not over sceptical critics ; but on this view 
 a book which finds no recognition in the New Testament, D 
 and whose canonicity was long suspected by the Christian 
 as well as by the Jewish Church, must sink to the rank of 
 an apocryphal production. ^ In the poetical as in the his- 
 torical books anonymous writing is the rule; and along with 
 this we observe great freedom on the part of readers and 
 copyists, who not only made verbal changes (c/. Psalm xiv. p^ 
 with Psalm liii.), but composed new poems out of fragments 
 of others (Psalm cviii. with Ivii. and Ix.). In a large part 
 of the Psalter a later hand has systematically substituted 
 Elohim for Jehovah, and an imperfect acrostic, like Psalm 
 ix., X., cannot have proceeded in its present form from the 
 first author. Still more remarkable is the book of Job, in p 
 which the speeches of Elihu quite break the connection, and 
 are almost universally assigned to a laterhand:" Page 640b: 
 U "In this sketch of the prophetic writings we find no place 
 for the book of Daniel, which, whether composed in the early 
 y^ars of the Persian empire, or, as modern critics hold, at 
 the time of the Maccabee wars, presents so many points of 
 diversity from ordinary prophecy as to require entirely 
 
16 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 ^ separate treatment. It is in point of form the precursor of 
 the apocalyptic books of post-canonical Judaism, though in 
 its intrinsic qualities far superior to these, and akin to the 
 prophets proper:" Pages 635b, 636a: H" The miscellaneous 
 character of the Ketubim" [embracing Psalms, Proverbs, 
 Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, 
 
 g Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles] "seems, in fact, 
 to shew that after the Law and the Prophets were closed, 
 the third part of the canon was open to receive additions, 
 recommended either by their religious and historical value, 
 or by bearing an ancient and venerable name. And this was 
 the more natural because the Hagiographa had not the same 
 
 Q place in the synagogue service as was accorded to the Law 
 and the Prophets." 
 
 Qidnio : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, in 
 the aforesaid article " Canticles," published in the foresaid 
 edition of the EncyclopcBdia Britannica, and at the pages 
 
 jy aftermentioned, expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, page 
 32b : H "To tradition, again, we owe the still powerful preju- 
 dice in favour of an allegorical interpretation, that is, of the 
 view that from verse to verse the Song sets forth the history 
 of a spiritual and not merely of an earthly love. To apply 
 such an exegesis to Canticles is to violate one of the first 
 
 g principles of reasonable interpretation. True allegories are 
 never without internal marks of their allegorical design. 
 The language of symbol is not so perfect that a long chain 
 of spiritual ideas can be developed without the use of a single 
 spiritual word or phrase ; and even were this possible it 
 would be false art in the allegorist to hide away his sacred 
 
 j< thoughts behind a screen of sensuous and erotic imager}', 
 so complete and beautiful in itself as to give no suggestion 
 that it is only the vehicle of a deeper sense. Apart from 
 tradition, no one, in the present state of exegesis, would 
 dream of allegorising poetry which in its natural sense is 
 so full of purpose and meaning, so apt in sentiment, and so 
 perfect in imagery as the lyrics of Canticles. We are not at 
 liberty to seek for allegory except where the natural sense 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 17 
 
 is incomplete. This is not the case in the Song of Solomon. A 
 On the contrary, every form of the allegorical interpretation 
 which has been devised carries its own condemnation in the 
 fact that it takes away from the artistic unity of the poem 
 and breaks natural sequences of thought. The allegorical 
 interpretation of the Song of Solomon had its rise in the 
 very same conditions which forced a deeper sense, now uni-B 
 ver sally discarded, upon so many other parts of Scripture : " 
 Page 35a : 1" " The heroine appears in the opening scene in 
 a difficult and painful situation, from which in the last 
 chapter she is happily extricated. But the dramatic pro- 
 gress which the poem exhibits scarcely involves a plot in 
 the usual sense of that word. The words of viii. 9, 10, C 
 clearly indicate that the deliverance of the heroine is due 
 to no combination of favouring circumstances, but to her 
 own inflexible fidelity and virtue. In accordance with this, 
 her role throughout the poem is simply a steadfast adherence 
 to the position which she takes up in the opening scene, 
 where she is represented as concentrating her thoughts!) 
 upon her absent lover with all that stubborn force of will 
 which is characteristic of the Hebrews, and as frustrating 
 the advances of the king by the mere naive intensity of pre- 
 occupied affection : " Page 35b : 1[ " We learn that she was 
 an inhabitant of Shulem or Shunem in Issachar, whom the 
 king and his train surprised in a garden on the occasion of j^ 
 a royal progress through the north. Her beauty drew from 
 the ladies of the court a cry of admiration : " And page 36b : 
 IF *' A poem in the northern dialect, with a northern heroine 
 and scenery, contrasting the pure simplicity of Galilee with 
 the corrupt splendour of the court of Solomon, is clearly the 
 embodiment of one phase of the feeling which separated the ^ 
 ten tribes from the house of David. The kingdom of Solomon 
 was an innovation on old traditions partly for good and 
 partly for evil. But novelties of progress and novelties of 
 corruption were alike distasteful to the north, which had 
 long been proud of its loyalty to the principles of the good 
 old times. The conservative revolution of Jeroboam was in 
 great measure the work of the prophets, and must therefore 
 
 2 
 
18 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A have carried with it the rehgious and moral convictions of 
 the people. An important element in these convictions, 
 which still claims our fullest sympathy, is powerfully set 
 forth in the Canticles, and the deletion of the book from 
 the canon, providentially averted by the allegorical theory, 
 would leave us without a most necessary complement to the 
 
 B Judean view of the conduct of the ten tribes which we get in 
 the historical books. Written in a spirit of protest against 
 the court of Zion, and probably based on recollections of an 
 actual occurrence, the poem cannot be dated long after the 
 death of Solomon." 
 
 C Sexto : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, in 
 the aforesaid article "Bible," published in the foresaid edi- 
 tion of the Eiicyclopcedia Britannlca at page 638b, expressed 
 yourself as follows, videlicet: H " The assertion that no 
 psalm is certainly David's is hyper- sceptical, and few re- 
 mains of ancient literature have an authorship so well 
 
 D attested as the 18th or even as the 7th Psalm. These, 
 along with the indubitably Davidic poems in the book of 
 Samuel, give a sufficiently clear image of a very unique 
 genius, and make the ascription of several other poems to 
 David extremely probable. So, too, a very strong argument 
 claims Psalm ii. for Solomon, and in later times we have 
 
 E sure landmarks in the psalms of Habakkuk (Hab. iii.) and 
 Hezekiah (Isaiah xxxviii.) But the greater part of the 
 lyrics of the Old Testament remain anonymous, and we 
 can only group the psalms in broad masses, distinguished 
 by diversity of historical situation and by varying degrees 
 of freshness and personality. As a rule the older psalms 
 
 jp are the most personal, and are not written for the congrega- 
 tion, but flow from a present necessity of individual (though 
 not individualistic) spiritual life. This current of productive 
 psalmody runs apparently from David down to the Exile, 
 losing in the course of centuries something of its original 
 freshness and hre, but gaining a more chastened i)athos and 
 a wider range of spiritual sympathy. Psalm li., obviously 
 composed during the desolation of the temple, marks, per- 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 1 9 
 
 haps, the last phase of this development." As also in the A 
 same article " Bible," you expressed yourself in the terms 
 already quoted under heads " Primo " and " Secundo." As 
 also in the same article "Bible," page 640b, in the said 
 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, you expressed your- 
 self as follows, videlicet : If " In the period of Exile more 
 than one anonymous prophet raised his voice ; for not only B 
 the ' Great Unnamed ' of Isaiah xl.-lxvi., but the authors of 
 other Babylonian prophecies, are probably to be assigned 
 to this time." 
 
 Septimo .-—You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, in 
 the aforesaid article — "The Question of Prophecy in theQ 
 Critical Schools of the Continent," published inthe British 
 Quarterly Review, of April 1870, and at the pages after-men- 
 tioned, expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, page 326 : 
 H "The prophets prophesied into the future, but not directly 
 to the future. Their duties lay with their own age, and only 
 by viewing them as they move amidst their contemporariesD 
 does the critic learn to love and to admire them :" Page 323 : 
 IT" True prophecy is always ideal, seeking to grasp, not the 
 immediate future, but the eternal and unchanging principle 
 which Jehovah, the living God, is ever working out more 
 fully among his people. The critical study of prophecy has 
 done no greater service than to point out how small a frac- e 
 tion of the prophetic writings is strictly predictive." As also 
 in the said article "Bible," published in the foresaid edi- 
 tion of the Encyclopmlia Britannica, at page 640a, you 
 expressed yourself as follows, videlicet : IT " The prophecies 
 contain — 1st, reproof of present sin; 2d, exhortation to 
 present duty ; 3d, encouragement to the godly and threaten- p 
 ing to the wicked, based on the certainty of God's righteous 
 purpose. In this last connection prophecy is predictive. It 
 lays hold of the ideal elements of the theocratic conception, 
 and depicts the way in which, by God's grace, they shall be 
 actually realised in a Messianic age, and in a nation puri- 
 fied by judgment and mercy. But in all this the prophet 
 starts from present sin, present needs, present historical 
 
20 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A situations. There is no reason to think that a prophet ever 
 received a revelation which was not spoken directly and 
 pointedly to his own time." As also in article, " The Six- 
 teenth Psalm," published in The Expositor, No. XXIII. , of 
 Nov. 1876, at the pages after-mentioned you expressed your- 
 self as follows, videlicet, page 369 : ^" That the sixteenth 
 
 B Psalm delineates an ideal which throughout the Old Testa- 
 ment dispensation was never realised fully — that is, in a 
 whole life — but which only expressed the highest climax of 
 subjective conviction, was not felt to detract from its religious 
 truth. Nay, in religion the ideal is the true. The destiny 
 of him who is admitted into full fellowship with God is life, 
 
 C and if that fellowship has never yet been perfectly realised, 
 it must be realised in time to come in the consummation of 
 God's kingdom and righteousness. This, like other glorious 
 promises of God, is deferred because of sin ; but, though 
 deferred, is not cancelled. Thus the psalm, originally an 
 expression of direct personal persuasion, must necessarily in 
 
 D its place in the Old Testament liturgy, have acquired a pro- 
 phetic significance, and so must have been accepted as 
 parallel to such highest anticipations of eschatological pro- 
 phecy as Isaiah xxv. 8 — ' He hath swallowed up death for 
 ever :'" Page 370 : % " We may say,then, that in the mouth 
 of the Psalmist himself our psalm did not set forth a remote 
 
 E prophecy ora religious problem, but a truth of direct spiritual 
 intuition. But accepted into the Old Testament liturgy as an 
 expression of the faith of Israel, and so confronted with that 
 experience of sin and imperfect communion with God of which 
 the Old Testament was so sensible, it necessarily became part 
 of a problem which runsthroughthewholedispensation, while 
 
 F at the same time it was a help towards the solution of the pro- 
 blem. Like other psalms, in which the ideal is developed in 
 the teeth of the empirical, it came topossess a prophetic value 
 for the Church, and it was felt to set forth truth only in so 
 far as it was transferred from the present to the future :" 
 Page 371 : II " The psalm is fulfilled in Christ, because in 
 Christ the transcendental ideal of fellowship with God which 
 the psalm sets forth becomes a demonstrated reality. And 
 
FORM OF LIBEL. 21 
 
 becoming true of Christ, the psalm is also true of all who are A 
 his, and in the Psalmist's claim to use it for himself the sound- 
 ness of his religious insight is vindicated ; for Christ faced 
 death not only for himself, but as our Surety and Head." 
 
 Octavo : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, in 
 the aforesaid article "Angel," published in the foresaid -d 
 edition of the Encyclo'pcedia Britannlca, at the pages after- 
 mentioned, expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, page 
 27a : "It is indeed certain — to pass to the second side of 
 the doctrine — that the angelic figures of the Bible narrative 
 are not mere allegories of divine providence, but were re- 
 garded as possessing a certain superhuman reality. But this p 
 reality is matter of assumption rather than of direct teaching. 
 Nowhere do we find a clear statement as to the creation of 
 the angels [Gen. ii. 1 is ambiguous, and it is scarcely 
 legitimate in Psalm cxlviii. to connect ver. 2 with ver. 5]. 
 That they are endowed with special goodness and insight, 
 analogous to human qualities, appears as a popular assump- j. 
 tion, not as a doctrine of revelation (1 Sam. xxix. 9 ; 2 Sam. 
 xiv. 17, xix. 27) ;" Page 28a : ^ " The angelology of the New 
 Testament' attaches closely tothe notions already developed." 
 As also in the same article, page 26b : 5i " The angelophany 
 is a theophany as direct as is possible to man. The idea 
 of a full representation of God to man, in all his revealed r. 
 character, by means of an angel, comes out most clearly for 
 the angel that leads Israel in the very old passage. Exodus 
 xxiii. 20, ff. This angel is sent before the people to keep 
 them in the way and bring them to Canaan. He speaks 
 with divine authority, and enforces his commands by divine 
 sanctions, ' for my name [i.e. the compass of my revealed ^ 
 qualities] is in him.' The question naturally arises, how 
 the angel who possesses these high predicates stands related 
 to angels who elsewhere appear not representing the whole 
 self-manifestation of God to his people, but discharging 
 isolated commissions. The biblical data for the solution 
 of this question are very scanty." 
 
 All which, or part thereof, being found proven against 
 
22 CASE OF KEV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A you, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, by the said Free 
 Presbytery of Aberdeen, before which you are to be tried, 
 or being admitted by your own judical confession, you, the 
 said Mr William Eobertson Smith, ought to be subjected to 
 such sentence as the gravity of the case, the rules and dis- 
 cipline of the Church, and the usage observed in such cases, 
 
 Bmay require for the glory of God, the edification of the 
 Church, and the deterring of others holding the same sacred 
 office, from committing the like offences in all time coming. 
 
 Signed at Aberdeen, in name and presence and by appoint- 
 ment of the Free Presbytery of Aberdeen this day 
 C of , Eighteen hundred and seventy-eight years. 
 
 Attested by Alex. Spence, Presb. Clk. 
 
 Attested by James Sutherland, Synod Clk. 
 
PKOFESSOK SMITH'S ANSWEK 
 
 FOBM OF LIBEL. 
 
PEOFESSOR SMITH'S 
 ANSWER TO THE FORM OF LIBEL 
 
 In laying my defence before the Presbytery I might begin A 
 by animadverting on the form of the libel, and strictly ex- 
 amining its structure in comparison with the ordinary forms 
 observed in such cases, and with the practice of criminal 
 justice in lay courts, after which the ecclesiastical procedure 
 appears to have been framed. Such an examination would B 
 probably bring out many features open to grave objection, and 
 inconsistent with the obvious principle of justice, which re- 
 quires that an indictment be free from all ambiguity of mean- 
 ing, and that it lay every charge with such precision that the 
 party accused can have no difficulty in making out the pre- C 
 • cise point of the accusation. 
 
 But I have no wish to embarrass a case already overloaded 
 with technical difficulties. I desire to put my defence in such 
 a shape as to meet directly the points which appear to con- 
 stitute the real substance of the indictment; and I will, D 
 therefore, make no further remark on the form of the Hbel 
 than is necessary to give clearness to my own line of defence. 
 
 Every ecclesiastical libel is a syllogism in which the 
 major proposition states the offence against the laws of the 
 Church, in terms which by mere comparison with these laws E 
 ought to be at once convincing ; while the minor enumerates 
 the facts which, by subsumption under these general laws, 
 ought to prove the offence. In the present libel, liowever, 
 there appear to be three steps. The major is in itself a syl- 
 logism, or at least involves a subsumption, for it contains a F 
 
26 CHARGES IN THE LIBEL. 
 
 A general statement of the Confessional Doctrine of the inspir- 
 ation, infallibility, and authority of Scripture, and at the same 
 time an enumeration of special facts, viz., of detailed opinions, 
 which are not in themselves in verbal opposition to the doc- 
 trine of the Confession, by maintaining which I am alleged to 
 
 B liave contravened the general doctrine enunciated in the first 
 part of the major. 
 
 Thus, in the first part of the major, I am charged with 
 denying the infallibility and authority of Scripture ; in the 
 second part of the major, and under the first head, I am 
 
 C charged with holding a particular view of the institution of the 
 Aaronic priesthood, which is said to infer denial of the in- 
 fallibility of Scripture ; and in the corresponding head of the 
 minor, I find the citations from my writings which are sup- 
 posed to prove that I hold the opinion in question. To fol- 
 
 D low this division through all the particulars of so complex a 
 charge would render my defence extremely cumbrous, and 
 bury the main points at issue under the mass of details. I 
 shall, therefore, follow the ordinary precedent of first dis- 
 cussing the statement of the offences with which I am 
 
 E charged ; and then taking together the allegations of fact in 
 the major and the corresponding quotations in the minor. I 
 shall thus follow the natural procedure known to all law, 
 considering, /?'s^, whether I am charged with a real offence 
 under the law of the Church ; and, then, whether the facts 
 
 E alleged against me are sufficient to constitute that offence. 
 The offences charged against me are three in number — 
 
 1st — Tlie publishing and promulgating of opinions which 
 contradict, or are opposed to, doctrines set forth in 
 
 the Scriptures and the Confession of Faith. 
 G 
 
 2nd — The publishing and promulgating of opinions which 
 are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency in their bearing on doctrines set forth in 
 Scripture and the Confession. 
 
 Jf 3rd — The publishing of writings concerning the books of 
 Scripture which, by their neutrality of attitude iu 
 
PLAN OF THE DEFENCE. 27 
 
 relation to doctrines set forth in the Scriptures and A 
 the Confession, and by their raslmess of statement 
 in regard to the critical construction of the Scrip- 
 tures, tend to disparage the Divine authority and 
 inspired character of these books. 
 
 B 
 There can be no question as to the general relevancy of 
 the first of these charges ; that is, I do not for a moment deny 
 that I am liable to the censure of the Church if I have ad- 
 vanced opinions contradictory to the teaching of our Standards. 
 And by this I do not mean that it is incumbent on the pro- C 
 secution to shew that my statements are verbally contradic- 
 tory to the doctrine of the Church. I admit that it is quite 
 enough to infer Church censure that my statements should 
 be proved to be logically inconsistent with what is taught in 
 the Standards, by a chain of strict reasoning in which every D 
 link is complete. 
 
 With regard to the other charges in the major I stand in 
 a different position, for I deny that these charges contain a 
 competent ground to proceed against me by the law of the 
 Church. I shall therefore, first of all, state the reasons for E 
 which I think the second and third charges irregular and in- 
 competent. I shall then proceed to consider whether the 
 statement of my opinions contained in the libel is sufficient 
 to substantiate the graver charge of contradicting the con- 
 fessional doctrine. To this end I must first examine the real F 
 meaning of the confessional doctrines under which I am 
 accused; for the words used in the major indicate these 
 doctrines without defining them, and the indications are not 
 free from ambiguity, especially as my accusers have not 
 thought fit to cite the passages of the Confession on which Q 
 their charges are based. Having exhibited the true confes- 
 sional doctrine, I will then show in general terms how it bears 
 on my critical position, and that it leaves room within the 
 Church for the prosecution of the critical enquiries and the 
 adoption of the critical conclusions for which I am challenged. H 
 Finally, I shall go in detail through the particular 
 
28 THE CHARGE OF TENDENCY 
 
 A opinions enumerated as contained in my articles, examining 
 whether the statements of the libel fairly represent my 
 opinions, and if so, whether the opinions stated are really 
 inconsistent with the confessional doctrine. I will not repeat 
 this complete examination with reference to the less grave 
 
 B charges whose competency I entirely deny; but in dealing 
 with the main offence I sliall find occasion to point out from 
 time to time that the minor charges (supposing them, for the 
 sake of argument, to indicate real offences against the law of 
 the Church) must yet fall to the ground along with the 
 
 C graver charge. 
 
 COMPETENCY OF THE SECOND CHARGE. 
 
 The position of this charge as an alternative to the graver 
 
 D charge of contradicting the doctrine of the Church shews 
 that it only applies to opinions which are not inconsistent 
 with the Standards. Before seeking to fix on any opinion 
 drawn from my writings, the alternative charge of dangerous 
 and unsettling tendency, instead of the graver charge of " con- 
 
 j; tradicting, etc.," the prosecution must admit that there is 
 nothing in the opinion which cannot be held in logical consis- 
 tency with everything that is taught in the Confession. 
 
 Again, the charge is not one of undermining the confes- 
 sional doctrines by dishonest statements, by insinuating in a 
 
 F disguised form opinions which, if I ventured to state them 
 nakedly, would plainly contradict the Standards. There is no 
 allegation that my opinions are not honestly held and honestly 
 expressed, and there is express admission on the part of the 
 prosecution, that so far as they fall under this alternative my 
 
 Q views neither verbally nor logically contradict the Standards. 
 This being so, I find it very difficult to understand what is 
 meant by dangerous and unsettling tendency, and still more 
 difficult to grasp the point of alleged criminality which the 
 prosecution desires to convey by using the phrase. 
 
 H It lies with the prosecutors both to explain what the 
 charge means and to prove that it sets forth an offence under 
 
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 29 
 
 the laws of the Church. Unless they do this the charge falls A 
 to the ground without any answer of mine ; I will, however, 
 do my best to state what I conjecture that it means or may 
 mean, and to shew that it cannot mean anything which is a 
 competent ground of Church censure. 
 
 The charge then appears to mean that the habit of thought B 
 which these opinions are likely to encourage will dispose 
 men's minds to adopt views not easily harmonized with the 
 views expressed in the Standards, or with the views 
 commonly associated with the Standards in the popular 
 mind, or with views which have been sometimes C 
 used to support or illustrate the doctrine of the 
 Standards. In short, the opinions libelled under this 
 alternative are held to increase the difficulty of believing, and 
 on that account it is proposed to suppress them by an act of 
 judicial censure, without enquiring whether they are true or D 
 false. The difference between such an exercise of Church 
 power as is here contemplated and the usual action of Church 
 Courts in a case of unsound doctrine is manifest. When 
 an opinion is condemned as inconsistent with the teaching 
 of the Confession it is not only condemned but refuted, not E 
 indeed from first principles, but on the premises of the Con- 
 fession, which the Church has agreed to accept as the common 
 basis of doctrinal argument. But before taking up this charge 
 of tendency, the Court must find that my views cannot be 
 refuted from the Confession. Nor is it proposed to refute them F 
 in any other way. They are simply to be censured and sup- 
 pressed for fear that they may increase the difficulties of belief. 
 
 Such a use of Church censures is plainly inconsistent with 
 the principle laid down in the Form of Process (cap. 1, § 4) 
 that " nothinrj ought to he admitted hy any Cliurch Judicature Q. 
 as the ground of a process for censure, hut what hath heen de- 
 clared censurable hy the Word of God, or some act or universal 
 custom of this National Church agreeable thereto."* On this 
 
 * In Sir Henry Moncreiff's " Practice of the Free Church," where the Form tt 
 of Process is given in full, " act of universal custom " stands by a misprint in- 
 stead of "act or, &c." 
 
30 THE CHARGE OF TENDENCY 
 
 A principle Church censures cannot be called into action by the 
 simple will of a majority in order to put down opinions from 
 which they apprehend some contingent danger to faith. An 
 opinion is not to be censured for mere possible consequences 
 or tendency, but only because in itself or in its necessary 
 
 B consequences it has been condemned and declared censurable 
 by the Word of God, or by a legislative act of the Church, or 
 by precedents establishing a universal custom of the Church. 
 The charge cannot be sustained against me unless the pro- 
 secution bring it under this principle, by adducing a law of 
 
 C God, or a law of the Church, or valid precedents in the 
 practice of the Church which rule the present case. No 
 such law or practice is adduced in the libel, and the very 
 fact that the criminality of my opinions is made to lie in 
 their tendency appears to shew that the prosecution is not 
 
 D able to libel them as offences on any distinct and legal ground. 
 
 The explicit language of the Form of Process is quite 
 
 sufficient to dispose of an assertion whicli has been made 
 
 more than once in the previous stages of this case, to the 
 
 effect that the Church, or, to speak precisely, the General 
 
 E Assembly, has power to define and punish new offences with- 
 out any legislative act, and in the simple exercise of judicial 
 functions. I need not wa^te words in confuting a supposed 
 analogy drawn from a power which has sometimes been 
 claimed by the Justiciary court of our country, but which in 
 
 F the very rare and now obsolete cases of its exercise, was 
 always opposed by constitutional lawyers, and which the 
 court itself no longer claims. The Assembly, unlike the 
 Justiciary court, is a legislative as well as a judicial body. 
 If it is necessary to protect the Church from a new kind of 
 
 G offence, the obvious constitutional course is to pass an Act 
 defining the offence. If the Confession is not large enough 
 to condemn all views which the Church proposes to exclude, 
 an Act to add to it must be passed in regular form, and with 
 those precautions against hasty legislation which the Barrier 
 
 H Act provides. It is clearly illegitimate to avoid compliance 
 with these precautions by clothing an act essentially legis- 
 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNJUST. 31 
 
 lative in the disguise of a judicial process. And it is also A 
 clear that no doctrine of an exceptional power belonging to 
 the Assembly, as the supreme judicial court of the Church, 
 can justify the Presbytery, as a subordinate court, in claiming 
 for itself a prerogative to overrule the Form of Process. 
 
 The incompetency of the charge of tendency under the B 
 law of our Church, may be contirmed by observing that the 
 offence is charged against me especially as a Professor of 
 Divinity. Unless, therefore, the prosecution is prepared to 
 aver that every Church member is bound to submit his 
 opinions to the judgment of the Church upon their tendency, C 
 even in cases where they are not inconsistent with the 
 Confession, it will be necessary to prove that the charge 
 brought against me is valid under the special doctrinal 
 obligations which I took upon myself on becoming a 
 professor. These obligations are very precise. They bind D 
 me "firmly and constantly to adhere" to the doctrine of the 
 Confession, and to " assert, maintain, and defend" it to the 
 utmost of my power. But the only opinions which I am 
 forbidden to hold are, " doctrines, tenets, and opinions 
 contrary to, and inconsistent tvith, the Confession of Faith." E 
 It is impossible to construe these expressions in a sense that 
 will justify the charge of tendency. 
 
 But if the charge is inconsistent with the constitution of 
 the Cliurch, it is also utterly opposed to the ordinary 
 principles of justice. It is a charge which no reasonable F 
 and equitable Church court could recognise, because it is 
 too vague and indeterminate to be brought to a clear issue. 
 It is a charge which can hardly be repelled, because different 
 men will attach different meanings to it. It falls under the 
 dangerous and invidious class of constructive offences which G- 
 have been banished from the law of constitutional countries 
 as necessarily involving grave injustice to the accused, and 
 placing the definition of what forms matter for charge not in 
 any clear and ascertained constitution, but in what may 
 happen to be the opinion or feeling of those who are called H 
 at the time to be administrators of the law. Such a charge 
 
32 DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF, 
 
 A is dangerous to justice in any court, but it is doubly dangerous 
 in a court of popular constitution. 
 
 To admit before a popular court a charge which cannot be 
 referred to fixed principles, which cannot be defined with pre- 
 cision, or made to mean the same thing to every one con- 
 
 B cerned, and which, therefore, must be ultimately measured by 
 the feeling of tlie judges, is to obliterate the distinction be- 
 tween justice and the will of the majority, between unpopular 
 opinions and offences. To allow such a charge to be brought 
 before the Courts of the Church would offer direct encourage- 
 
 C ment to popular agitation as a means of controlling the course 
 of justice, and place in the hands of any one who can gain the 
 popular ear a ready instrument for repressing discussion, 
 giving scope to injurious imputations, and practically work- 
 ing grave injustice. No Church which does not pretend to 
 
 D infallibility could venture to embarrass the administration of 
 its judicial functions by admitting a charge which in principle 
 nullifies every legal precaution against the miscarriage of jus- 
 tice, and makes it possible for a majority to inflict judicial 
 censure on any fresh movement of Christian life in the 
 
 E Church. 
 
 The force of these general arguments against a charge of 
 " dangerous and unsettling tendency" may easily be strength- 
 ened by a consideration of the special meaning of the charge 
 in the present case. It is proposed to suppress certain 
 
 r opinions on critical subjects without meeting them on the 
 merits, and without referring them to a fixed confessional 
 standard, if it shall appear to the majority of the Presbytery 
 or the Assembly that they tend to increase the difficulty 
 of believing. Now, the Church has always been aware of 
 
 G the existence of real difficulties of belief, which can neither 
 be denied nor suppressed. It has hitherto been held that 
 these difficulties depend on the limitations of our nature, and 
 are permitted in the wisdom of God for purposes of discipline 
 and for the trial of faith. And the argument of the Church 
 
 H has always been that though the difficulties cannot be re- 
 moved, they do not amount to what is actually inconsistent 
 
HOW MUST THEY BE MET f 33 
 
 with sound doctrine, and that the true way of dealing with A 
 them is simply to shew that the doctrine on which they seem 
 to bear has an evidence of its own sufficient to establish its 
 truth to the believer, on grounds which a mere appearance 
 of paradox is not suificient to invalidate. For example, it has 
 always been suggested as a difficulty in the doctrine of the ^ 
 Trinity that it has a tendency to unsettle belief in the 
 Unity of God; to which the Church replies that it has 
 never been proved that Trinity of persons is logically incon- 
 sistent with Unity, and that the mere difficulty of the 
 doctrine is therefore not sufficient to shake the positive C 
 evidence of revelation for its truth. Precisely similar 
 objections are brought against the most cherished and 
 distinctive doctrines of our own Church. It is averred 
 by Arminians and others that the doctrine of unconditional 
 election and prevenient irresistible grace tends to subvert men's D 
 belief in their moral responsibility. How does our Church 
 meet the charge ? Not by denying the existence of a real 
 difficulty, but by denying the logical inconsistency of the 
 two beliefs which it holds each on its own evidence. Is it 
 not the wisdom of the Church to apply the same line of E 
 argument to the difficulties of belief which may arise from 
 historical and literary criticism of the books of Scripture ? 
 Let us refute the critics if we can, but do not let us say that 
 it is impossible for us to believe or to tolerate propositions 
 which we have not refuted by argument, and of which we F 
 cannot assert that they are actually inconsistent with any- 
 thing that we know to be true. To argue that an opinion 
 is false, because a real difficulty of belief is connected with 
 its acceptance, is only possible to a rationalist who goes on 
 the assumption that supernatural revelation must contain G 
 nothing which our limited reason is unable fully to 
 comprehend. This is the assumption which rationalism has 
 invariably used to undermine the system of positive 
 Christian doctrine, and it seems very shortsighted on the 
 part of the prosecution that it has not hesitated to borrow H 
 this weapon of scepticism, and place it in the hand of the 
 Church. 
 
34 ARGUMENTS OF TENDENCY FALLACIOUS. 
 
 •A The charge of tendency is bad in law and dangerous to 
 the Church, even if it is certain that critical opinions 
 do add to the difficulties of belief. But it must be remem- 
 bered that Churches are like other bodies of men, very apt to 
 overrate the difficulties of opinions which are not familiar, 
 
 S There was a time when the greatest difficulty was felt in 
 admitting the imperfection of Eobert Stephen's text of the 
 New Testament, when the Newtonian astronomy appeared 
 to tend to atheism, and the science of geology to subvert all 
 revelation. In any one of these cases a libel for tendency 
 
 C might have been quite sufficient to place the Church in open 
 antagonism to sound scholarship and legitimate science ; just 
 as in point of fact an argument of tendency once led the 
 Swiss Church to add to its Confession a statement as to the 
 age of the Hebrew vowel-points, which every one now knows 
 
 D to be absolutely false. Great divines, like Owen and Tur- 
 retiu, were misled by the argument of tendency then. Are 
 the members of our Church courts less liable to be misled 
 now, if they allow the prosecution to demand their vote as to 
 the tendency of opinions which scarcely any laymen, and 
 
 E only a small proportion of ministers, have studied on the 
 merits ? 
 
 For my own part, I am firmly convinced that a cautious 
 and reverent use of criticism, combined with a right view of 
 the Eeformation doctrine of Scripture, is so far from adding 
 
 r to the difficulties of belief that no other way of dealing with 
 the Bible can effectually meet the difficulties of the present 
 age. The first duty of every scholar is his duty to truth, and 
 no consideration can justify the student of Scripture 
 in ignoring those difficulties which appear to careful 
 
 G study, though they may be overlooked by the ordinary 
 reader. But while criticism honestly takes note of these 
 difficulties, it has opened a way to their solution wliich, bold 
 as it may at first appear, is really far safer to faith, because 
 truer to the actual history of God's Eevelation, than the 
 H isolated and arbitrary attempts at reconciliation of contra- 
 dictory passages which were once current. No one will 
 
" PIOUS OPINIONS." 35 
 
 rejoice more than myself if farther study shall offer a better A 
 solution to the difliculties that are found* in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and set in a still clearer light the truth and harmony of 
 the supernatural Revelation which distinguished Israel from all 
 other nations, and makes the Old Testament still speak to us 
 with Divine authority. But no progress can be made in this B 
 direction by the mere use of authority to suppress the state- 
 ment of difficulties, and to forbid scholarship from applying 
 its legitimate methods to the study of facts. 
 
 Before passing from the charge of tendency, I would ob- 
 serve, in conclusion, that the attempt to suppress opinions, C 
 not because they have been proved to be untrue, but because 
 they may be supposed to offer difficulties to belief, is in prin- 
 ciple neither more nor less than an attsmpt to introduce into 
 our Protestant Church the Romish notion about " pious 
 opinions." The Church of Rome has long been accustomed D 
 to recommend certain opinions to the faith of her adherents, 
 not because they have been defined as articles of faith, or be- 
 cause their rejection involves the denial of articles of faith ; 
 but simply because their acceptance forecloses troublesome 
 questions and facilitates that indolent acquiescence in the E 
 received doctrines of the Church, which in that communion 
 passes for an act of piety. Almost every corruption of the 
 Romish Church passed current as a pious opinion before it 
 was accepted as a necessary dogma ; and history records a 
 long and fatal list of errors, ending with the doctrines of the F 
 immaculate conception of the Virgin and the infallibility of 
 the Pope, which could never have been defined as articles 
 of faith unless adherents had been won by the semblance of 
 piety, and opponents silenced by the reproach of unsettling 
 belief. G 
 
 COMPETENCY OF THE THIRD CHARGE. 
 
 The general objections already stated against a libel for 
 tendency apply to this charge, for it is not averred that my H 
 writings actually disparage, or were meant to disparage 
 
36 CHARGE OF NEUTRALITY, 
 
 A doctrines of the Church, but only that they tend to do so. 
 And here the necessary badness and unfairness of such a 
 charge is aggravated by the insufficiency and vagueness of 
 the two marks on which the allegation of tendency is made 
 to depend. 
 
 B I. My writings are said to disparage certain doctrines by 
 the neutrality of their attitude towards them. It does not 
 a]3pear on the face of the libel whether this neutrality is ex- 
 hibited in stating opinions as my own, or in reporting 
 opinions of others, for which I do not accept personal re- 
 
 C sponsibility. But it seems likely that the former is what is. 
 mainly meant, since the charge is made to rest on the same 
 passages as are cited to prove that my published opinions 
 are unsound and dangerous.* 
 
 But this third alternative charge does not come before the 
 
 D court until the other alternatives are rejected ; that is, until 
 it appears that my opinions are not inconsistent with sound 
 views. In other words, the doctrine of the inspiration and 
 authority of Scripture cannot, on the hypothesis of this 
 alternative, be used to decide whether my opinions are true 
 
 E or false. Surely, then, IVas at liberty to state my views, and 
 to indicate the grounds on which I hold them, without digres- 
 sing into a doctrine which, ex hypothcsi, could not help the 
 argument. So far as this goes, my writings are neutral to the 
 doctrine of inspiration only in the innocent sense in which a 
 
 F Hebrew Grammar is so. The doctrine is not mentioned be- 
 cause it does not bear on the subject before me. 
 
 Or, on the other hand, is it meant that some of the 
 opinions which I report, without either condemning or ap- 
 proving them, ought to have been condemned as inconsistent 
 
 G with the doctrine of the Church ? If this is the meaning, 
 the charge should have been so specified, with enumeration 
 
 *The resumption at page 3 H of the libel: "The writings containing these 
 
 opinions do exhibit neutrality, &c." makes the proof of neutrality lie wholly in 
 
 the opinions stated, i.e., in the opinions which a few lines before were declared to 
 
 •" be not neutral but opposed to sound doctrine. But I do not press this point, aa 
 
 it seems d;ie to a slip in drawing the libel. 
 
WHAT DOES IT MEANt 37 
 
 of the opinions referred to ; for it is plain that the question, A. 
 whether one is bound to refute a false opinion upon occasion 
 of having to mention it, must be answered with reference to 
 the special circumstances of each case — which, for the pur- 
 poses of the present charge, include the consideration that a 
 contributor to an Encyclopaedia writes under strict limitations ^ 
 of space and plan, that he cannot develop his own views or 
 those of his Church at the length which would often be 
 needed to give any value to an expression of opinion on a 
 controverted point, and that his main object is not to state 
 his own views at all, but simply to give a resume oi the present C 
 condition of learning and scientific opinion. 
 
 Perhaps, however, the charge of neutrality means only 
 that I have stated critical opinions, without adequately indi- 
 cating how I hold them to be consistent with belief in the 
 authority and inspiration of Scripture, and by so doing, have ^ 
 given offence to the faith of persons who have been accustomed 
 to associate criticism with unbelief, and whose scruples I was 
 bound to treat with consideration. I am sincerely sorry if through 
 fault of mine my articles have given offence to belief or en- 
 couragement to doubt, and I am ready to receive, not only E 
 with respect but with gratitude, any warning on this head 
 which their superior experience in dealing with various 
 classes of men enables the brethren of the Presbytery to 
 suggest. While I cannot surrender the right to speak what 
 I believe to be true, and to speak it within the Church so long ^ 
 as it does not contradict the doctrine of the Church, I would 
 always desire to speak without giving unnecessary offence to 
 scruples which I am bound to respect. In writing the article 
 "Bible" I took it for granted that my position as an office-bearer 
 in the Free Church, pledged to support our evangelical G- 
 doctrine, my previous published utterances on the Supreme 
 and Divine authority of Scripture, and, at least in Aberdeen, 
 the known character of my public teaching, would obviate 
 the suspicion of indifference to doctrines which I had no 
 opportunity of asserting, when, by the plan of the Encyclo- ^ 
 psedia Britannica and the arrangements formed by the editor 
 
38 CHARGE OF RASHNESS. 
 
 A I was limited to a siirvey of literary and historical questions. 
 It did not appear to me that I was precluded from handling 
 these questions because it had been determined that 
 such account of the doctrine of Scripture as fell to 
 be given in a work which excludes direct dogmatic 
 
 B teaching should come under a separate heading. I 
 wrote the article not because it gave opportunity to say 
 everything about Scripture that I could wish to say, but 
 because it was planned to cover a field of legitimate 
 scientific enquiry, which the Church cannot forbid to her 
 
 C members and office-bearers without surrendering it to un- 
 believers. I ought, perhaps, to have foreseen that this aspect 
 of the case would not spontaneously suggest itself to the 
 large section of the public which has never been accustomed 
 to look at Scripture from the literary and historical point of 
 
 J) view. Had I to write the article now I should be better 
 aware of this source of misunderstanding ; and while I still 
 could not hesitate to occupy the same ground of scientific 
 research, which I believe to be safe ground, and ground that 
 the Church dare not give up to scepticism, I should 
 
 E endeavour, so far as is possible in an Encyclopaedia, to make it 
 plainer that my criticism does not imply indifference to the 
 Bible as the Divine rule of faith and life. The Presbytery 
 may still help me to make this clear, and to remove anxieties 
 which are largely due to misapprehension and consequent mis- 
 
 r representation; but I submit, with all deference, that they 
 cannot reach this end by forcing a criminal complexion on 
 what was at most a miscalculation of the state of public 
 feeling and sentiment, and by sanctioning the principle that 
 a Free Church Professor may not express opinions and record 
 
 G the present state of scientific enquiry in a Book of Eeference 
 which is on principle neutral in all questions of doctrine. 
 
 II. The second part of this charge is that my writings 
 exhibit rashness of statement in regard to the critical 
 construction of the Scriptures, and I presume, as there is 
 
 H no indication to the contrary, that this accusation applies 
 to aU the statements quoted in the minor. Now, rashness is 
 
MEANING OF RASHNESS. 39 
 
 a thing which has various degrees, but what is here asserted A 
 is such rashness as the Church must suppress by judicial 
 censures, a rashness which cannot be tolerated. How is this 
 rashness to be brought to proof ? 
 
 Does the accusation mean that my statements are rash 
 because they set forth opinions which the Church cannot B 
 admit to be possibly true ? If this is the meaning the charge 
 is simply one of the two former alternatives in another guise. 
 If the Courts of the Church are entitled to say under the 
 third charge, " We forbid these statements as rash because the 
 opinions they convey are dangerous and cannot be believed," C 
 they are equally entitled to drop the periphrasis and say at 
 once under the second charge, " We forbid the opinions be- 
 cause they are dangerous." 
 
 On the other hand, if there is a real difference between 
 the charge of rashness and the other alternatives, the proof D 
 of the accusation involves a very large and intricate question 
 of fact. If the opinions stated are not in themselves 
 censurable, the rashness of the statements must be measured 
 by the grounds I had for making them, and it will be 
 necessary to examine in detail, not only every statement, E 
 but the whole evidence on which each statement rests. This 
 will carry the case far beyond the limits of the Encycloptedia 
 articles, for an Encyclopsedia never professes to give tlie 
 evidence of its statements in full, and it will necessitate, on 
 my part, a line of defence so extended that I need not F 
 attempt to include it in my written answer. But if the 
 Presbytery find that the charge of rashness forms a rele- 
 vant ground of prosecution, I must ask for an opportunity 
 to discuss the whole matter at large. 
 
 If things take this course it may appear to the Presbytery, Cf 
 after a full examination of the evidence on which my state- 
 ments rest, that I have been wrong in my judgment. But 
 where is the law or precedent for finding that such an error 
 in judgment is an offence to be visited with punishment ? 
 If- the two graver alternatives are dismissed, am I to be H 
 punished because the majority of the Presbytery do not agree 
 
40 DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 ■A with my judgment as to the evidence of opinions which are 
 not in themselves censurable ? 
 
 It is the same thing if the " rashness" means that I have 
 
 spoken too soon, and have shocked the majority of the Church 
 
 by my want of caution. Does the libel claim for the Church 
 
 I ^ the right to determine, not only what a man is to speak, but 
 
 / when he shall be allowed to speak on things not contrary to 
 
 \ her doctrine ; to limit the freedom of discussion among those 
 
 who are loyal to her Standards, and to do this by directing 
 
 her censures against any utterance which a majority in her 
 
 t' Courts think it would be wiser to keep back ? To censure me 
 
 on such grounds would be to affirm that opinions, which are 
 
 / not wrong in themselves, are unfit to be mentioned to the 
 
 laity, and that enquiries, legitimate in an esoteric circle of 
 
 j scholars, must be kept back from the light of public discussion. 
 
 i -D I cannot believe that the Church will entertain a view of her 
 
 functions which adopts the principle of the Index Expurga- 
 
 torius. Even for the sake of unity in the Church, it is better 
 
 tliat men should speak out what they think. If the views of 
 
 scholars are contrary to the faith of the Church, let them be 
 
 E condemned ; if they are false, let them be refuted ; but unless 
 
 they are openly discussed, we can neither condemn them 
 
 justly nor refute them conclusively. 
 
 From these remarks on the general relevancy of the second 
 and third charges, I pass on to examine, in connection with 
 ^ the first charge, the doctrines of our Church which I am ac- 
 cused of impugning. They are — I. The Doctrine of Scrip- 
 ture. II. The Doctrine of Prophecy. III. The Doctrine of 
 Angels. 
 
 G 
 
 THE DOCTEINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 The points in the confessional doctrine of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, with regard to which my teaching is impugned, are three 
 in number. The first is immediate inspiration. The libel 
 H seems to attach a special force to the phrase immediate, for it 
 is repeated under quinto, where mention is made of " the 
 
INSPIRATION. 41 
 
 books which in the Confession of Faith are declared to have A 
 been immediately inspired of God."* The Confession, how- 
 ever, does not use the expression to define the kind of inspir- 
 ation which belongs to the books of Scripture ; but only 
 speaks of the immediate inspiration of the original text as 
 distinguished from the versions (Cap. I. sec. 8). The word im- P' 
 mediate cannot, therefore, be used to fix on the Confession i 
 any theory of the nature or degree of inspiration. On any I 
 conceivable theory it is clear that inspiration belongs prim- / 
 arily to the original text, and only mediately, or in a second- 
 ary sense to the versions. This distinction is employed in C 
 order to prove against the Church of Eome that the original 
 Hebrew and Greek alone, and not any version is authentical 
 — i. e., is the authoritative document to which parties in 
 any controversy of religion must make their appeal. 
 
 In the present case there is no question of the relati\'e T) 
 authority of the original text, and of translations made from 
 it. It is the inspiration of Scripture, not of one or other 
 edition or version of Scripture that is said to be assailed ; and, 
 accordingly, the expression immediate, as used in the Con- 
 fession, has no application in the controversy. E 
 
 When the Confession, Cap. I. sec. 2, says that aU the 
 books now contained under the name of Holy Scripture, or the 
 Word of God written, are given by inspiration of God to be 
 the rule of faith and life, it closely follows the language of 
 2 Tim, iii. 16, adding no explanation of its own to the state- ^^ 
 ment of that text. It is in accordance with the proof text, 
 and with the force of the original word deowvevcTos, that neither 
 the Westminster Confession, nor any previous Confession of 
 the Eeformed Churches, so far as I am aware, speaks of the 
 inspiration of the writers of Scripture. It is Scripture itself, Gr 
 according to the consensus of the Eeformed Churches, that is 
 inspired or " breathed of God" ; and in all the Confessions the 
 Bible is recognised as the inspired Word of God, not on the 
 ground of anv theory as to the influence of the Holy Spirit 
 
 H 
 
 * It is, however, noteworthy tliat the phrase is departed from in the tllird charge. 
 
42 DOCTRINE OF IXSPIR AT/ON 
 
 A upon the writers in adu scrihendi, but (1) because in the Scrip- 
 tures the revelation of God and of His will first preached 
 through the Spirit by the apostles and prophets is now re- 
 duced to writing ; and (2) because the witness of the Spirit 
 by and with the word in our hearts, assures us that in these 
 
 B Scriptiu-es (as it is expressed in the Second Helvetic Con- 
 fession) God still speaks to us* 
 
 These two arguments afford a sure ground of faith for 
 receiving the Bible as the very Word of God, without any 
 theory as to the way in which the "Word was actually reduced 
 
 C to tliat WTitten form in which we have it, and which is still 
 accompanied l3y the testimony of the Spirit. Our Confession, 
 therefore, simply states that it pleased the Lord, having 
 
 . revealed himself and declared his will to the Church, " after- 
 
 .Avards to commit the same wholly unto writing," The same 
 
 CD studious abstinence from all attempt to define the process by 
 
 \ which the Bible came to be what it is, appears no less con- 
 
 ' spicuously in the Confessions of the Calviuistic Churches of 
 the Continent. The ancient French Confession, Art. II., writes, 
 " This God manifests himself as such to men, first by his 
 
 E works . . . . ; secondly, and more clearly, by his word, 
 which, originally revealed by oracle, was thereafter reduced 
 to writing in the books which we call Holy Scriptures" 
 (Niemeyer, p. 314; Schaff, vol. iii., p. 360). And the Dutch 
 Confession, revised at the Synod of Dort, holds almost 
 
 F the same language. " Secondl}', He manifests himself more 
 clearly and perfectly in His holy and Divine Word, to wit, as 
 far as is necessary for us in this life to His glory, and the 
 salvation of His own. This Word of God was not sent or 
 brought forth by man's will; but holy men of God spake 
 
 G as they were moved by the Holy Ghost . , . Thereafter, 
 
 * These are the two points taken up by Calvin in his commentary on 2 Tim. 
 iii. 16. "This is the principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, 
 that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are assuredly persuaded that the 
 XJrvjihcts sjxtke not of then- own sense, but as they were organs of the Holy 
 TT Spirit uttered only what was given to them from heaven . . . The same spirit 
 whicli assured Moses and the prophets of their vocation, now also beareth wit- 
 ness in our hearts that he used their ministry //* order to teach m," 
 
IN THE UEFORMED CHURCHES. 
 
 by a special carewhicli He liath for us and our salvation, 1 
 (!od commanded his servants, the Prophets and Apostles, to 
 put his revealed Word in writing ; and He Himself wrote; 
 with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore, 
 we call such writings holy and Divine Scriptures " (Art. II. 
 Ill, Schaff, vol. iii., p. 384). P. 
 
 This unanimous doctrine of the Reformed Churches is so 
 constructed as to make the authority of the Bible altogether 
 independent of questions that may be raised as to the human 
 agencies by which the book came into its present form. 
 According to the Confessional doctrine it is not matter of C 
 ftiith, when the books that record God's Word were written, 
 ov by whom they were written, or how often they were 
 re-edited, changed, or added to, before the record of reve- 
 lation was finally completed, or in what literary form they 
 are cast, or what modes of literary handling they display, D 
 or what their literary merits and demerits may be judged 
 to be. It is not even asserted by the Confessions that 
 the persons who gathered and arranged the material o€ 
 the Bible were under a special influence of God's Spirit, 
 but only that under God's singular care, lest any age of S 
 His Church should be left without a full unmistakeable 
 declaration of His saving wiU, the record of His revealed 
 Word has been so framed and preserved, that He still speaks 
 in it as clearly as He spake by the Apostles and Prophets, 
 and that we, by the witness of the Spirit, still recognise it as F 
 a word breathed forth by God Himself. 
 
 If I am asked why I receive Scripture as the Word of 
 God, and as the only perfect rule of faith and life, I answer 
 with all the fathers of the Protestant Church, " Because the 
 Bible is the only record of the redeeming love of God, be- G 
 cause in the Bible alone I find God drawing near to man in 
 Christ Jesus, and declaring to us, in Him, His will for our 
 salvation. And this record I know to be true by the witness 
 of His Spirit in my heart, whereby I am assured that none 
 other than God Himself is able to speak such words to my H 
 soul." 
 
44 INFALLIBLE TRUTH 
 
 A From this point we can at once pass on to enquire in 
 what sense we are to luiderstand the other predicates of 
 Scripture adduced in the libel, viz., infallible truth and 
 divine authority. 
 
 According to the Confession, infallible truth and divine 
 B authority go together. That which comes to us by the 
 authority of God is necessarily and infallibly true, because 
 God is truth itself (Cap. I., sec. 4). The two predicates are 
 inseparable, the one does not extend beyond the other, and 
 both are proved by one and the same evidence, viz., by 
 C the witness of the Holy Spirit (Sec. 5). 
 
 The nature of this evidence makes it clear that in the 
 
 intention of the Confession the infallible truth and divine 
 
 authority of Scripture are distinct, not only in degree, but in 
 
 kind, from the general veracity of the Bible, as a credible 
 
 I) account of the historical origins of our religion. The latter 
 
 is to be proved by the ordinary methods of historical 
 
 evidence, and is not matter of divine faith depending on a 
 
 special action of the Spirit in our hearts, but may by a due 
 
 use of natural means be reached by any candid thinker. 
 
 E But the Bible story contains something that rises above the 
 
 analogy of ordinary history, and so cannot be gauged or 
 
 testea by any historical evidence. In it we see God drawing 
 
 near to man, revealing to us His redeeming love, choosing a 
 
 people for Himself, and declaring to them His mind and 
 
 Y will. To apprehend this supernatural reality, to grasp it as a 
 
 I thing real to us, which is to enter into our lives and change 
 
 '■ I our whole natures, we need a new spiritual gift. No 
 
 \ personal truth coming to us from without can be appreliended, 
 
 1 except by a power loithin, putting us into communion with 
 
 G it ; but fallen man has no natural power of communion with 
 
 God ; and so only the Spirit of God in the heart of the 
 
 believer, enables him to realise that in very truth it is God 
 
 and none else that is seen in the history, and speaks in the 
 
 Word, revealing Himself, and declaring His will. This is the 
 
 H doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, as taught by Paul in 
 
 . 1 Cor. ii. 11, "What man knoweth the things of a man save 
 
AND DIVINE AUTHORITY. ^5 
 
 the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the tilings of A 
 God hioiccth no man, hut the Sjnrit of God." 
 
 Within its proper sphere this witness, as the Confession 
 indicates, is absolutely conclusive. The things of God 
 knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. But conversely 
 the testimony of the Spirit only applies to the things ot ^ 
 God which "no man knoweth," or can know by the use 
 of his natural powers. What these things are the Con- 
 fession tells us in the paragraph on which its whole doctrine 
 of Scripture rests. They are "the knowledge of God and 
 of His will which is necessary to salvation." It is only to 
 this knowledge that the witness of the Spirit extends, and 
 therefore the infallible truth and divine authority of 
 Scripture, of which according to the Confession we have 
 no other proof than the witness of the Spirit, means simply, 
 infallible truth and divine authority as a record of God's -L> 
 savm'^ revelation of Himself and His will. 
 
 This conclusion is so important that I may be allowed to 
 add some additional considerations in support of the foregoing 
 
 argument: — ^ x- • i.^ 
 
 I Every attentive reader of Chap. 1. of our Contession i^ 
 must observe that nothing is said of the Scriptures, except 
 in so far as they are the record of spiritual truths, of God's 
 revelation of Himself and of His will. It is as the record 
 in which this revelation is wholly committed to writmg, and 
 which God still acknowledges by the witness of the Spirit, -t 
 that the Bible is called the Word of God. And so it is only 
 in this relation that the Confession can fairly be held to 
 declare the Bible to be of infaUible truth and divme 
 authority, and not in relation to any expression that may 
 be found in Scripture, which touches neither faith nor life, G 
 and does not aflect the record of God and His revelation. 
 
 II. The argument of the Confession and of Protestant 
 theology in general runs tluis :— 
 
 Because God is truth itself, His word is infallible ; and 
 
 because He is sovereign, it is authoritative. ^ 
 
 But Scripture is the Word of God. 
 
46 REFORM AT Jos DoCTRISE 
 
 A Therefore Scripture is of infallible truth and Divine 
 
 authority. 
 
 Now, the sense to be put on this conclusion depends on 
 
 the force of the word is in the proposition, " Scripture is the 
 
 "Word of God." One school of theologians presses the word as 
 
 B strictly as Lutherans and Ifomanists do in the famous contro- 
 "\ersy on the words " This is my body." And they press it 
 with as little reason. For otlier orthodox Confessions of the 
 Jieformed Churches use a different expression, though all 
 these Churches teach the same doctrine. 
 
 C I have already pointed out that the French and Dutch 
 Confessions distinguish between the Word of God, as it was 
 first spoken by Eevelation, and the Scriptures in which that 
 Avurd was afterwards recorded. 
 
 In accordance with this distinction, the fifth article of the 
 
 D Fiench Confession speaks of the Word as contained in the 
 ]3ible. So, too, Calvin in the Genevan Catechism (Opera viii. 
 24, Niemeyer, p. 159) defines God's Word as " spiritual doc- 
 trine, the gate, as it were, whereby we enter into His heavenly 
 kingdom," and adds, that " this word is to be sought in the 
 
 Yj Holy Scriptures wherein it is contained." Our own Shorter 
 Catechism (Ques. 2) uses similar language. In a case like 
 this, where a looser expression and one more precise are used 
 side by side by the same author, or by Churches of the same 
 Confession, we must, for purposes of exact argument, take the 
 
 F less ambiguous phrase. And so the conclusion that Scripture 
 is of infallible truth and Divine authority, will be more cor- 
 rectly expressed by saying that Scripture records or conveys 
 to us the infallilile and authoritative Word of God.* 
 
 III. But now will it not be objected that this last ex- 
 
 G pressi'jn is too little for faith to rest upon ? tluit it leaves an 
 
 ■" I use the expression " Scriptuie records or conveys to us the Word of God," 
 bcuiuise some modem writers have twisted the old Calvinistic expression in a new 
 sense. People now say that Scripture contnina God's word, when they mean tliat 
 jiart of the Bible is the Word of God, and another part is the word of man. That 
 is not the doctrine of our Churches, wliich hold that the substance of all .Sciii>ture 
 ■JJ is God's Word. AVhat is not pait of the record of God's Word, is no part of Scrip- 
 ture. Only we umst distinguish between the record and the Divine communica- 
 catiou of G<id"s heart and will \\liicli the )c;;ord conveys. 
 
or TJii: WDjiD OF aon. •!< 
 
 opening for doubt whether the Scripture is a eorrecl ;uul A 
 adequate record ? By no means, replies the theology of the 
 Eeformation, for the Holy Spirit accompanies the Word as 
 it is brought to us in Scripture, with exactly the same testi- 
 mony which he bare to the Word in the hearts of its first 
 hearers, nay, even with the very same testimony whereby he ^ 
 assured the prophets and apostles that the word whicli they 
 preached was God's Word, and not their own.* The witness 
 of the Spirit does not attach itself to the outward characters 
 of the record (1 Cor. ii. 1-5) ; but testifies directly to the in- 
 fallible truth of the Divine Word, the spiritual doctrine, the C 
 revelation of God Himself, which is the substance of the 
 record. Scripture is not the record of a word which was 
 once infallible, but may have been corrupted in transmission, 
 It is the record of a word which still speaks with infallible 
 truth and personal authority to us, in accordance, as Calvin D 
 well observes, with the promise, Isa. lix. 21, " My Spirit that 
 is upon thee, and My words which I have put in thy mouth, 
 shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of 
 thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the 
 Lord, from henceforth and for ever." E 
 
 IV. This argument is irrefragable, and a sure ground of 
 faith to any one who keeps clearly in view the fundamental 
 Eeformation position that the Word of God is nothing else 
 than the personal manifestation to us for salvation of God 
 and His wiU. God's Word is the declaration of what is in 1^' 
 God's heart with regard to us. And so its certainty lies in 
 its substance, not in the way in which it comes to us. 
 " The Word itself," says Calvin, "however it he presented to 
 us, is like a mirror in which faith beholds God " {Inst, Lib, 
 iii., cap. 2, sec. 6). So long as we go to Scripture, only to G 
 find in it God and His redeeming love, mirrored before the 
 eye of faith, w-e may rest assured that we shall find living, 
 self-evidencing, infallilile truth in every part of it, and that 
 we shall find nothing else. But to the Eeforniers this was 
 
 * Cfalvin, Inst., Lib. I., Ch. vii. Sees. 4, 5. ; Id. on 2 Tim. iii : "To disciplus as 
 to tcriclicrs <;od is nuiuifcstcd ;is author by revelation of tlio saniti Spirit." 
 
 H 
 
■^^ SCOPE AND LIMITS 
 
 A the whole use of Scripture. " The whole Scriptures," says 
 the first Swiss Confession, " have no other end than to let 
 mankind know the favour and goodwill of God, and that He 
 has openly manifested and proved this goodwill, to all man- 
 kind, through Christ, His Son, but that it comes to us only 
 
 B by faith, is received by faith alone, and nourished and proved 
 by love to our neighbour" (Art. V., Niemeyer, p. 106). Now, 
 since Scripture has no otlier end than to convey to us a 
 message, which, when accompanied by the inner witness of 
 the Spirit, manifests itself as the infallible Word of God, we 
 
 C may for practical purposes say that Scripture is the infallible 
 Word of God. Scripture is, essentially, what it is its 
 business to convey. But we cannot invert the proposition 
 and say that the infallibility, which belongs to the divine 
 substance of the Word, extends to the outward form of the 
 
 D record, or that the self-evidencing power of the Word as a 
 rule of faith and life extends to expressions in Scripture 
 which are indifferent to faith and life. 
 
 V. That this is the true limit of the infallibility and 
 authority of the Word, as taught in our Confession, appears 
 
 E farther from what is said in the latter at Ch. XIV., sec. 2, on 
 the subject of saving faith, " By this faith a Christian 
 believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for 
 the authority of God speaking therein ; and acteth differently 
 upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth ; 
 
 r yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the 
 threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this 
 life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of 
 saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ 
 alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, ]iy 
 
 G virtue of the covenant of grace." Here we have the very 
 same doctrine of the Word as in the extracts above given 
 from Calvin and the Swiss Confession. The Word consists 
 of God's commands, threatenings, and promises, addressed 
 to our faith, and abo\^e all of the gospel offer of Christ to us. 
 
 H These and none other are the things which /ai^A receives as 
 infallibly true, and the Confession nowhere recognises an 
 
OF THE CONFESSIONAL DOCTRINE. 49 
 
 infallibility which is apprehended otherwise than by faith. A 
 It is, therefore, wholly illegitimate to refer to the Confession 
 as settling any question as to the human form of the Bible, 
 or as to possible human imperfections in the Scriptures in 
 matters that are not of faith. 
 
 The length at which I have drawn out these arguments B 
 will not, I trust, appear disproportionate to the gravity of the 
 questions involved, and to their crucial importance in the 
 present process. The whole case against me rests on the 
 assumption that the doctrine of the infallibility and authority 
 of Scripture has another sense and a wider range than that C 
 assigned to it in the preceding pages ; and that it is capable 
 of being pressed to preclude enquiry, by ordinary exegetical 
 and historical methods, into questions which have nothing to 
 do with faith and life, and which are not inaccessil^le to man's 
 natural powers of investigation. The questions which the D 
 libel desires to foreclose are literary questions as to the origin, 
 history, literary form, and literary character of the Biblical 
 books. They are questions on which the Confession could 
 not give a direct utterance, because they had not emerged 
 when it was composed ; but it is held that the language of E 
 our Standards is broad enough to cover these literary 
 questions, and to exclude them from the sphere of ordinary 
 literary discussion. 
 
 In articles in the Encyclopajdia Britannica I have taken 
 an opposite view, and while I heartily adhere to the doctrine F 
 of our Standards, in the sense and on the grounds which I 
 have briefly stated in the foregoing pages, I have held myself 
 at liberty to discuss all literary questions about the books of 
 Scripture on the usual principles of literary evidence, and to 
 adopt such conclusions as the evidence justifies, without G 
 practising any such " sacrifice of the intellect " as the 
 Church of Eome demands from her theologians. The.se 
 conclusions in no way conflict with the supernatural truths 
 which Scripture presents for our faith on spiritual evidence ; 
 but they do conflict with inferences which are sometimes H 
 drawn from the Confessional doctrine of Scripture, by 
 
50 THE 1)0CTRL\E OF IXPALUBHJTY 
 
 A pressing the mere words of the Standards beyond the limits 
 which the whole scope of the doctrine must fairly be held to 
 prescribe. In other words my views — deduced not from 
 theory but from the evidence of facts — are inconsistent with 
 the ascription to certain Biblical books of a formal infallibility, 
 B extending to every word and letter, and some other supposed 
 perfections, which have nothing to do with the Divine 
 perfection af the Bible as a rule of faith and life, but are 
 measured by an arbitrary and merely human standard. 
 
 If we extend the principle of the infallible truth of Scrip- 
 C ture beyond the limits within which, as I have endeavoured 
 to show, the whole Confessional doctrine moves, it is plain 
 that we cannot stop short of the assertion that the Bible, as 
 we now have it, contains no error or inaccuracy of even the 
 most trivial kind. That this is not true of the present text 
 D of the Old and New Testaments is an undeniable fact, freely 
 admitted by sound theologians from Luther and Calvin down- 
 wards. It is not necessary to multiply examples of what no 
 theologian questions. I will therefore confine myself to cit- 
 ing one or two cases in the very words of Galviu. 
 E ;Mat. xxvii. 9. " How the name of Jeremiah came in I 
 confess that I do not know, and do not greatly care. 
 It is at least plain that the name of Jeremiah stands 
 by mistake for Zechariah." 
 Acts vii. 16. " It is plain that there is an error in the 
 F name of Abraham." 
 
 Acts vii. 14. In this verse the number 75 is given ac- 
 cording to the LXX. of Gen. xlvi. 27, instead of 70. 
 liecognising the number in Acts as due to an error 
 in the Septuagint, Calvin remarks that " the matter 
 G was not so important as to oblige Luke to perplex the 
 
 Gentiles who were accustomed to the Greek reading." 
 The origin of such errors is frequently assigned to copy- 
 ists, and it is supposed — in the teeth of all textual evidence — 
 that the mistakes did not occur in the originals. But this 
 H supposition, which is merely an hypothesis devised to support 
 a certain theorv of the insDiratiun of the writers, has no found- 
 
MAY BE Ml HAP PLIED. 
 
 51 
 
 ation in the doctrine of the Confession, which gives no ^ 
 theory about the writers of the Bible, and is only concerned 
 to maintain the infallible truth of the Scriptures as we have 
 them. It is of the Bible as it exists, and is in our hands, that 
 the Confession throughout speaks. To aftirm that former 
 ages had a more perfect Bible than w^e possess, that our Bible •" 
 is in the smallest point less truly the Word of God than when 
 it was first written, is clearly to imperil a central interest of 
 our faith on behalf of a mere speculative theory. The writers 
 of the Confession were fully alive to this fact, and accordingly 
 they assert the present purity of the Hebrew and Greek ^ 
 texts, the present authenticity of these texts as documents 
 from which there is no appeal ; and they assert this just as 
 broadly, and with precisely the same generality, as they assert 
 that Scripture is infallible and of Divine authority. 
 
 The Confession leaves room for only two views of Scrip- ^ 
 ture. We may suppose that the infallible truth of the Bible 
 extends to every letter and point of the present Greek and 
 Hebrew texts. This is a view not inconsistent with the words 
 of the Confession ; but it is admittedly and notoriously incon- 
 sistent with facts. And this being so, we make the Confession ^ 
 self-contradictory if we declare it to be matter of faith, and 
 indispensable to the character of the Bible as God's Word, 
 that it w^as originally written without the slightest human 
 imperfection, while we yet admit that the absence of errors 
 from the Bible, as we have it, is not matter of faith, and not -^ 
 indispensable for the defence of its Divine character. If a 
 Bible containing some errors and imperfections w^ould not 
 have been God's infallible Word when it came from the pen 
 of inspiration, then the Bible which, as we read it, does con- 
 tain errors, cannot be God's Word to us now. G 
 
 AVe see then in this matter of verbal infallibility how 
 dangerous it is to assume that in giving us a Bible perfect 
 for his own Divine purpose, God must necessarily have be- 
 stowed on that Bible every other perfection which we with 
 our little insight into the Divine wisdom, our fallible judg- ^^ 
 ment^ and our weak faith, nia.y be disposed to think littiug. 
 
52 THE STANDARDS LEA VE ROOM 
 
 A God has not deemed it unworthy of His honour that in the 
 Bible which we read His infallible and self-evidencing Word is 
 presented to us in a vehicle which contains some marks of 
 human imperfection, some verbal and historical errors. He 
 has not withheld from this imperfect letter the witness of His 
 
 ^ Spirit in the heart of the believer, commending it as His own 
 infallible declaration of redeeming love, as His own perfect 
 rule of faith and life. Who are we that we should be wiser 
 than God, and declare that we will not receive; His Word 
 upon His own witness to its truth, unless we are allowed to 
 
 C ascribe a number of arbitrary perfections of our own imagin- 
 ing to the letter wliich He acknowledges in its present 
 admitted imperfection ? 
 
 It is plain that the only honest and reverent way of 
 dealing with the letter of Scripture is to allow it to speak 
 
 ^ for itself. We have it as a fact that in laying His Word 
 before us as He does this day — for the Bible, as we have 
 it, is a gift direct from God to us, and not a mere inheritance 
 from the earlier Church — God has employed a series of 
 human agencies, and in the use of these agencies has not 
 
 E excluded every human imperfection. If we are to have a 
 trustworthy revelation at all, it is necessary that the one 
 Eecord of revelation, which God has given us, be such 
 that we can feel sure that it tells us all we need to 
 know of God and His will, and that it tells us this 
 
 F with unvarying and infallible truth, not mingling God's 
 message with doctrines of man. So much is witnessed 
 in our hearts by God's own Spirit, and so much is 
 necessarily assumed in our Confession. Everything more 
 than tliis is a question of the letter, and not of the Spirit, 
 
 G a question of the human agency employed, and not of the 
 Divine truth conveyed. We are all agreed that the agency 
 was not merely mechanical, that the original organs of 
 revelation, and the subsequent writers of the record were 
 not mere machines, but exercised a certain human freedom 
 
 H and spontaneity. They wrote each his own style, they argued 
 each after his own habit of thoudit, and so forth. How far 
 
FOR CRITICAL QUESTIONS. 53 
 
 this freedom went, and what things in the Bible are to be A 
 explained by it, cannot be determined by d priori arguments, 
 and by the irreverent and presumptuous cry that a P>ible, 
 which is not according to our ideas of the fitness of things, 
 is not a Bible at all. 
 
 The Bible is a part of human literature as well as the B 
 record of divine revelation. As such God has given it to us, 
 and so He has lai 1 upon us the duty, and given us the right 
 to examine it as literature, and to determine all its human 
 and literary characteristics by the same methods of research 
 as are applied to the analysis of other ancient books. Apart C 
 from objections of detail, which I shall take in a subsequent 
 part of my answer, to the way in which the libel represents 
 individual features of my teaching, I rest my general defence 
 on the contention that what I have written as to the origin, 
 composition, meaning, and transmission of the books of the D 
 Bible does not go beyond the limits of this legitimate and 
 necessary research. 
 
 In support of this contention, I would ask the Presbytery 
 to consider — 
 
 (I.) That my opinions are not based on any principle 
 inconsistent with the orthodox Protestant doctrine 
 of Scripture. 
 
 (II.) That the points to which the libel takes objection 
 
 in the argument of my articles, are such as fall ^ 
 strictly within the scope of ordinary historical 
 and literary investigation, and which must be so 
 investigated, unless we are to make to unbelievers 
 the fatal concession that our religion is not only 
 above reason, but inconsistent with it. p 
 
 (III.) That the adoption of the critical conclusions in my 
 papers, does not diminish the historical value of 
 the Bible as the record of God's revelation of 
 Himself to His people of old, but rather sets the 
 history of revelation in a clearer and more con- H 
 sistent light. 
 
54 CR/T/CIS.U AXD PI^nTESTAXT DOCTRINE 
 
 A (IV.) That these conclusions do not affect the perfection 
 of the Bible as a rule of faith and life, and that 
 they cannot be touched by arguments of faith, or 
 reached by the witness of the Spirit. 
 
 B (I.) My criticism does not assume as the basis of argu- 
 ment any principle inconsistent with the Protestant doctrine 
 of Scripture. On the contrary, the article " Bible" starts from 
 the position that the religion of the Bible is the religion oi" 
 revelation ; that it grew, not by the word of man, but by the 
 
 C Word of God given through His prophets ; and that it found 
 its evidence in the long providential history in which the 
 reality of Jehovah's kingship over Israel, of His redeeming 
 love, and of His moral government, were vindicated by the 
 most indisputable proofs. It will be observed that in these 
 
 D statements I place in the forefront of my article two proposi- 
 tions which no rationalist can possibly admit, namely (1) That 
 the Old Testament History exhibits a personal and super- 
 natural manifestation of the redeeming God to his chosen 
 people ; and (2) That the Old Testament prophets were organs 
 
 E of revelation, w^ho spake not by their own wisdom, but by the 
 supernatural teaching of God. These statements amount to 
 an explicit enunciation of the first of the two fundamental 
 propositions on which the whole confessional doctrine of 
 Scripture is based, viz., that the Bible records how God, at 
 
 r sundry times, and in divers manners, revealed Himself and 
 declared to His Church His will necessary for salvation. It 
 is true that my article does not enunciate the other funda- 
 mental proposition of the Confession — that by the witness of 
 the Spirit the Word contained in the Scriptures is still brought 
 
 G home to our hearts as God's very message to us. But the 
 reason of this is not that I had anything to say inconsistent 
 with the Confessional doctrine ; but simply that I had no 
 occasion to use this principle in an article which, by the ex- 
 ]jress limitation of its plan, was confined to the discussion of 
 
 H literary questions, which, lying outside of the region of spiritual 
 evidence, can be exhausted by ordinary means of investiga- 
 
LITERARY QFESTIOXS. 55 
 
 tion, and do not affect the place of the Bible in the proof of A 
 the doctrine of the Church, or in the praxis of personal 
 religion, 
 
 (II.) The details of my articles strictly correspond with 
 this limitation of plan, and all the points to which the Kbel 
 takes objection can be dfecussed by ordinary methods of B 
 literary research. Taken summarily, they reduce themselves 
 to the following principal heads : — 
 
 (1.) I point out that at an early period in the history of 
 the Hebrew text changes on what lay before them, re- 
 arrangemerits, and additions must have been introduced c 
 by copyists or editors. The proof of this lies in the 
 text itself, and can be fully made out to any one 
 who has the necessary scholarship. If the scientific proof is 
 thrust aside as is done in the libel, by the simple assertion 
 that such a view is disparaging to Scripture, what becomes D 
 of the reasonableness of our faith?. The condition and 
 history of every other ancient text are judged of by 
 scholars on well-known principles which no one dsearas of 
 disputing ; but to apply these principles to the text of the 
 Old Testament is, according to the libel, an offence which, g 
 for the glory of God and the edification of the Church, must 
 be visited with judicial sentence. 
 
 (2.) I endeavour to make out from the writings themselves 
 to what class of literary composition each book is to be 
 referred, and how the author meant it to be understood. F" 
 Is the book of Job a literal history or a poem based on old 
 tradition, in which the author has used the faculty of 
 invention to illustrate the problems of God's providence, 
 and man's probation ? Is the Song of Solomon an allegory 
 or a poem of natural love ? These are questions of interpre- Q 
 tation such as constantly occur in ordinary literary criticism, 
 when no one hesitates to decide them by famiMar criteria. 
 Yet the libel forbids me to ask these questions about Biblical 
 books, and declares it equally illegitimate to take Job other- 
 wise than literally, and Canticles otherwise than allegorically,. H 
 although the use of poetical invention has the sanction of 
 
56 SPEECHES IN THE 
 
 ^ our Lord in His parables, and the allegorical interpretation 
 of Canticles is the relic of a system of intei-pretation which, 
 before the Reformation, was applied to every Bible narrative 
 which seemed unedifying. 
 
 (3.) I endeavour to ascertain the literar}^ principles by 
 
 ■^ which authors were guided. The libel seems to assume that 
 there is only one way in which honest literary work can be 
 gone about, namely, the way of modern Western literature. 
 But every student of antiquity knows that ancient, and 
 especially Eastern writers, have a different standard of 
 
 C literary merit and propriety from ours. For example, all 
 ancient historians, whether in the East or in the West, 
 were accustomed to insert in their narrative s^ieeches of 
 their own composition. This was so thoroughly a received 
 part of the historian's art that no ancient reader would have 
 
 ^^ thought it a merit to do otherwise. Nay, it was just in such 
 speeches that an able historian displayed his power of 
 illustrating an historical situation, and applied the lesson 
 of the situation to his reader's mind.-"" But according to the 
 libel nothing like this can occur in the Bible history. It is 
 
 E inconceivable, we are told, that the historians of the Old 
 Testament can have incorporated appropriate reflections 
 in their narrative, or used any literary freedom in expanding 
 and developing the words of actors in the history, as was 
 done by other historians without offence, and without mis- 
 
 r understanding on the part of their readers. Is it unfair to 
 say that this is a matter that must be decided by the 
 evidence in eacli case, that if there really is such a difference 
 between the Bible and other ancient histories, it must appear 
 on the face of the narrative in the absence of those marks 
 
 G 
 
 * Modern historians liave sometimes found it advantageous to adopt the same 
 literary figure. " I am far from wishing to introduce into history the practice of 
 writing fictitious speeches as a mere variety upon the narrative, or an occasion 
 for displaying the eloquence of the historian. But when the peculiar views of 
 iny party or time require to be represented, it seems to me better to do this dra- 
 ^latically, by making one of the characters of the story express them in the first 
 H per.ion, than to state as a matter of fact that such and such views were enter- 
 tained. "—Arnold's Histor;/ of lionie, II. p. 48, Note. See also Masson's Life of 
 Milton, III. 177. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT. bl 
 
 of the historian's own thought and expression, which literary A 
 criticism is admittedly competent to recognise in ordinary 
 books. 
 
 (4.) Carrying out the right of enquiry into the literary 
 construction and true meaning of Biblical books, I am 
 constrainod to admit that some of the Pentateuchal laws are B 
 not Mosaic, and the ascription of them to him cannot be 
 taken literally. It is obvious on the face of it that the 
 Pentateuch is a case of liteiury construction on principles 
 which are extremely foreign to our habits of thought. To 
 our minds a history and a statute book are very distinct C 
 tilings ; but in the Pentateuch, which is the statute book of 
 Israel, the laws are mixed up with the history, and some- 
 times so closely incorporated with the narrative, that it is 
 •difficult to distinguish between permanent ordinances and 
 historical statements of v/hat was done on a single occasion. D 
 But more than this, we tind in different parts of the 
 Pentateuch several laws on the same subject, which are not 
 simply supplementary, one to the other, but differ in such a 
 way that those who affirm that all ai'e really of Mosaic date, 
 and designed to be in operation at one and the same time, E 
 confess that it is often impossible to determine, otherwise 
 than hypothetically, how the scattered details are to be re- 
 conciled, and what is the practice actually enjoined by the 
 law. We have here a problem which can only be solved by 
 recognising some pecuhar principle in the composition of the V 
 Pentateuch. Laws are meant to be obeyed, and to be 
 ol)eyed they must be understood. It was not enough for 
 the people to believe the laws to be consistent, unless they 
 could actually make tliem consistent, and find them unam- 
 biguous in practice. Either, then, we must suppose an oral ( i 
 tradition descending from Moses as the real authority by 
 which the apparent coiitradictions in the laws were resolved 
 in practice, or we must seek an historical explanation de- 
 pending on the way in which the Pentateuch was put 
 together. The former supposition places tradition above the H 
 WTitten Word, and so the Biblical student is perforce thrown 
 
58 THE PENTATEUCHAL 
 
 A back on the latter. We cannot give up the Pentateuch as a 
 book which from its very origin was a hopeless riddle, and 
 therefore we must call in critical enquiry to help us to 
 understand why one law book contains precepts which not 
 only appear inconsistent to us, but which in many cases 
 
 B must have been equally puzzling to the Hebrews themselves. 
 Now the critical solution starts from the hint afforded by 
 the peculiarity that Israel's statute book is also a histor}--. 
 Suppose the case that, after the original laws had long been 
 current in historical form, it became necessary to introduce, 
 
 C under ade(|uate prophetic authority, some new ordinance U> 
 meet the changing conditions of political, social, and 
 religious life. It cannot be said that this is an impossible 
 case, or that legislation by prophets later than Moses is 
 inconsistent with the spirit of the Old Testament dispensatioii. 
 
 ^ But how could such a law be added to a statute book which 
 had the peculiar shape of a history of Israel in the Wilder- 
 ness ? Apparently, says criticism, the only wa}^ to make the 
 new law an integral part of the old legislation was to throw it 
 into such a form as if it had been spoken by Moses, and so 
 
 E incorporate it with the otlier laws. Of course, if this plan 
 was adopted the statute book ceased to be pure literal 
 history. The ascription of a law to Moses could no longer 
 be taken literally, but could only indicate that the law was 
 as much to be observed as if it came from Moses, and that 
 
 I it was a legitimate addition to his legislation. Such a 
 method of publishing laws would not be free from incon- 
 venience ; but the actual unquestioned inconveniences of the 
 Pentateuch, when measured by our ideas of a law book, are 
 so great that this cannot prove the thing impossible. On 
 
 G the other hand, there is no deceit implied in the use of an 
 artificial literary form proceeding on a principle well under- 
 stood, and so it is a pure question of literary and historical 
 evidence whether the Hebrews did at one time recognise 
 and use such a principle. There is one piece of direct 
 
 H historical evidence which seems to shew that they did, for 
 in Ezra ix. 11, a law is quoted from Deut. vii., expressed in 
 
LEGISLATION. 59 
 
 ■words that throw it back into the Wilderness period, and A 
 yet the origin of this law is ascribed not to Moses but to the 
 Prophets. 
 
 Criticism endeavours to prove that the Pentateuch was 
 actually made up in some such way as I have indicated, 
 and it does so on various lines of evidence — especiall}'- by B 
 shewing that different parts of the Pentateuch present con- 
 sistent differences of style, excluding the idea of unity of 
 authorship ; by proving that some of the laws — such as the 
 law of Deuteronomy forbidding sacrifice except in one central 
 sanctuaiy — were never attended to even by prophets like C 
 Samuel and Elijah, and cannot be supposed to have been 
 known to these holy men ; and, finally, by shewino- that 
 irreconcilable contradictions arise if we suppose all the laws 
 to be of the same date, and to have been in force at one 
 time. If, for example, Numb, xviii. assigns the firstlings to D 
 the priests, and Deut. xii. bids the people eat them them- 
 selves, and if both laws are perfectly clear and unambiguous 
 in the tenour of their words, it is vain to ask us to believe 
 that both laws were given by Moses to be observed together. 
 
 Now, whether the critics are right or wrong in the con- E. 
 elusions which they draw from these and other similar lines 
 of evidence, and whether or not they have found the true 
 solution of the admitted difficulties of the Pentateuch, it 
 ought to be plain that the line of enquiry on which they go 
 does not exceed the limits of fair literary and historical F 
 investigation ; and if they are wrong, they can and must be 
 refuted by meeting their arguments, and not by relyino- on 
 the mere assertion that the}^ proceed on rationalistic grounds. 
 Tf that is so, it must be proved by going over the steps of 
 the argument, and pointing out where the rationalistic as- G- 
 sumption comes in. I am convinced that in my criticism I 
 have used no rationalistic assumptions, and that I have come 
 to conclusions only on methods of which no one would dis- 
 pute the legitimacy if the question were about another book 
 than the Bible. If the authors of the libel have an opposite H 
 conviction, they ought to meet me in detail, and shew that 
 
60 POSSIBLE ERRORS. 
 
 A they have mastered the critical argument, and can lay their 
 finger on its weak point. 
 
 (5.) Lastly, I have written on the assumption that it 
 must be determined by observation of the facts, and not on 
 a priori considerations, whether a Biblical author has some- 
 
 B times made a slip in matters of fact — whether, for example, 
 the Chronicler has misunderstood the phrase " ships of Tar- 
 shish," which he found in the book of Kings, and whether 
 he has sometimes taken it for granted, without evidence, 
 that a usage of his own time applies to an earlier period. 
 
 C If such questions cannot be settled on the merits, there is 
 no such thing as a science of history. And whichever way 
 they are settled, they do not in the least affect the adequacy 
 of the Bible as the perfect Divine rule of foith and life. It 
 will however be noted that on aU such points I carefully 
 
 D avoid hasty conclusions, and am unwilling to go beyond an 
 admission that in some cases the evidence points to a possible, 
 or at most a probable error. 
 
 I think that these five heads pretty nearly exhaust eveiy- 
 thing in my enquiries which has been objected to. I ask 
 
 E the court to consider that they correspond to competent lines 
 of literary investigation, which are applicable to all ancient 
 literature, and therefore cannot be inapplicable to the Bible 
 on its Literary side. And here I hope that the Presbytery 
 wiU not allow me to be put to disadvantage by the circum- 
 
 F stance that many of my judges cannot be supposed to be quite 
 familiar with the way in which scientific method is applied 
 by scholars to the study of ancient books. I hope that it 
 Avill be remembered that, while every intelligent and 
 thoughtful mind may appreciate such processes in a 
 
 G general way, it is scarcely possible to teach a man the 
 full force and scope of a scientific or critical method 
 except by exercising him in it, and showing him, not by one 
 example but by many, how it is to be wielded. The criti- 
 cism which I use, and the conclusions to which I arrive, are 
 
 H in their main outlines — and these it is which are challenged — 
 common to me with almost every Hebrew scholar in Europe 
 
HISTORICAL METHOD. 61 
 
 who has directed his attention to the same questions. Under A 
 these circumstances it is not reasonable that any one who is 
 not an expert should pronounce the method of enquiry in- 
 competent, merely because he does not clearly see how scholars 
 operate with it. When I say that I go to work only on re- 
 cognised literary and scientific methods, I have the right B 
 to be believed unless it can be shown that I am mistaken. 
 The bui-den of proof lies with the prosecution, and no maa 
 is entitled to condemn me simply because he does not under- 
 stand how I can be right, unless he can go farther and say 
 that he does understand how I am wrong. C 
 
 But while the value of the critical method can be 
 fully estimated only by scholars, every one should be able to 
 see that my conclusions may be adopted without impairing 
 the value and perspicuity of the Bible for the ends for which 
 it is given to the Church. We go to the Bible partly D 
 because it is the source of historical information as to the 
 origins of our religion and the history of- God's revelation 
 in past time, and partly because in it God still speaks to us, 
 and lays down for our guidance an infallible rule of faith 
 and life. My third and fourth points are that criticism does E 
 not interfere with this two-fold use of Scripture. 
 
 (III.) When we turn to the Bible to learn the histoiy of 
 God's Revelation, we do not find one continuous and 
 systematic narrative, but a number of distinct documents or 
 separate books, which present the story of God's dealings F 
 with His people, and the inspired messages which He sent to 
 them at different times, in a somewhat broken and disjointed 
 manner. To understand the history as a whole we must 
 piece the several documents together, and use the one to 
 elucidate the other. It is plain that in order to do this with Q 
 success we must determine as far as possible at what point 
 in the history each book comes in, and what purpose it w;\s 
 designed to serve. This is what criticism undertakes to do, 
 and, therefore, every advance in criticism is an important 
 step gained towards the understanding of the plan and H 
 progress of the Old Testament dispensation. We may 
 
62 CRITICAL STUDY OF 
 
 A suppose that the critic starts at lirst on the assumption that 
 aU the traditional views about individual books are correct. 
 But as he goes on piecing this and that togetlier, he finds 
 something that will not fit ; he finds that on the old views 
 some obvious incongruity arises. He started perhaps with the 
 
 B idea that all speeches are reported word for word, but at 
 1 Kings xiii. 32, he finds Samaria mentioned in a speech made 
 long before that city was founded, and when the very word 
 Samaria did not exist. What is his duty as a man anxious 
 to understand the Bible history thoroughly? Not to slur 
 
 C over the difficulty, but to say frankly that it is plain from 
 this example that we shall misread the history if we assume 
 that speeches are given word for word as they were spoken. 
 This is an example on a very small scale of what criticism 
 has often to do on a large scale. When it is found that the 
 
 D old view about any part of Scripture leads to obvious 
 incongruities or irreconcilable contradictions, the critic 
 argues that these contradictions must lie not in the history 
 but in his own standpoint. And if the difficulty cannot be 
 overcome by a more correct exegesis, he prepares himself to 
 
 E ask whether there is not some mistake in what he has hitherto 
 taken for granted as to the manner, the purpose, or the date 
 of the book with which he is dealing. This way of dealing 
 with Scripture is the very opposite of that of infidelity. 
 The infidel delights in the difficulties and contradictions 
 
 F that arise on the traditional view of Scripture, and uses 
 them to disparage the Bible histoiy. The critic is sure that 
 the history is consistent, and is only .anxious to reach a 
 standpoint from which the consistency shall become 
 manifest. 
 
 G But are there not critics who, under form of an attempt 
 to get a consistent view of the Old Testament literature, and 
 of the history which it re'''ords, eliminate God's revealing 
 hand from the history altogether ? No doubt there are ; but 
 they effect this, not by what lies in the critical metliod as I 
 
 H have hitherto described it, but by assuming an additional 
 and wholly alien piinciple — by assuming that everythiug 
 
THE BIBLE II IHTORY. 63 
 
 •supernatural is necessarily unhistorical. This assuini)t4()ii is A 
 so for from being part of my criticism, that I regard it as 
 making true criticism impossible. Eliminate the superna- 
 tural hand of a revealing God from the Old Testament, and 
 you destroy the whole consistenc}' of the history ; you de- 
 stroy the very thing on which the possibility of a sound B 
 criticism rests. 
 
 Now I do not affirm that believing critic-ism can carry 
 out its work without coming to the conclusion that an 
 author, like the Chronicler, has sometimes made a mistake ; 
 that there are some inconsiderable interpolations in the pre- C 
 sent text of the historical books, and that some things, like 
 genealogies, statistics, and laws, are thrown into a form 
 which is misleading if taken literally. But my criticism 
 reaches these conclusions, not at the expense of the historical 
 truth of the Old Testament, but in the interests of the his- D 
 tory, and on the evidence of the books themselves. And the 
 result, even in the case of Deuteronomy and Chronicles, with 
 reo-ard to which I am most blamed, is not that these books are 
 fraudulent and historically worthless, but that it is possible 
 by fair encpiiry to gain a view of their true method, and E 
 meaning, which disposes of the objections that have been 
 brouo-ht against them, and enables us to draw from them 
 fresh instruction. Such criticism is no assault upon the 
 history of supernatural revelation ; it is only an honest at- 
 tempt to let the record speak for itself, and to use the light t' 
 which one part of it reflects upon another. 
 
 (IV.) The value of the Bible as a collection of historical re- 
 cords, adequate when properly used to give a consistent view 
 of the course of God's revelation to his ancient people, is not, 
 however, that which is most immediately practical to the (t 
 Christian. It may be left to scholars to vindicate by his- 
 torical arguments the truth of the supernatural story of the 
 Old Testament. To the ordinary believer the Bible is pre- 
 cious as the practical rule of faith and life in which God still 
 speaks directly to his heart. No criticism can be otherwise li 
 than hurtful to faith if it shakes the confidence with which 
 
64 PRACTICAL USE OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 A the simple Christian turns to his Bible, assured that he can 
 receive every message which it brings to his soiil as a mes- 
 saoe from God Himself. And, on the other hand, no criti- 
 cism is dangerous which loaves this use of Scripture secure. 
 Now my criticism undoubtedly implies that there are some 
 
 ] ) things in Scripture which the unlearned reader is pretty sure 
 to take in another sense from that in which they are actually 
 meant. The ordinary reader never observes the difficulties 
 that lie in the common view of the Pentateuchal legislation^ 
 and the critical theory that the Laws in Deuteronomy are 
 
 {;; put dramatically into Moses' mouth to show, as by a parable, 
 that they are spoken by the same prophetic spirit as wrought 
 through Moses, and are authoritative developments of his 
 legislation, will probably appear to him very far fetched. 
 But then, the value of the book for his faith does not depend 
 
 D on the question whether these things are spoken by Moses 
 literally or in a parable. All that he needs to know is that 
 they are. God's teaching to his people of old ; and that apart 
 from the ceremonial and political precepts annulled in the 
 change of dispensation, they are still spoken by God to him, 
 
 E This is the whole concern of faith. It is all that is covered 
 by the witness of the Spirit. That w^itness can assure me 
 that these words are spoken of God to me. But it cannot 
 tell me to what generation of His Church, and by what 
 prophetic agency God spoke them first. What is true in the 
 
 F case of Deuteronomy applies a fortiori to other less startling 
 
 Criticism may change our views of the sequence and the 
 forms of Old Testament Revelation ; but its whole work lies 
 with the " sundry times and divers manners" of God's declar- 
 ation of His will, and it cannot touch the substance of that 
 living Word which shines with the same Divine truth at all 
 times and under every form of revelation. 
 
 Before passing from this doctrine, I wish to say a word 
 on the supposed tendency of critical views. It seems to be 
 thought that the habit of mind which rests with confidence 
 on the Divine Word has no sympathy with critical method, 
 
TUB REFORMERS. 65 
 
 and that it is hardly possible to exercise one's judgment ou A 
 critical problems without impairing the simplicity of faith. 
 This is a notion which can be best tested by confronting it 
 with facts. The leaders of the Reformation are the men who, 
 al)Ove all others in the history of the Church, were filled with 
 a deep sense of the Divine authority and infallible truth of B 
 Scripture, who triumphantly asserted this principle in battle 
 with errors that had enslaved all Christendom, and who, under 
 God's providence, were able to make their principle clear 
 to whole nations, and teach the learned and the unlearned 
 alike to turn from vain traditions and put their faith in the C 
 sure Word of God. How did these men, and especially 
 Luther and Zwingli, who stood in the forefront of the battle 
 for truth, deal with the Bible ? Not in the spirit of timidity, 
 which can admit nothing unffimiliar for fear of unseen con- 
 sequences, but with a holy boldness, knowing the sure ground D 
 of their faith. Both these Reformers expressed themselves 
 on critical questions with great freedom, and sometimes even 
 with rashness. 
 
 Luther says that Job did not so speak as is written in 
 his book, but that the author took his thoughts and put E 
 them into words as is done in a stage play, or in the 
 Comedies of Terence. He says that the books of Kings are 
 a hundred miles ahead of the Chronicles, and are more to be 
 believed. He classes Esther with the Second Book of 
 Maccabees, and wishes it did not exist, because it Judaizes F 
 too much and contains much heathen naughtiness. Zwingli 
 finds an interpolation in the last chapter of Jeremiah, inser- 
 ted by some one who wished to diminish the shame of the 
 Jewish nation, by reducing the number of captives. All the 
 leading reformers are at one in admitting the existence of G 
 verbal errors in the Biblical text, and supposing that the 
 authors did not alwaj^s write with scrupulous exactness, or 
 observe in their narratives the order of events. Some of 
 these opinions are quite as startling as anything I have said, 
 and the list might easily be added to. Yet no men have had H 
 a simpler and firmer fiiith in the Divine Word, or are freer 
 
66 
 
 DOCTRINE OF PROPHECY 
 
 A from the suspicion of shaking the faith of others. Nay, the 
 men who said these startling things are the very men who 
 taught the Church to love and reverence the Bible as never 
 had been done before. How then can it be affirmed that 
 there is a repugnancy between critical tendencies and simple 
 
 B faith ? 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF PROPHECY. 
 
 What is the Doctrine of Prophecy iis set forth in the 
 Confession of Faith ? 
 
 (a.) From the use of the language of Heb. i. 1, it is clear 
 tliat in Cap. I. sec. 1, the Confession has a special 
 eye to prophecy when it says, that it pleased the 
 D Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to 
 
 reveal Himself, and to declare that His will \i.e.. 
 His will, the knowledge of which is necessary unto 
 salvation] unto His Church. 
 
 (h.) In Cap. VII. sec. 5, we read that the covenant of grace 
 was administered under the law " by promises, pro- 
 phecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, 
 and other types and ordinances delivered to the 
 people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come, 
 -p which were for that time sufficient and efficacious 
 
 through the operation of the Spirit to instruct and 
 build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, 
 by whom they had full remission of sins and etermd 
 salvation." 
 
 G (c.) C'ap. VIII. sec. 1. The Lord Jesus is the Prophet of 
 His Chm'ch. This may be understood by the 
 Larger Catechism, Q. 43 : " Christ executeth the 
 office of a prophet in his revealing to the Church in 
 all ages by His Spirit and Word, in divers ways of 
 
 H administration, the whole will of God in all things 
 
 concerninff their edification and salvation." 
 
ly THE (JONPEHiilON. 67 
 
 The Conlessiou, therefore, has two things to tell us about ^ 
 prophecy. In the lirst [jlace, we learn from what is im])liecl, 
 though not expressly staterl in Chapters i. and viii., that 
 prophecy is God's revelation to the Church of His will for 
 their editication and salvation. In the second place, we learn 
 ti'om Cap. VI L that inasmuch as the salvation of the OldTes- 1> 
 tament believers depended on the communication to them 
 of the benefits of a fature work of redemption (Comp. Cap. 
 VIll. 6), prophecy under the old dispensation pointed to the 
 future and foresignilied Christ to come. This doctrine I 
 heartily accept, and have always taught. I will not go C 
 back to an old Review article, written eight years ago, 
 and published before I held office in this Church, but I ask 
 the Presbytery to look at what I have said in the article 
 " Bible," and observe how thorougidy it accords with the 
 Confession. I say that prophecy is given by revelation : — ^ 
 " The characteristic of the prophet is a faculty of spiritual 
 intuition, not gained by human reason, but coming to hini 
 an a ivoi-d from God Himself (p. 634b). And again, " The 
 prophets generally spoke under the innnediate influence of 
 the Spirit or ' hand of Jehovah' " (p. 639b). I say that this E 
 word is given for the editication of the Church : The pro- 
 phet " apprehends religious truth in a new light as bearing in 
 a way not manifest to other men on the practical necessities, 
 the burning questions of the present" (p. 634b). I ascribe to 
 the prophets the whole growth of the religion of the old F 
 covenant (Ibid). I say that they reproved sin, exhorted to 
 present duty, and gave " encouragement to the godly, and 
 tlireatening to the wicked" (p. 640a). Again, I clearly in- 
 dicate that the work of the Old Testament prophets, for the 
 edification of their own dispensation, was based on their in- Gr 
 sight into the future purpose of God, and took the shape of 
 prediction of the things to be fulfilled in Christ. I say in a 
 passage, which the libel itself cites, that the encouragements 
 which prophecy offers to the godly, and its threatening to the 
 wicked, are based on the certainty of God's righteous H 
 purpose, and that " in this connection prophecy is pre- 
 
68 DOCTRINE OP PROPHECY. 
 
 A dictive ;" that " it lays hold of the ideal elements of the 
 theocratic conception" [which include, as every one knows, 
 the complete reconciliation of the people to God, the 
 outpouring of His Spirit upon them, the writing of His 
 law in their hearts, and the perfect realisation of His king- 
 
 r> ship over them], " and depicts the way in which, by God's 
 gi'ace, they shall be realized in a Messianic age." What does 
 this passage mean ? It means that prophecy includes pre- 
 diction of tlie things fulfilled in Christ, in order that it may 
 base its encouragements and threatenings directed to the 
 
 C Old Testament Church, on the certainty of the righteous 
 purpose of God. The righteous purpose of God ought not 
 to be an ambiguous term to any one who has studied the 
 Bible. I use it here because it is under the aspect of 
 righteousness that the Old Testament most constantly 
 
 1) depicts the purpose of redemption. When, therefore, I 
 teach that Hebrew prophecy predicted the things of Christ, 
 the good things of the Messianic age, in or-der that the 
 Divine Word to the Old Testament Church might rest on 
 the certainty of God's righteous redemptive purpose, I 
 
 E teach the precise doctrine of the Confession, which says, that 
 by prophecy the elect were instructed and built up in faith 
 in a promised Messiah. Finally, lest it be said that in 
 speaking of " a Messianic age" I do not sufficiently recognise 
 a distinct foresignifying of the personal Messiali, I point to 
 
 F a passage, at p. 642a, where I say that Jesus " read in the 
 Psalms and Prophets, which so vainl}'- exercised the un- 
 sympathetic exegesis of the Scribes, the direct and unmis- 
 takeable image of his own experience and work as the 
 founder of the spiritual kingdom of God." The Presbytery 
 
 G will judge whether these statements could have been 
 penned by one who was not in full accord with the doctrine 
 of the Confession. 
 
 But when I turn to the libel I am told that I 
 "disparage prophecy by representing its predictions as 
 
 H aiising merely from so called spiritual insight, based on 
 the certainty of God's righteous purpose." Those are not 
 
"SPIRITUAL INTUITION." 69 
 
 my expressions. I do not say that the predictions are based A 
 on the certainty of God's pvirpose, but that the encourage- 
 ment and threatenings in connection wherewith prophecy 
 takes a predictive shape are so based. Prediction is the 
 link which connects the Prophet's exliortation to his own 
 time with its basis in the certainty of a future work of ^ 
 redemption. And this, as I have shown, is the exact doctrine 
 of the Confession, which teaches that prophecy was given 
 on the ground of the righteous redemptive purpose of God, 
 and in order to communicate its benefits to the Old 
 Testament Church. 
 
 Again, the faculty by which the Prophet apprehends the 
 word of Revelation is not by me called spiritual insight, 
 much less " merely so-called spiritual insight." But I do call 
 it " spiritual intuition " (p. 634b), and I call it so — 
 
 (1.) Because in the Old Testament the prophetic word as ^ 
 a whole, and not merely prophetic vision in the 
 narrow sense, is called a " seeing " or intuition 
 {Chazon, Isa. i. 1 ; Nahum i. 1, etc.) 
 (2.) Because this intuition, as its object is supernatural, 
 
 is necessarily spiritual, 1 Cor. ii. 11, " The things 1^^ 
 of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God." 
 I am farther charged with excluding prediction in the 
 sense of direct supernatural revelation of events long pos- 
 terior to the prophet's own time. This charge is irrelevant, 
 for the Confession makes no distinction between direct and ^^ 
 indirect prediction, and does not speak of any predictions 
 save those foresignifying Christ, which I have amply acknow- 
 ledged, as has been shewn above. And as a matter of fact, 
 this charge has no foundation in my writings. The quota- 
 tions brought from my exposition of Psalm xvi. are totally * 5" 
 irrelevant ; for in treating this passage as indirectly Mes- 
 sianic (in which I follow the best orthodox interpreters from 
 Calvin to Delitzsch), I do not deny that other parts of the 
 Old Testament contain direct prediction. And though I s;iy 
 that the prophets spoke directly to their own time, not to ^^ 
 the future, I certainly hold that they spoke to their own 
 
70 DOCTRINE OF ANGELS 
 
 A time about the future Messianic time, and have said as much 
 in the article " Bible," as quoted in the libel. 
 
 I am unable to conjecture what objection is taken to the 
 passages quoted from the " British Quarterly Review," unless 
 the real diffei'ence between the authors of the libel and my- 
 
 B self is that they think of prediction of future events as the 
 characteristic mark and central function of prophecy ; where- 
 as I follow the Confession in thinking of prophecy as pre- 
 dictive in so far as was necessary for the instruction of 
 the Old Testament Church in the will of God for their edi- 
 
 C tication and salvation. In this connection, it is worthy of 
 remark that the fultilment of predictions is not even men- 
 tioned in Cap. I. sec. 5, of the Confession as one of the sub- 
 ordinate evidences that the Bible is the Word of God — an 
 omission which makes it very clear that the Westminster 
 
 J) divines were not of the school which values prophecy mainly 
 for the evidence of fulfilled prediction. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 
 
 J,; The Confessional doctrine of angels contains the follow- 
 ing points : — 
 
 Cap. III., sec. 3. — The predestination of angels. 
 Cap. Y., sec. 4. — The relation of God's providence 
 to the sins of angels. 
 ^ Cap. VIII, .sec. 4., and Cap. XXXIII., sec. 1.— The 
 
 judgment of angels by Christ. 
 Cap. XXL, sec. 2. — Religious worship is not to be 
 given to angels, saints, or any other creature. 
 
 ri The libel accuses me of holding that " belief in the super- 
 human reality of the angelic beings of the Bible is matter of 
 assumption rather than of direct teaching." The passage on 
 which this is based occurs in a sketch of the Old Testament 
 teaching about angels. In this sketch I state that " a dis- 
 
 jj position to look away from the personality of the angels and 
 concentrate attention on their miidstry runs more or less. 
 
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 71 
 
 through the whole Old Testament angelology." And I A 
 illustrate this fact by saying that though it is certain 
 that the Old Testament belief in angels is a " belief 
 in the existence of superhuman beings standing in a 
 [)eculiar relation of nearness to God " (p. 26b), the reality of 
 such beings " is matter of assumption rather than of direct " 
 teaching." What I mean by saying that in the Old Testa- 
 ment the existence of angels is rather taken for granted than 
 directly taught, appears in the next sentence. " No- 
 ^vhere do we find a clear statement as to the creation 
 of the angels." The libel, therefore, ought to have ac- 
 cused me of holding that the Old Testament rather takes 
 the reality of angels for granted than makes it matter 
 of direct teaching. In this form the charge is 
 clearly irrelevant. My article gives a mere statement of 
 facts, which are not my facts but those of the Old Testament. ^ 
 And the authors of the libel might have observed that in 
 the Confession itself the creation and reality of angels are 
 taken for granted, and do not form matter of direct 
 teaching. Again I am blamed because, continuing my 
 sketch of Old Testament angelology, I say : " That angels are F> 
 endowed with special goodness and insight, analogous to 
 human qualities, appears [viz., in the Old Testament,] as a 
 popular assumption, not as a doctrine of revelation." This 
 again is a mere statement of fact. The allusions to an 
 analogy between the goodness and wisdom of men, and ^ 
 those qualities as displayed in a special way by angels, 
 occur in speeches of Achish the Philistine, the woman of 
 Tekoah, and Mephibosheth, not one of whom surely was a 
 mouthpiece of revelation. 
 
 O 
 
 DETAILS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF 
 SCRIPTURE. 
 
 I have still to take up seriatim the details which the H 
 libel sets forth under six heads, to prove that I have uttered 
 censurable opinions about the Scriptures, 
 
THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD 
 
 A Primo. I am charged with holding "' that the Aaronic 
 priesthood, and at least a great part of the laws and ordin- 
 ances of the Levitical system, were not divinely instituted 
 in the time of Moses, and that those large parts of Exodus, 
 Leviticus, and Numbers which represent them as having 
 
 B been then instituted by God, were inserted in the inspired 
 records long after the death of Moses." 
 
 There are here three distinct charges : (A) That cei*tain 
 ordinances are not Mosaic ; (B) That the priesthood, fcc, 
 were not of Divine institution ; (C) That large parts of 
 
 C Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are of post-Mosaic date. 
 
 Under (A) I first make a correction of fact. I do not 
 doubt that Aaron was priest before the ark in the Wilder- 
 ness, and that in the Wilderness the tribe of Levi was con- 
 secrated to its special vocation. All that I assert in the 
 
 D passage quoted in the libel is : 
 
 1st. That the lav/ in Deuteronomy does not recognise the 
 distinction which assigns all proper priestly functions to the 
 House of Aaron, and confines other Levites to ministerial 
 service under the priest. 
 
 E 2nd. That Ezekiel writes in a way shewing that at his 
 time this distinction was not enforced by law, and that he 
 does not seem to know of a previous law to the efiect, 
 because he enacts the distinction as a punishment for the 
 Levites' sins. 
 
 F These statements rest on exegetical evidence, which I am 
 ready to produce if they are challenged. As results of exe- 
 gesis, they must be refuted before they are condemned. 
 What they amount to is that the details of the Levitical 
 system were not fixed and invariable from the time of Moses 
 
 O downwards. They thus Ml under the general position 
 which I lay down in the second passage cited in the libel, 
 viz., that under the Old Testament dispensation there was a 
 development of ritual as well as of doctrine. 
 
 This explanation brings me at once to (B). While I assert 
 
 H that the ordinances of ritual were not immutable, my state- 
 ments give no colour to the accusation that I deny them tG 
 be part of God's teaching to Israel. It will be observed how 
 
AND LEVI TIC AL SYSTEM. '"^ 
 
 closely I conjoin the development of ordinances with the A 
 development of doctrine, repeatedly emphasizing the fact 
 that both took place through the ministry of the prophets. 
 Does not this clearly imply that God, in whose name the 
 prophets acted, taught the people by His ordinances as well 
 as by His word ? ^* 
 
 As to (C), I grant that I take parts of Exodus, Leviticus, 
 and Numbers to have been written after the time of Moses, 
 but I fail to see that this view is inconsistent with our 
 Standards, which state nothing as to the authorship and 
 composition of the Pentateuch. (' 
 
 If, on the other hand, the language of the libel is meant 
 to convey that I regard large parts of the Pentateuch as 
 interpolations which have no right to stand where they do, 
 I repudiate such a representation of my \dews. I believe 
 that the Pentateuch is essentially, and in its plan, a compo- '^ 
 site work, made up of several histories and law books, com- 
 bined together and probably supplemented by one or more 
 editors. But I believe that the several elements of which it 
 is composed agree in possessing the characteristics which en- 
 title them to form part of the Old Testament "Record. I ap- E 
 prehend that the real difficulty which the authors of the 
 libel wished to bring out is somewhat different from that 
 which their words express, and that the point of their ac- 
 ^-usation is concealed in the relative clause, which says that 
 the Pentateuch represents certain ordinances as instituted in ^ 
 the time of Moses, whereas I am taken to hold that the 
 ordinances (and not merely the books in which they are 
 recorded) are of later date. That is, I am accused of holding 
 a view of the Pentateuchal legislation at variance with the 
 language of the Pentateuch itself I shall deal with tins G 
 charge under the next head, where it is brought out more 
 explicitly. Under the first head it is out of place, inas- 
 much as I believe that the Aaronic priesthood was instituted 
 in the Wilderness, and do not profess to decide the question 
 whether some ordinances of the Middle Books of the H 
 PentateuQh are later than those of Deuteronomy. 
 
74 THE LEGISLATION 
 
 ■^ Secundo. Under this head the libel does me an injus- 
 tice, which is no doubt unintentional, and which 1 am sure 
 that every member of Presbytery will be glad to correct, in 
 interweaving with the statement of my opinion as to the 
 book of Deuteronomy remarks and inferences that are not 
 
 ^ mine, but ai-e designed to shew that my position is unten- 
 able. Thus I am made to say that " the book of inspired 
 Scripture, called Deuteronomy, wliich is professedly an Jiis- 
 torical record, does not possess that character." Now, I ex- 
 pressly state in my article, and 1 have since repeated on 
 
 t various occasions, that there is no fraud in the book of 
 Deuteronomy, or in other words that the author did not give 
 his book out for anj^thing but what it is. Accordingly the 
 insertion of the clause, which I signalise by italics, exactly 
 reverses my view. M3' contention is, not that a book pro- 
 
 ^ fessedly historical does not possess that character, but that a 
 book, or rather part of a book (for my remarks are, strictly 
 speaking, confined to the legislative part of Deuteronomyj, 
 which at first sight may seem to be strictly historical, ap. 
 pears on closer consideration not to be so, and not to have 
 
 E been so meant by the author. The injustice done by over- 
 looking this element in my view runs through the whole 
 statement under this head. So, in the next clause, I am ac- 
 cused of holding that the writer made his book to assume 
 a character which it did not possess, and did this in the 
 
 ^ name of God. The supposition that Deuteronomy contains 
 a fraud put forth in the name of God, is as abhorrent to me 
 as it can possibly be to the authors of the libel. The whole 
 character of the book excludes such a hypothesis. But, on 
 the other hand, there are facts connected with the laws 
 
 G it contains which to me and man}^ others seem to exclude 
 the idea that it is simply the report of a speech by 
 Moses, containing no ordinance that he did not give to 
 the Israelites. The theory of Deuteronomy, which I have 
 adopted, attempts to do justice to both these sides of 
 
 K the case. As a theory it is of course in a measure hypo- 
 thetical. I am not tied to the details, and am ready to re- 
 ceive fresh light, or adopt a more perfect theory. But I can- 
 
iN DEUTERONOMY. 75 
 
 not in conscience overlook the clear internal evidence that A/ 
 all the laws of the Pentateuch were not given by one law- / 
 giver to be in force at one time, and that some of the laws - 
 of Deuteronomy were not known, even to prophets, till a 
 much later date. 
 
 Critics generally distinguish between the "legislative B 
 kernel" of Deuteronomy, containing the speech of Moses, 
 and the " setting" or framework which connects it with the 
 rest of the Pentateuch on one side, and the book of Joshua 
 on the other. It is not probable that the author of the 
 speech is also the author of all the historical chapters. I 
 have not expressed, nor am I prepared to express a definite 
 view about the latter. But about the legislative part I 
 hold— 
 
 1. That it is based upon the older law, especially on the 
 Book of the Covenant to which Moses bound the people at D 
 Sinai (Exod. xxiv. 7). It is, therefore, essentially an expan- 
 sion of Mosaic ideas. 
 
 2. At the same time the book contains ordinances which 
 on the evidence of the history, and on comparison with 
 other parts of the Pentateuch, must be confessed to be later E 
 than Moses. 
 
 3. The new matter is to be viewed as a development of 
 the old legislation under prophetic authority to meet the new 
 needs of a later age. 
 
 4. The laws, restated and developed in Deuteronomy, are E 
 thrown into the form of a speech delivered by Moses in the 
 land of Moab. It is not improbable that in choosing this 
 form the author was guided by an historical tradition that 
 Moses did rehearse the law to the people before he went up 
 to Pisgah. But at any rate he knew that the people could G 
 be better taught by picture and parable than by argument, 
 and instead of reasoning in an abstract manner that certain 
 new ordinances were the legitimate development of the 
 teaching of Moses, necessary to adapt it to new needs, he 
 taught this truth in a pictorial manner by putting in the H 
 form of words uttered by Moses, what was strictly an appli- 
 cation of the spirit of Mosaic teaching. 
 
76 PARABOLIC FORM 
 
 A 5. This would be a fraud unworthy of Scripture if the 
 author wished to conceal the fact that his book included new 
 ordinances, and to lead his readers to think that the speech 
 now laid before them had literally been delivered and written 
 down by Moses himself But if no attempt was made to con- 
 
 B ceal the fiict that the book was new at the time when it was 
 first published, centuries after the death of Moses, every one 
 would understand that it could not be meant as a piece of 
 literal history. It would be received for its own intrinsic 
 worth and spiritual evidence, and on the authority of the 
 
 (J prophetic ciixle from which it emanated. And eveiything 
 that we know about the feeling of Eastern antiquity in 
 literary matters forbids the idea that readers of that age 
 would have taken offence at the parabolic form of the book, 
 or seen in it anything unworthy of a prophet. 
 
 J) 6. Critics of the school of Kuenen, with whom I have 
 no theological sympathies, though I respect his eminent 
 scholarship and acuteness, do regard the book as a fraud 
 palmed off upon Josiah by the priests. But apart from the 
 psychological violence of the hypothesis, that the author of 
 
 E a book like Deuteronomy could be party to a vulgar fraud, 
 it appears to me that this view stands condemned on the 
 critical evidence itself, as I hope to shew at length on a 
 suitable occasion. For the present it is sufficient to obsei've 
 that Kuenen's theory is radically different from that which 
 
 E I share with such critics as Ewald and Riehm. What is 
 common to the critics is the admission that Deuteronomy is 
 a prophetic legislation belonging to the period of prophetic 
 activity in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. The notion 
 that the book was not really found by Hilkiah, and that the 
 
 G alleged finding was a fraudulent conspiracy, has nothing to 
 do with the proper critical argument. I believe that the 
 internal evidence goes to shew that the work is con- 
 siderably older than Kuenen supposes, and really had been 
 lost in the troubles under Manasseh. The judgment passed 
 
 H on my views must not, therefore, be prejudiced by referring, 
 as has so often been done, to a view which I disclaim. 
 
 7. It is, however, said that no reasonable Bible reader 
 
NOT FRAUDULENT. 77 
 
 can doubt that the Book of Deuteronomy professes to be A 
 history, that it is nowhere hinted that there is anything 
 figurative about it. I reply that this argument proves too 
 much. It would prove tliat all the symbolical actions 
 related in the Prophets were literally performed. It is well 
 known that the most orthodox writers take them B 
 figuratively, and yet they are all related just as if they 
 had actually happened. Again, the question is not how we 
 nat arally look at a thing, but how the matter was viewed 
 when the book was written. Ancient writers habitually 
 developed their ideas in the form of speeches by historical C 
 characters, and this custom was too well known to need 
 explanation in each case. Unless, as I have already 
 remarked, the book was expressly passed off as an old 
 book, its readers would at once understand to take it as not 
 strictly literal. But it will be said again that the author D 
 goes out of his way to say that Moses wrote the law, and 
 gave it to the priests (Deut. xxxi. 9). Is that part of the 
 parabolic form ? Yes, a necessary part, for one of the most 
 important of the new ordinances of the Deuteronomist is 
 that the law be read publicly every seven years. And this E 
 law could not be combined with the rest except by this 
 extension of the parabolic form. But does not Deut. i. 1, 
 shew that the whole book claims to have been written on 
 the East side of the Jordan, before the people entered Canaan ? 
 On the English translation, yes ; but the translation is F 
 wrong, and the verse really says, "These are the words 
 which Moses spake on the other side of Jordan." A final 
 objection remains. Does not the present place of Deuter- 
 onomy, in the Pentateuch, claim for it a strictly historical 
 sense ? What right has parabolic teaching to be in- G 
 corporated with an historical context ? Well, I have already 
 urged that on the face of it the Pentateuch is not a mere 
 history. It is primarily a law book in historical shape, and 
 this accounts for its tolerating the parabolical or figurative 
 element which was inevitable, if all the laws of different ages H 
 were to be incorporated in one corpus juris. It is probable that 
 the " kernel" of Deuteronomy was originally published alone. 
 
78 THE LITERARY CHARACTER 
 
 A It may never be possible for criticism to trace clearly the 
 editorial process by which it became part of the larger work 
 which we call the Pentateuch. And as this process is 
 obscure, I will not deny that it is conceivable that the last 
 editor, who can hardly be placed much before the time of 
 
 B Ezra, may already have lost the knowledge that the Deuter- 
 ouomic law was not actually written by Moses. He perhaps 
 regarded all the laws as literally from Moses, and traces of 
 this opinion may appear in his editorial work. But even 
 if this should prove to be the case, it cannot affect the 
 
 C substance of the books. It is at most an error in name 
 and date, not touching any interest of faith ; not touching 
 the fact that the whole legislation, of whatever date it be, 
 is the sum of God's teaching to His people through legal 
 ordinances. In one word, the critical theory of Deuter- 
 
 D onomy is an attemjit to solve exegetical difficulties, and 
 remove apparent contradictions which have proved insuper- 
 able on the ordinary view. No one who has studied the 
 subject will make light of these difficulties, and I would ask 
 the Presbytery whether they can safely condemn me till 
 
 E they have satisfied themselves by a course of study, not less 
 careful than has been followed by critics, that the attempt is 
 not necessary. And on the other hand to declare my view 
 theologically illegitimate, it must be maintained that 
 Revelation is tied to certain forms of literary expression, 
 
 E that nothing can occur in Scripture which, though in- 
 telligible when first written, might afterwards be mis- 
 understood in a way not affecting faith, and that no 
 criticism is admissible which will not undertake to deny 
 that such a harmless misconception may possibly have been 
 
 G shared by the last editor of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Tertio. I am here accused of making a number of state- 
 ments which lower the character of the inspired writings to 
 the level of uninspired. The whole evidence of this cliarge 
 H is drawn from my article on Chronicles. It would 
 have been fairer to limit the accusation accordingly, and not 
 to charge me with an attaclc on the inspired writings in 
 
OF CHRONICLES. 79 
 
 ^•eneral, on the ground of statements that apply to a single A 
 book. 
 
 How then have I lowered the character of Chronicles ? 
 In the first place "by ignoring its divine anthorsliip." Now 
 the main argument of my article is to shew that the book 
 is of real historical value, and that the autlior is not open B 
 to the charge which has often been brought against him of 
 inventing history for special ends. I could not conduct 
 this argument as to the disputed credibility of an historical 
 work without seeming to beg the question if I took express 
 account of the divine authorship. Does Keil or any other C 
 orthodox writer take account of the divine authorship in dis- 
 cussing the literary value of Chronicles ? Or is it impious to 
 give literary and historical questions an impartial discussion ? 
 And will my accusers tell me what feature in Chronicles 
 has been overlooked or misunderstood by me through not D 
 taking account of the divine authorship ? Again, I " re- 
 present the sacred writers as taking freedoms like other 
 authors." The expression "freedoms" is perhaps liable to 
 be misunderstood. I explain it, however, (as cited at 
 p. IOh,) to mean the " freedom of literary form which was E 
 always allowed to ancient historians, and need not perplex 
 any one who does not apply a false standard to the 
 narrative." My position is, that we must not be sur- 
 prised to find in a book of the Bible any literary peculi- 
 arity which was familiarly recognised in antiquity as F 
 legitimate. And the special application of the principle is 
 that antiquity expected historians to bring in speeches of 
 their own composing, and that the Chronicler does so, and 
 had a right to do as he does. Again, I am said to charge 
 the Chronicler with " committing errors." That the perfec- G 
 tion of the Bible as the rule of faith and life, and the record 
 of God's whole revealed will, does not rest on the absence of 
 every error in things which are not matters of faith, has been 
 argued above. Least of all, should an opposite view be 
 strained to apply to a book like this, where, if an error H 
 occurs, we have the parallel history in the older books to 
 check it. Thus Turretin admits that there may be errors 
 
•80 THE FOURTH HEAD 
 
 A in the text of Scripture which are to be corrected by the col- 
 lation of parallel passages (Loc. II. Qu. v. sec. 10), though he 
 assumes that such errors are clue to scribes. But I state no 
 more than that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the 
 Chronicler did make some errors, either by misunderstand- 
 
 P) ing the older books or by drawing mistaken inferences from 
 their statements. I put the matter in this cautious way, 
 and I do not think that those who have studied the facts 
 will say that such language is too strong. The case of a 
 probable error, which I cite, is one admitted by Keil, who in 
 
 C earlier writings had done his best to explain it away. 
 I do not think that I need go in detail over the other charges 
 in this head. I point out that some of the statements of the 
 Chronicler are open to such serious difficulties that it is not 
 safe to take it for granted that he has never made a mistake, 
 
 D and that other statements probably were not meant to be 
 taken literally. I put all these points rather hypotheti- 
 cally than categorically ; and with the object of shewing 
 that, even if the possible errors exist, they are confined 
 within limits which do not destroy the value of the book. 
 
 E Each statement which I make with reserve, and with limited 
 reference to points admittedly difficult, the libel transforms 
 into a broad general statement without any limitation, and 
 represents as a general attack on the Scriptvires. It ends 
 by affirming that I make the Chronicler write " under the 
 
 F influence of party spirit, and for party purposes." This ac- 
 cusation goes against the whole tenour of my article ; but I 
 suppose it is based on a single expression when, after shew- 
 ing that the author writes as a Levite, who takes special in- 
 terest in Levitical mattei's, I add that he is " most partial to 
 
 G the functions of the singers." Of course this means only 
 that he describes all that concerns these functions with pe- 
 culiar interest and affection, which surely is not to his dis- 
 paragement if he was a temple singer himself 
 
 IF Quarto. In its present form this head is irrelevant, be- 
 cause no conclusion against me is drawn from it in the minor. 
 The argument of the nrosecution is that the oninions formu- 
 
IS UNINTELLIGIBLE. 81 
 
 lated under the several heads are censurable (p. 3, F g), and A 
 that, nevertheless (as the minor argues), I have adopted and 
 published them. But under Quarto I find no statement of 
 an opinion held by me, but mei-ely something about the pre- 
 sentation of opinions, which is not taken up in the minor at 
 all. This confusion of form is due to the introduction of a B 
 clause which is in itself unintelligible, as may be best seen 
 by separating it ' out, and completing the sentence from 
 page 3. This gives the statement " That the presentation 
 of opinions which discredit Scripture .... by stating dis- 
 crediting opinions of others, without any indication of dis- G 
 sent therefrom, is an opinion which contradicts or is opposed 
 to the doctrine," &c. The Presbytery need no argument of 
 mine to lead them to reject from the libel what cannot be 
 expressed in gi-ammatical form. 
 
 I win, therefore, for the sake of argument, drop this I> 
 clause, and amend the rest of the head by omitting the ii-- 
 relevant words "presentation of." It thus appears that I 
 am charged with " discrediting the authenticity and canoni- 
 cal standing of books of Scripture by imputing to them a 
 fictitious character, and attributing to them what is dispa- E 
 raging." Compared with the passages adduced in the minor, 
 the first branch of this charge reduces itself to a narrow 
 compass. I have stated that in the book of Job there is 
 poetical invention of incident, and that it is not inconceiv- 
 able that the same thing may occur in other books. Does F 
 the libel maintain that it is matter of faith that every word 
 in Job is a literal record of what was said and done ? If the 
 use of poetical invention is discreditable, what becomes of 
 the parables of our Lord ? 
 
 The second part of the charge is that I attribute to books G 
 of Scripture what is disparaging. Under this, I take it, is 
 included what I say as to the freedom used by readers and 
 copyists in modifying and re-arranging texts. 
 
 To this I reply that I have simply stated a fact regarding 
 tne readers and copyists, who were in providence permitted H 
 to do some things which are contraiy to our notions of 
 an author's property in his literarj' work. -If the vari- 
 
82 THE SONG OF SOLOMON 
 
 A ations between Psalm xiv. and Psalm liii. are not due to 
 
 copyists, how do the authors of the libel account for them ? 
 Or again, is it denied that some one composed Psalm cviii. 
 out of Psalms hdi. and Ix. ? These things do not interfere 
 with the perfect adequacy of the Bible as a rule of faith and 
 
 B life, and we have no more right to stumble at them than 
 at the errors of grammar, inconsecutive sentences, and 
 other human imperfections which Scripture contains with 
 all its divine perfection. 
 
 Under this head the libel seems also to object to me that 
 
 C I separate the book of Daniel ft'om the prophetic writings. 
 I explained in the answers foiTaerly given in to the Presbytery, 
 and had indicated not obscurely in the article " Bible," that 
 in making this distinction I do not deny that there is true 
 prophecy in Daniel. My remarks were not meant in a dis- 
 
 D paraging sense, but simply pointed out that the book is so 
 far peculiar that the problems affecting it could not be 
 iHscussed in a general sketch of the prophetic literature. 
 In separating Daniel from the Prophets proper, I do no 
 more than is done in the Hebrew Canon, where it is placed 
 
 E not among the Prophets, but in the Hagiogi-apha. With 
 this it agrees that Daniel is not called a Prophet in the Old 
 Testament, 
 
 The last citation under this head is, I submit, irrelevant, 
 as in that passage I neither attribute anything disparaging to 
 
 P books of the Bible, nor impute to them a fictitious character. 
 
 Quinto. The libel repi-esents me as holding that the 
 book of Canticles " only presents a high example of virtue in 
 a betrothed maiden, without any recognition of the Divine 
 
 Cr law." This statement is not taken from my article, but fol- 
 lows a speech made against me at last Assembly, which, un- 
 fortunately, and no doubt unintentionally, misrepresented 
 my view of the book. I do not I'egard the Shulamite as be- 
 trothed to the shepherd ; but, on the contrary, agree with 
 
 H Ewald {Didder II. i. p. 3.35) that such a view is excluded 
 by the text. The clause " without any recognition of the 
 Divine law," is a comment on my opinion which is intelligible 
 
AS INTERPRETED LITERALLY. 83 
 
 only in connection with the argument of the speech already A 
 referred to, depends on the assumption that the maiden was 
 betrothed, and has no pertinency when this misapprehension 
 is removed. 
 
 What remains as a charge against me is that on my Adew 
 the Song " is devoid of any spiritual significance." This is B 
 the very argument which used to be employed before the 
 ]leformation in favour of the allegorical interpretation of the 
 greater part of Scripture — a system of interpretation which 
 did more than anything else to bolster up the Romish theory, 
 that the Scripture could not be understood without the as- C 
 sistance of ecclesiastical tradition, and that it was useless, or 
 even pernicious, to place in the hands of the laity a Bible 
 which, when taken in its obvious literal sense, was not 
 spiritually instructive, and in some parts (it was argued) was 
 even positively immoral or frivolous. Protestantism rejects D 
 the whole theory; admitting that there are passages in 
 8cripture which do not in themselves teach any spiritual 
 truth, but which, nevertheless, are valuable to us — partly 
 from the examples and warnings they contain, but still more 
 because the Bible is no mere system of spiritual truths, but E 
 essentially a narrative of the gradual process of revelation 
 and redemption, in which God's saving manifestation of 
 Himself is throughout interwoven with the history of His 
 chosen people. God has not chosen to teach us His will in 
 bare abstract sentences. He teaches us to know it as it F 
 came home to the people of Israel and modified their life and 
 history. And so the record of revelation contains many 
 things about the Hebrews which, if taken by themselves, 
 would not convey spiritual truth ; but which we could ill 
 afford to lack because they enable us better to understand G 
 the whole course of God's dealings with His people. Un- 
 der this point of view, the Song of Solomon, literally in- 
 terpreted, has a twofold value. It throws important light on 
 the history of the kingdom of Solomon, and the estrange- 
 ment of Northern Israel ; and it shews how the spiritual H 
 morality of revelation had borne fruit in Israel, and given 
 birth to a state of feeling clearly pointing towards Chris- 
 
84 CITATIONS NO WITNESS 
 
 A tian monogamy and the Christian conception of wedded 
 love.* 
 
 Sexto. I am accused of " contradicting or ignoring the 
 testimony given in the Old Testament, and also that of our 
 
 r> Lord and his Apostles in the New Testament, to the author- 
 ship of Old Testament Scriptures." Such a charge is 
 irrelevant, unless accompanied by express reference to the 
 texts of Scripture, whose witness I am held to reject. No 
 such texts are named by my accusers, or cited in the 
 
 (^' passages quoted from my writings. The charge, therefore, 
 presents nothing that I can meet, for I am not conscious 
 that any of my statements are opposed to the witness of 
 Scripture. There are texts of the New Testament which 
 some people take as deciding points of authorship ; but in 
 
 I) every case known to me, in which the supposed evidence 
 would clash with my opinions, the legitimacy of the argu- 
 ment is doubted on exegetical grounds by men who have 
 not accepted critical views inconsistent with the admission 
 of the alleged testimony. Thus Dr. Rainy said at last 
 
 Yj Assembly that while he believed in the unity of Isaiah he 
 could not take the references by Paul as conclusive against 
 an opposite view. The reason of this is obvious. We are no 
 more entitled to treat the citation of a book by its current 
 name as a testimon}'- to the real authorship of the book, 
 
 F than we are entitled to treat the Bible as a witness against 
 the Copernican astronomy, because it speaks of the sun as 
 daily moving through the heavens. Does any one but a 
 pedant tliink it necessary, whenever he cites a book, to 
 pause and point out that the name by which it is recognised 
 
 * As an illustration of the consequences that flow from the idea that every- 
 thing in Scripture has a "spiritual significance," 1 subjoin an extract fiom 
 Jerome's interpretation of the story of Abishag (1 Ivings i.) : — Nonne tibi videtur 
 si occidcntem scquaris literam vel fig nientum esse de minio vel Atellaiuiruni ludicraf 
 Friyidus sencx ohvolvitur vcstimentis ct nisi complexu adolcscentulac non tepescit. . 
 . . Quae est iyitur ista Sunamitis itxor et virgo tam fervens ut frigidum calefaceret 
 Ti tam sancta ut calentcm ad libidinem non provocarct? Expunat sapientissimus 
 
 Salomon patris sui delicias Posside sapientiam, possido intolligentiam. 
 
 (Ad Nepotianum, Ep. lii. ) The analogy with arguments still advanced in con- 
 nection with the Song of Solomon is obvious. 
 
TO AUTHORSHIP. iJ5 
 
 18 merely conventional ? I suppose, for example, that we all A 
 speak and write of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, 
 though we know that the name of Ephesus does not stand 
 in the true text. It appears that the authors of the libel 
 differ from Dr. Rainy and myself in the construction they 
 put upon the use of language in the New Testament, or at ^ 
 least in certain texts, and that they regard our construction 
 as an offence against sound doctrine. Beyond this every- 
 thing is vague, I have nothing but conjecture to tell me 
 which are the texts which I and my accusers interpret 
 differently. I therefore respectfully ask the Presbyteiy C 
 either to delete this head or to amend the libel by 
 making it specify the passages of Scripture to be 
 brought against me. 
 
 These are the remarks which, at this stage, I judge it ^ 
 necessary to submit to the Presbytery in answer to the 
 details of the libel. But I cannot close without turning for 
 a moment to take a larger view of the question at issue. I 
 rest my defence of the critical opinions embodied in my 
 writings not merely on the technical ground that they do E 
 not transgi'ess the limits of doctrine defined in our Standards, 
 but on the higher ground that they are conceived in the 
 spirit of true Protestantism, which, acknowledging with un- 
 divided loyalty the sovereign authority of the Word as the 
 only rule of faith and life, allows no human authority to limit ^ 
 the freedom of hermeneutical research, or to determine before- 
 hand what conclusions shall be drawn from study of the 
 sacred text. The Bible is spoken to us in the language of 
 men, and the key to its true meaning must be sought in no 
 ecclesiastical tradition or a priori theory, but solely in those G 
 universal laws of interpretation, by which all the language 
 of men is understood. 
 
 The clearness and certainty of the Bible as a message from 
 God to us depends on its strict conformity with the laws of 
 human speech, on our right to assume that the ordinary H 
 methods by which otlier ancient books are studied are not 
 misleading when applied to Scripture, and do not require to 
 
86 PROTESTANT PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. 
 
 A be controlled by an authoritative tradition of interpretation. 
 It is on this principle that I have felt constrained to 
 depart from traditional views which appear to be incon- 
 sistentwith the confirmed results of grammatical and historical 
 exegesis. I have acted on the conviction that loyalty to the- 
 B Bible, in a Protestant sense, is inseparable from loyalty to 
 the approved laws of scholarly research ; for if they are in- 
 applicable to the language of Scripture, God no longer speaks 
 to us in words that we can understand. By these laws the 
 results of criticism must be tried ; and by these they must 
 C be refuted before they can be justly condemned. 
 
 I have never concealed the fact that many of the cun- 
 etructive theories of critics are merely tentative ; and even 
 those which have a probability approaching to moral cer- 
 tainty, may still require much revision from renewed study of 
 ^ the facts. But beneath all that is hypothetical and tentative 
 lies a great mass of facts, which I cannot but j udge to be wholly 
 irreconcilable with the views which the libel proposes to 
 enforce as normative in the Church. It is not possible to 
 exhibit here the whole scholarly evidence for this judgment, 
 K and I cannot prejudice my case by merely adducing indi- 
 vidual examples to illustrate an argument of cumulative 
 force whose strength lies in its totality. 
 
 I do not, therefore, ask the Presbytery to approve my 
 
 views, but only to recognise their claim to toleration until 
 
 -T they are confirmed or refuted by scholarly arguments in the 
 
 continual progress of Biblical study. I trust that I have 
 
 made it clear that in granting this claim the Court will do 
 
 no more than the constitution of our Church entitles me to 
 
 ask, and the interests of sound doctrine enable them to 
 
 G concede. But if the Church by her Courts must needs give 
 
 an authoritative decision on the merits of the controversy, 
 
 the decision ought not to be given without full and public 
 
 discussion of every problem involved, and my condemnation 
 
 cannot be for the edification of the Church unless it proceed 
 
 H on the ground that all the arguments I can advance have been 
 
 patiently heard and conclusively rebutted on the o})cn 
 
 ground of philological and historical research. 
 
 Wm. ROBERTSON S^riTII. 
 
MINUTES 
 
 PRESBYTERY AND SYNOD 
 
 ABERDEEN. 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the \2th day of June 1877 years. — Which A 
 (lay the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — • 
 
 The Clerk then gave in and read Extract Minutes of the 
 General Assembly, of dates May 29th and June 4th, with 
 reference to the case of Professor Smith. The tenor whereof 
 follows, viz. : — B 
 
 "At Edinburgh, 2dth May 1877. — Which day, &c. Inter 
 alia, — The General Assembly considering how necessary it is, 
 especially at the present time, that this church should main- 
 tain a clear testimony to the inspiration and aiithority of the 
 Scriptures as the word of God, and the only rule of faith and 
 manners ; and considering that the College Committee, C 
 though not finding, according to their judgment, sufficient 
 ground to support a libel for heresy, gave it as their opinion 
 that the article ' Bible,' contrary to Professor Smith's avowed 
 conviction, contains statements of a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency ; and considering that the teaching and training of 
 students for the holy ministry should be conducted by men D 
 whose views are above all suspicion, deem it expedient and 
 necessary, in the interests of the church, that, until the pro-1 
 ceedings of the Presbytery of Aberdeen, which are now inl 
 progress, and are so far reported to this Assembly, have been \ 
 terminated, and final judgment has been given on the ques-^ 
 tion at issue. Professor Smithy should cease from discharging E 
 his duties as professor, and instruct him accordingly, and 
 remit to tlie T^ollege Committee to make arrangements for 
 the conducting of his classes during next session, and to 
 
 6 
 
90 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A report them to the Commission in August. Further, the 
 Assembly instruct the Presbytery of Aberdeen to proceed 
 ■with the case according to the laws of the church, and 
 empower the Commission at any of its stated diets to dispose 
 of any preliminary appeals that may be taken, that the case 
 may be ripe for final judgment at next General Assembly. 
 B " Extracted, &c. H. W. Moncreiff." 
 
 "At Edinburgh, Uh June 1877. — Which day, &c. Inter 
 alia, — The General Assembly taking into consideration the 
 judgment come to on the 29th ult. in the case of Professor 
 Smith, by which the Presbytery of Aberdeen was instructed 
 to proceed with that case according to the laws of the church, 
 C and by which also the Commission was empowered, at any of 
 its stated diets, to dispose of any preliminary appeals that may 
 be taken, resolve that this power given to the Commission 
 shall be understood to include Dissents and Complaints on 
 preliminary matters. And further, the General Assembly 
 empower the Commission, at any of its stated diets, to enter- 
 Ij tain any referenco which may reach them from the Presb}'- 
 tery or Synod of Aberdeen for advice, with respect to the 
 conduct of the case previous to any judgment on the relevancy 
 of the libel ; and also empower the Commission, in dealing 
 with any such reference, to take whatever steps, consistent 
 with justice and constitutional order, they may judge desirable 
 E for expediting the case. 
 
 " Extracted, &c. H. W. Moncreiff." 
 
 There was also given in and read the following letter from 
 Professor Smith, addressed to the Clerk, of date 7th June, 
 viz. : — 
 
 " Dear Sir, — In accordance with the intimation which I 
 F made at the meeting of the General Assembly, I now request 
 that you will lay before the Presbytery my desire, that any 
 charge against me for publishing and promulgating unsound 
 doctrine at variance with the Holy Scriptures and with the 
 Confession of Faith, be reduced to the form of a libel. — I am, 
 &c., W. R Smith." 
 
 The Clerk further stated that he had not received the 
 Extract Minutes relative to the judgment of the Assembly 
 
MIXUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 91 
 
 anent the Dissents and Complaints carried up to the Assem- A. 
 bly, and he was instructed to procure said extracts. 
 
 The Presbytery deliberated. It was moved, seconded, and 
 unanimously agreed to, " That the Presbytery agree to meet 
 on Tuesday next, the 19th curt, at 11 a.m., to resume con- 
 sideration of the case of Professor Smith, as brought up 
 anew by the various findings of the General Assembly, and B 
 by the letter read from Professor Smith this day." 
 
 At Aberdeen, the \^th day of June 1877 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 The Clerk then gave in and read the following Extract p 
 Minute of the General Assembly, viz. : — 
 
 "At Edinburgh, 26th May 1877.— Which day, &c. Inter 
 alia, — The Assembly took up Dissents and Complaints from 
 judgment of the Presbytery of Aberdeen, in the case of Pro- 
 fessor Smith, and, first, an appeal by Mr Gardiner against a 
 judgment of the Presbytery of Aberdeen, transmitting butpj 
 refusing to adopt questions as to the 110th Psalm. The papers 
 in this case having passed through the Committee on Bills, and 
 being printed and in the hands of the members, parties were 
 called, when Mr Gardiner appeared for himself, and Professor 
 Salmond and Mr Semple for the Presbytery of Aberdeen. 
 Parties were heard and removed. It was moved and seconded, p 
 ' That the Assembly dismiss the Dissent and Complaint, and 
 affirm the judgment of the Presbytery.' It was also moved 
 and seconded, ' That the Assembly sustain the Dissent and 
 Complaint, and reverse the judgment of the Presbytery.' 
 After reasoning, it was agreed to take the vote, and the votes 
 having been marked, and the tellers having reported, it was « 
 found that 88 had voted for the first motion, and 120 for the 
 second, so that the second motion was carried by a majority 
 of 32. Wherefore the General Assembly did and hereby do 
 sustain the Dissent and Complaint, and reverse the judgment 
 of the Presbytery. Parties were called and this judgment 
 was intimated to them. 
 
 " Extracted, &c., by H. W. Moncreiff." 
 
92 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 ^ The Clerk also gave in and read the following Extract 
 Minute of the General Assembly, viz. : — 
 
 " At Edinburgh, 26th May 1877. Inter alia, — The 
 Assembly took up Dissent by Mr Gardiner against a judg- 
 ment by the Presbytery of Aberdeen, declining to adopt a 
 question to Professor Smith on the subject of Inspiration, 
 E and parties having been called, Mr Gardiner intimated that 
 he fell from his Dissent and Complaint. Mr Gardiner also 
 intimated that he fell from the Third Dissent and Complaint 
 he had taken, 
 
 " The Assembly took up a Dissent and Complaint against 
 a judgment of the Presbytery, rejecting a question on the 
 C subject of Angels, and the papers in this case having passed 
 through the Committee on Bills, and being printed and in 
 the hands of the members, parties were called, when there 
 appeared for the Dissentients, Principal Brown and Mr 
 Gardiner; and for the Presbytery of Aberdeen, Professor 
 Salmond and Mr Semple." 
 D " Parties having been heard were removed. It was moved, 
 seconded, and unanimously agreed to, that the General 
 Assembly sustain the Dissent and Complaint, reverse the 
 judgment of the Presbytery, and find that some form of 
 question adapted to bring out the expression of Professor 
 Smith's belief concerning the real existence of Fallen Angels, 
 E and also the agency of Satan, may with advantage be proposed 
 by the Presbytery to Professor Smith. 
 
 "Parties were called, and this judgment was intimated to 
 them. 
 
 " Extracted, &c., by II. W. Moncreiff." 
 
 F 
 
 The Presbytery then resumed consideration of the case of 
 
 Professor Smith. 
 
 After deliberation, it was moved by Mr Gardiner, seconded 
 by Mr Bannatyne, " That the Presbytery, having taken into 
 consideration the judgments of the General Assembly on 
 26th May last, on the Dissents and Complaints in reference 
 to certain questions in the case of the Rev. Professor Smith, 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 93 
 
 conform to extracts of said judgments now in the hands of A 
 the Presbytery, in implement thereof, and before further 
 procedure, now resolves, by authority of the General 
 Assembly, to adopt and put into his hands the following 
 questions — viz. the question recorded in p. 321 anent Psalm 
 OX. A.II.b, and the question on the real existence of Fallen 
 Angels and the agency of Satan — viz., ' Since Professor Smith B 
 in the article " Angel," in the Encycloi^oedia Britannica, 
 while stating in considerable detail the Biblical conception 
 of angels, as he views it, has taken no notice of that class 
 of angels who kept not their first estate, would Professor 
 Smith now state his belief concerning the real existence of 
 fallen angels, and also concerning the agency of Satan.' 
 
 " Farther, the Presbytery resolves to meet on Wednesday, 
 the 1st day of August next, to give Professor Smith an 
 opportunity of tendering his answers, and then also to take 
 such steps as may be considered expedient in consequence 
 of receipt of his letter of 7th current, read at last meeting." 
 
 This motion was unanimously agreed to, and in termsD 
 thereof the Clerk was instructed to send to Professor 'Smith 
 this finding of the Presbytery, with the questions embodied 
 therein. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the Ist day of August 1877 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter i!^ 
 alia, — 
 
 The Clerk then gave in and read the following letter from 
 Professor Smith, viz. : — 
 
 "3l6-^ July 1877.— To the Clerk of the Free Church 
 Presbytery of Aberdeen. My dear Sir, — I beg to acknow- 
 ledge receipt of the Extract Minute of Presbytery of 19th F 
 June last. As I now feel myself bound to adhere to the 
 course of action of which I gave intimation at the Assembly, 
 I am precluded at the present stage from making any state- 
 ment in answer to the questions contained in that document, 
 and I must respectfully renew the request which I laid 
 before the Presbytery in my letter of 7th June. — I am, &c., 
 W. K. Smith." 
 
94 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A It was agreed that in the meantime this letter lie on the 
 table. Thereafter Mr Gardiner, seconded by Dr Longrauir, 
 submitted the following motion, viz. : — " The Presbytery, 
 considering the stage which the case of Professor Smith has 
 now reached, as also the desirableness of dealing with it in 
 the way that shall most carefully guard the interests of 
 
 J3 truth, vindicate the honour of the Word of God, and satisfy the 
 Church at large ; considering, also, Professor Smith's request 
 to be dealt with by way of libel, by letter of date 7th June 
 last, do now resolve to proceed by way of libel, and accord- 
 ingly appoint the following committee to consider the 
 materials on which a libel may be founded ; to frame the 
 
 C draft of such a libel as they may judge called for, and to lay 
 the same on the Presbytery's table at their ordinary meeting 
 on the 25 th September next.^' 
 
 Professor Salmond, seconded by Mr Johnstone, also moved, 
 " That, having respect to the desire expressed by Professor 
 Smith in his letter of 7th June, viz., that any charge 
 
 B against him for publishing and promulgating unsound 
 doctrine at variance with the Holy Scriptures and with the 
 Confession of Faith, be reduced to the form of a 'libel,' the 
 Presbytery resolve to meet in committee on , in 
 
 order to examine in the light of the explanations furnished 
 by replies to queries presented by this Court, those published 
 
 E opinions of Professor Smith to which objection is taken, and 
 thereupon to decide on their consistency or inconsistency 
 with the Standards of this Church." 
 
 Mr Laidlaw, seconded by Mr Bell, also moved, " That the 
 Presbytery, considering that the case of Professor Smith is 
 now fully before the Presbytery for the first time since 
 
 Y Professor Smith's answers were given in, and since Professor 
 Smith's request for a libel, resolve, in the interest of divine 
 truth in this important case, to hold an early meeting to 
 consider whether the Presbytery shall now proceed by libel 
 in the case, or in what other way" (.sic). 
 
 After discussion, Professor Salmond was allowed by the 
 Presbytery to withdraw his motion. 
 
 A vote was then taken between Mr Gardiner's and Mr 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 95 
 
 Laidlaw's motion, when 20 voted for Mr Gardiner's and 15 A 
 for Mr Laidlaw's, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 Messrs Iverach and Semple dissented from this finding. 
 
 Mr Gardiner then moved that the following committee be 
 appointed, viz.. Principal Brown, Professor Salmond, Dr 
 Longmuir, Messrs Laidlaw, Bannatyne, Iverach, Gardiner, 
 Masson, and D. Mitchell. B 
 
 Whereupon Principal Brown, Professor Salmond, Messrs 
 Laidlaw and Iverach, declined to act upon the committee. 
 
 The Presbytery, on the motion of Mr Gardiner, appointed 
 Messrs Arthur, Anderson, Selbie, and Dr Gordon, in the 
 room of those that resigned. 
 
 Mr Gardiner was appointed Convener. Q 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 25th day of September 1^1^ years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery metandwas constituted. Interalia, — 
 
 The Presbytery being open, the Presbytery took up the case 
 of Professor Smith, as agreed upon in the minute of August L 
 Whereupon Mr Gardiner, on behalf of the committee ap-D 
 pointed to draw out a Draft Form of Libel, read and laid on 
 the table the Draft which the committee had prepared. In 
 doing so he stated, on behalf of the committee, that it was 
 to be distinctly understood that the individual members of 
 the committee do not hold themselves committed at this 
 stage to the relevancy of any point in the draft. The Con- E 
 vener also stated that, by instruction of the committee, he 
 liad submitted the draft to the legal adviser of the Church for 
 his revision, but that that gentleman had returned it unre- 
 vised from want of sufficient time. 
 
 The Draft Libel was then read as follows : — 
 
 F 
 
 Mr William Eobertson Smith, Professor of Oriental 
 Languages and Exegesis of the Old Testament at Aber- 
 deen, you are indicted and accused, at the instance of 
 the Free Presbytery of Aberdeen : — 
 
 That whereas the publishing and promulgating of opinions 
 which subvert the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, 
 infallible truth, and divine authority of the Holy Scrip- 
 
96 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A tures, or any iDart or parts thereof, as set forth in the 
 Scriptures themselves, and in the Confession of Faith, or 
 any other doctrine or doctrines therein set forth ; or 
 otherwise the publishing and promulgating of opinions 
 which are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency in their bearing on the doctrine of the immediate 
 B inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of the 
 Holy Scriptures, or any part or parts thereof, as set forth 
 in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of 
 Faith, or in their bearing on any other doctrine or doc- 
 trines therein set forth, is an offence of a heinous nature, 
 especially in a Professor of Divinity, and calls for such 
 Q censure or judicial sentence as may be found adequate ; 
 and more particularly : — 
 
 Primo : — Albeit the opinion that the Aaronic priesthood, 
 and at least a great part of the laws and ordinances of the 
 Levitical system, were not divinely instituted in the time of 
 Moses, and that those large parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and 
 J) Numbers, which represent them as having been then insti- 
 tuted by God, were inserted in the inspired records long 
 after the death of Moses : — 
 
 Sccundo : — Albeit the opinion that the book of inspired 
 Scripture called Deuteronomy, which is professedly an 
 historical record, does not possess that character, but was 
 J] made to assume it by a writer of a much later age, who 
 therein, in the name of God, presented in dramatic form 
 instructions and law^s as proceeding from the mouth of 
 Moses, though these never were, and never could have been 
 uttered by him : — 
 
 Tertio : — Albeit opinions which lower the character of in- 
 jf spired writings to the level of uninspired, by entirely ignoring 
 their divine authorship, and by representing the sacred 
 writers as taking freedoms and committing errors like other 
 authors ; as giving explanations that were unnecessary and 
 incorrect ; as putting fictitious speeches into the mouths of 
 their historical characters ; as giving inferences of their own 
 for facts ; as describing arrangements as made use of in 
 their complete form at a certain time which were not com- 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 97 
 
 pleted till long afterwards ; and as writing under the influ- A 
 ence of party spirit and for party purposes : — 
 
 Quarto : — Albeit the presentation of opinions which 
 discredit the authenticity and canonical standing of books 
 of Scripture, either by imputing to them a fictitious cha- 
 racter; by attributing to them what is disparaging; or 
 by stating discrediting opinions of others, without any B 
 indication of dissent therefrom : — 
 
 Quinto : — Albeit the opinion that the portion of Scripture 
 known as Canticles, although included among the books 
 which in the Confession of Faith are declared to have been 
 immediately inspired by God, is devoid of any spiritual 
 significance, only presents a high example of virtue in aC 
 betrothed maiden, without any recognition of the Divine law, 
 and that its deletion from the Canon was providentially 
 prevented by the prejudice in favour of an allegorical inter- 
 pretation, to the effect that "from verse to verse the song 
 sets forth the history of a spiritual, and not merely of an 
 earthly love " : — D 
 
 Sexto : — Albeit opinions wiiich contradict or ignore the 
 testimony given in the Old Testament, and also by our 
 Lord and his apostles in the New Testament, to the author- 
 ship of Old Testament Scriptures, upon which authorship 
 most momentous teaching was sometimes based : — 
 
 Septlmo : — Albeit opinions which disparage prophecy by E 
 representing its predictions as arising merely from so-called 
 spiritual insight, based on the certainty of God's righteous 
 purpose, and W'hich exclude prediction in the sense of direct 
 supernatural revelation of events long posterior to the 
 prophet's own age : — 
 
 Octavo : — Albeit the opinion that belief in the superhuman F 
 reality of the angelic beings of the Bible is matter of assump- 
 tion rather than of direct teaching ; and that angels are 
 endowed with special goodness and insight analogous to 
 human qualities appears as a popular assumption, not as a 
 doctrine of revelation : — • 
 
 Albeit that all these opinions, or one or other, part or 
 parts thereof, do subvert the doctrine of the immediate 
 
98 CASE OF llEV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves and in 
 the Confession of Faith as aforesaid, and other doctrine or 
 doctrines therein set forth ; or otherwise, are in themselves 
 of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in their hearing on 
 the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, 
 
 B and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, as set forth in 
 the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith as 
 aforesaid, or in their bearing on other doctrine or doctrines 
 therein set forth. 
 
 Yet, true it is, and of verity, that you, the said Mr 
 William Eobertson Smith, hold, and have promulgated 
 
 C opinions, all of which, or one or other, part or parts 
 thereof, are either of such a nature, or of such a ten- 
 dency, as is above expressed; and have avowed, published, 
 and disseminated the same, or one or other, part or parts 
 thereof, in all or some of the articles or wTitings, in 
 the books or publications undermentioned, written by you, 
 
 D and with your consent published to the world, videlicet: 
 articles "Angel," "Bible," "Canticles," and "Chronicles," 
 in the ninth edition of the Encyclopcedia Britannica ; also, 
 article "The Sixteenth Psalm," in The Expositor, number 
 XXni., November 1876; and article "The Question of 
 Prophecy in the Critical Schools of the Continent," in 
 
 E British Quarterly Eevicw, April 1870; also, "Eemarks" by 
 Professor W. R. Smith on a memorandum of the sub- 
 committee on the article "Bible" in the Encyclopcedia 
 Britannica, published in the College Committee's report 
 to the General Assembly ; which publications being to be 
 used in evidence against you, are lodged in the hands of 
 
 F the Clerk of the Presbytery, that you may have an oppor- 
 tunity of seeing the same ; of which articles you have 
 judicially acknowledged yourself to be the author, to the 
 said Free Presbytery of Aberdeen, at its meeting held 
 there on the twelfth day of April eighteen hundred and 
 seventy-seven; which articles, or one or other of them, 
 respectively contain an avowal, declaration, or statement 
 and promulgation of the above described opinions ; or 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 99 
 
 one or other of them resjiectively ; more particularly and A 
 without prejudice to the said generality. 
 
 Primo : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, 
 in the aforesaid work entitled, Encijclojjcedia Briiannica, 
 and at page 638a, article " Bible," wrote as follows, 
 videlicet : "If then the Deuteronomic legislation is not 
 earlier than the prophetic period of the 8th and 7th B 
 centuries, and, accordingly, is subsequent to the elements 
 of the Pentateuchal history which we have seen to be 
 known to Hosea, it is plain that the chronology of the 
 composition of the Pentateuch may be said to centre in 
 the question whether the Levitico-Elohistic document, which 
 embraces most of the laws in Leviticus with large parts of C 
 Exodus and Numbers, is earlier or later than Deutero- 
 nomy. The answer to this question turns almost wholly 
 on achasological inquiries, for there is, perhaps, no quite 
 conclusive reference to the Elohistic record in the Prophets 
 before the Exile, or in Deuteronomy itself. And here 
 arises the great dispute which divides critics, and makes D 
 our whole construction of the origin of the historical books 
 uncertain. The Levitical laws give a graduated hierarchy 
 of priests and Levites ; Deuteronomy regards all Levites as 
 at least possible priests. Eound this difference, and points 
 allied to it, the whole discussion turns. We know, mainly 
 from Ezekiel xliv., that before the Exile the strict hier- E 
 archical law was not in force, apparently never had been 
 in force. But can we suppose that the very idea of such a 
 hierarchy is the latest point of liturgical development ? 
 If so, the Levitical element is the latest thing in the Penta- 
 teuch, or, in truth, in the historical series to which the 
 Pentateuch belongs ; or, on the opposite view, the hier- F 
 archie theory existed as a legal programme long before the 
 Exile, though it was fully carried out only after Ezra. As 
 all the more elaborate symbolic observances of the ritual 
 law are bound up with the hierarchical ordinances, the solu- 
 tion of this problem has issues of the greatest importance 
 for the theology as well as for the literary history of the 
 Old Testament." As also in the same article " Bible," 
 
100 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A pp. 634b, 635a : "A just insight into the w^ork of the pro- 
 phetic party in Israel was long rendered difficult by tra- 
 ditional prejudices. On the one hand the predictive element 
 in prophecy received undue prominence, and withdrew 
 attention from the influence of the prophets on the religious 
 life of their own time ; while, on the other hand, it was 
 B assumed, in accordance with Jewish notions, that all the 
 ordinances, and almost, if not quite, all the doctrines of 
 the Jewish church in the post-canonical period, existed 
 from the earliest days of the theocracy. The prophets, 
 therefore, were conceived partly as inspired preachers of 
 old truths, partly as predicting future events, but not as 
 C leaders of a great development, in which the religious 
 ordinances as well as the religious beliefs of the Old 
 Covenant advanced from a relatively crude and imper- 
 fect to a relatively mature and adequate form. The proof 
 that this latter view, and not the traditional conception, 
 is alone true to history, depends on a variety of argu- 
 D ments which cannot here be reproduced. That the religious 
 ideas of the Old Testament were in a state of growth during 
 the whole prophetic period became manifest as soon as the 
 laws of grammatico-historical exegesis were fairly applied 
 to the Hebrew Scriptures. That the sacred ordinances 
 were subject to variation was less readily admitted, because 
 E the admission involved a change of view as to the author- 
 ship of the Pentateuch ; but here also the facts are decisive. 
 . . . But perhaps the clearest proof that, during the period 
 of prophetic inspiration, there was no doctrine of finality 
 with regard to ritual law any more than with regard to 
 religious ideas and doctrines, lies in the last chapters of 
 F Ezekiel, which sketch at the very era of the Captivity an 
 outline of sacred ordinances for the future restoration. 
 From these and similar facts it follows indisputably, that 
 the true and spiritual religion which the prophets and like- 
 minded priests maintained at once against heathenism and 
 against unspiritual worship of Jehovah as a mere natural 
 deity without moral attributes, was not a finished, but a 
 growing system, not finally embodied in authoritative docu- 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 101 
 
 ments, but propagated mainly by direct personal efforts. At A 
 the same time, these personal efforts were accompanied and 
 supported by the gradual rise of a sacred literature. Though 
 the priestly ordinances were mainly published by oral deci- 
 sions of the priests, which are, in fact, what is usually meant 
 by the word laio (Torah) in writings earlier than the Capti- 
 vity, there can be no reasonable doubt that the priests pos- B 
 sessed written legal collections of greater or less extent from 
 the time of Moses downwards. Again, the example of Eze- 
 kiel, and the obvious fact that the law-book found at the 
 time of Josiah contained provisions which were not up to 
 that time an acknowledged part of the law of the land, makes 
 it probable that legal provisions, which the prophets and C 
 their priestly allies felt to be necessary for the maintenance 
 of the truth, were often embodied in legislative programmes, 
 by which previous legal tradition was gradually modified." 
 As also at p. 635b : " Previous reformers had been statesmen 
 or prophets. Ezra is a scribe who comes to Jerusalem armed, 
 not with a fresh message from the Lord, but with ' the book D 
 of the law of Moses.' This law-book was the Pentateuch, 
 and the public recognition of it as the rule of the theocracy 
 was the declaration that the religious ordinances of Israel 
 had ceased to admit of development, and the first step 
 towards the substitution of a canon or authoritative collec- 
 tion of Scriptures for the living guidance of the prophetic E 
 voice." As also at p. 636b : "But in its present shape the Pen- 
 tateuch is certainly subsequent to the occupation, for it uses 
 geographical names which arose after that time (Hebron, 
 Dan), refers to the conquest as already accomplished (Deut. 
 ii. 12, cf. ; Numb. xv. 32 ; Gen. xii. 6), and even presupposes 
 the existence of a kingship in Israel (Gen. xxxvi. 31). And F 
 with this it agrees, that though there are marked differences 
 of style and language within the book of Joshua, each st,yle 
 finds its counterpart in some section of the Pentateuch. In 
 the subsequent books we find quite similar phenomena. The 
 last chapters of Judges cannot be separated from the book 
 of Samuel, and the earlier chapters of Kings are obviously 
 one with the foregoing narrative ; while all three books 
 
102 CASE OF REV. TEOFESSOIl SMITH. 
 
 A contain passages strikingly akin to parts of the Pentateuch 
 and Joshua cf., for example, the book of Deuteronomy with 
 Josh, xxiii., 1 Sam. xii., 1 Kings viii. Such phenomena not 
 only prove the futility of any attempt to base a theory of 
 authorship on the present division into books, but suggest 
 that the history as we have it is not one narrative carried 
 
 B on from age to age by successive additions, but a fusion of 
 several narratives which partly covered the same ground 
 and were combined into unity by an editor." 
 
 Secundo : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, 
 in the aforesaid article "Bible," and at page 637b, wrote 
 as follows, videlicet : " Now the book of Deuteronomy pre- 
 
 C sents a quite distinct type of style which, as has been already 
 mentioned, recurs from time to time in passages of the later 
 books, and that in such a connection as to suggest to many 
 critics since Graf the idea, that the Deuteronomic hand is 
 the hand of the last editor of the whole history from Genesis 
 to Kings, or, at least, of the non-Levitical parts thereof. 
 
 D This conclusion is not stringent, for a good deal may be 
 said in favour of the view that the Deuteronomic style, 
 which is very capable of imitation, was adopted by writers 
 of different periods. But even so, it is difficult to suppose 
 that the legislative part of Deuteronomy is as old as Moses. 
 If the law of the kingdom in Deuteronomy xvii. was known 
 
 i; in the time of the Judges, it is impossible to comj)rehend 
 Judges viii. 23, and above all 1 Samuel viii. 7. That the 
 law of high places given in this part of the Pentateuch was 
 not acknowledged till the time of Josiah, and w^as not 
 dreamed of by Samuel and Elijah, we have already seen. 
 The Deuteronomic law is familiar to Jeremiah, the younger 
 
 Y contemporary of Josiah, but is referred to by no prophet of 
 earlier date. And the whole theological stand-point of the 
 book agrees exactly with the period of prophetic literature, 
 and gives the highest and most spiritual view of the law, 
 to which our Lord himself directly attaches his teaching, 
 and which cannot be placed at the beginning of the theo- 
 cratic development without making the whole history unin- 
 telligible. Beyond doubt the book is, as already hinted, a 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 103 
 
 prophetic legislative programme ; and if the author put his A 
 Avork in the mouth of Moses instead of giving it, with 
 Ezekiel, a directly prophetic form, he did so not in pious 
 fraud, hut simply hecause his ohject was not to give a new 
 law, hut to expound and develop Mosaic principles in rela- 
 tion to new needs. And as ancient writers are not accus- 
 tomed to distinguish historical data from historical deduc- B 
 tions, he naturally presents his views in dramatic form in 
 the mouth of Moses." As also, in your said " Eemarks on 
 memorandum of the Sub- Committee on the article Bible," 
 page 20 : " When my position is thus discriminated from 
 the theories of those who like Kuenen ascribe the origin 
 of Deuteronomy to a pious fraud, I do not think that it will (J 
 be found to involve any more serious innovation in our con- 
 ception of the method of revelation than this, that the 
 written record of the revelation of God's will which is neces- 
 sary unto salvation makes use of certain forms of literary 
 presentation which have always been thought legitimate in 
 ordinary composition, but which were not always under- D 
 stood to be used in the Bible." As also at page 21 : "It 
 is asked whether our Lord does not bear witness to the 
 Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. If this were so, I 
 should feel myself to be on very dangerous and untenable 
 ground. But it appears to me that only a very strained 
 exegesis can draw any inference of authorship from the p] 
 recorded words of our Saviour." 
 
 Tertio : — You, the said Mr "William Piobertson Smith, in 
 the article " Chronicles," Encyclopaedia Britannica, pages 
 708b-709a, wrote as follows, videlicet: "It seems safe 
 to conclude with Ewald, Bertheau, and other cautious 
 critics, that there is no foundation for the accusation that p 
 the chronicler invented history in the interest of his 
 parenetic and practical purposes. But on the other hand 
 it is not to be doubted, that in shaping his narrative 
 he allowed himself the same freedoms as were taken by 
 other ancient historians, and even by early copyists, and 
 it is the business of historical criticism to form a clear 
 conception of the nature and limits of these freedoms with 
 
lO-i CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 ^ a view to distinguish in individual passages between the 
 facts derived by the Chronicler from his written sources and 
 tlie literary additions, explanations, and inferences which 
 are his own. In particular : 1. His explanations of verbal 
 and material difficulties must be critically considered. Thus 
 even Keil admits an error in 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37, where the 
 
 •g Tharshish-ships, that is ships fit for a long voyage, which 
 Jehoshaphat built in the Eed Sea (1 Kings xxii. 48), are 
 explained as ships voyaging to Tartessus in Spain. Such 
 criticism is especially necessary where remarks are intro- 
 duced tending to explain away the differences in religious 
 observances between early times and the period of the 
 
 Q Chronicler. Thus in 1 Chron. xxi. 28, sqq., an explanation 
 is given of the reasons which led David to sacrifice on the 
 threshing-floor of Oman instead of going to the brazen 
 altar at Gibeon. But it is certain that at the time of David 
 the principle of a single altar was not acknowledged, and 
 therefore no explanation was required. In 1 Kings iii. 3, 4, 
 
 jy Gibeon appears only as the chief of many high-places, and 
 it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the chronicler has 
 simply inferred from the importance of this sanctuary that 
 it must have possessed a special legitimation, which could 
 only consist in the presence of the old brazen altar. 2. A 
 certain freedom of literary form was always allowed to 
 
 ^ ancient historians, and need not perplex anyouewho does not 
 apply a false standard to the narrative. To this head belongs 
 especially the introduction of speeches like that of Abijah in 
 2 Chron. xiii. This speech is no doubt a free composition, 
 and would be so understood by the author's contemporaries. 
 By such literary devices the author was enabled to point a 
 
 •p lesson without interrupting the thread of his narrative by 
 reflections of his own. Similar remarks apply to the psalm 
 in 1 Chron. xvi., which is made up of extracts from Psalms 
 cv., xcvi., cvi. 3. A usage not peculiar to the Chronicler 
 among Old Testament writers, and which must be carefully 
 taken into account by the historical critic, is that of giving 
 statistical information in a narrative form. ... A 
 different application of the same principle seems to lie in 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 105 
 
 the account of the mstitutions of Levitical service which is A. 
 introduced in connection with the transference of the ark 
 to Jerusalem by David. The author is not concerned to 
 distinguish the gradual steps by which the Levitical organi- 
 sation attained its full development. But he wishes to 
 describe the system in its complete form, especially as 
 regards the service of the singers, and he does this under B 
 the reign of David, who was the father of Hebrew psalmody, 
 and the restorer of the sanctuary of the ark." As also 
 in the same article " Chronicles," pp. 706b-707a : " What 
 seems to be certain and important for a right estimate 
 of the book is that the author lived a considerable time 
 after Ezra, and stood entirely under the influence of the 
 religious institutions of the new theocracy. This stand- 
 point determined the nature of his interest in the early 
 history of his people. The true importance of Hebrew 
 history had always centred in the fact that this petty 
 nation was the people of Jehovah, the spiritual God. The 
 tragic interest which distinguishes the annals of Israeli) 
 from the forgotten history of Moab or Damascus lies wholly 
 in that long contest which finally vindicated the reality of 
 spiritual things and the supremacy of Jehovah's purpose, in 
 the political ruin of the nation which was the faithless 
 depositary of these sacred truths. After the captivity it 
 was impossible to write the history of Israel's fortunes g 
 otherwise than in a spirit of religious pragmatism. But 
 within the limits of the religious conception of the plan and 
 purpose of the Hebrew history more than one point of view 
 might be taken up. The book of Kings looks upon the 
 history in the spirit of the Prophets— in that spirit which 
 is still echoed by Zechariah (i. 5, 6) : 'Your fathers, where^ 
 are they ? And the prophets, could they live for ever ? 
 But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my ser- 
 vants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers ? so 
 that they turned and said, Like as Jehovah of Hosts thought 
 to do unto us ... so hath he dealt with us.' But long 
 before the Chronicler wrote, the last spark of prophecy was 
 
 7 
 
106 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A extinct. The New Jerusalem of Ezra was organised as a 
 municipality and a Church, not as a nation. The centre 
 of religious life was no longer the living prophetic word, 
 but the ordinances of the Pentateuch and the liturgical 
 service of the sanctuary. The religious vocation of Israel 
 was no longer national but ecclesiastical or municipal, and 
 
 B the historical continuity of the nation was vividly realised 
 only within the walls of Jerusalem and the courts of the 
 Temple, in the solemn assembly and stately ceremonial of 
 a feast day. These influences naturally operated most 
 strongly on those who were officially attached to the 
 sanctuary. To a Levite, even more than to other Jews, 
 
 C the history of Israel meant above all things the history of 
 Jerusalem, of the Temple, and of the Temple ordinances. 
 Now the author of Chronicles betrays on every page his 
 essentially Levitical habit of mind. It even seems possible 
 from a close attention to his descriptions of sacred ordin- 
 ances to conclude that his special interests are those of a 
 
 J) common Levite rather than of a priest, and that of all 
 Levitical functions he is most partial to those of the singers, 
 a member of whose guild Ewald conjectures him to have 
 been. To such a man the older delineation of the history 
 of Israel, especially in the books of Samuel and Kings, 
 could not but appear to be deficient in some directions, while 
 
 R in other respects its narrative seemed superfluous or open 
 to misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and that 
 without condemnation, things inconsistent with the Penta- 
 teuchal law. The history of the ordinances of worship holds 
 a very small place in the older record. Jerusalem and the 
 Temple have not that central place in the book of Kings 
 
 F which they occupied in the mind of the Jewish community 
 after the Exile. Large sections of the old history are 
 devoted to the religion and pohtics of the ten tribes, which 
 are altogether unintelligible and uninteresting when mea- 
 sured by a strictly Levitical standard ; and in general the 
 whole problems and struggles of the prophetic period turn on 
 points which had ceased to be cardinal in the life of the New 
 Jerusalem, which was no longer called to decide between the 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 107 
 
 claims of the Word of Jehovah and the exigencies of pohtical ^ 
 affairs and social customs, and which could not comprehend 
 that men absorbed in deeper spiritual contests had no leisure 
 for the niceties of Levitical legislation. Thus there seemed 
 to be room for a new history, which should confine itself to 
 matters still interesting to the theocracy of Zion, keeping 
 Jerusalem and the Temple in the foreground, and developing _g 
 the divine pragmatism of the history, not so much with 
 reference to the prophetic word as to the fixed legislation of 
 the Pentateuch, so that the whole narrative might be made 
 to teach that the glory of Israel lies in the observance 
 of the divine law and ritual." As also in the same article 
 "Chronicles," p. 707b: "In the later history the ten q 
 tribes are quite neglected, and political affairs in Judah 
 receive attention, not in proportion to their intrinsic 
 importance, but according as they serve to exemplify God's 
 help to the obedient and his chastisement of the rebellious. 
 That the author is always unwilling to speak of the misfor- 
 tunes of good rulers is not to be ascribed with some critics j-v 
 to a deliberate suppression of truths, but shews that the book 
 was throughout composed not in purely historical interests, 
 but with a view to inculcate a single practical lesson. The 
 more important additions which the Chronicler makes to 
 the old narrative consist partly of statistical lists (1 Chron. 
 xii.), partly of full details on points connected with the p 
 history of the sanctuary and the great feasts or the archae- 
 ology of the Levitical ministry . . . and partly of narratives 
 of victories and defeats,of sins and punishments, of obedience 
 and its reward, which could be made to point a plain reli- 
 gious lesson in favour of the faithful observance of the law 
 . . . The minor variations of Chronicles from the books of n, 
 Samuel and Kings are analogous in principle to the larger 
 additions and omissions, so that the whole work has a con- 
 sistent and well-marked character, presenting the history in 
 quite a different perspective from that of the old narrative. 
 Here, then, a critical question arises. Is the change of per- 
 spective wholly due to a different selection of items from 
 authentic historical tradition? May we assume that every- 
 
108 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A thing -which is new in the Chronicles has been taken exactly 
 from older sources, or must we judge that the standpoint of 
 the author has not only governed the selection, but coloured 
 the statement of historical facts? Are all his novelties new 
 data, or are some of them inferences of his own from the 
 same data as lie before us in other books of the Bible?" 
 
 B Quarto: — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, inthe 
 aforesaid article "Bible," p. 639b, wrote as follows, videlicet : 
 "In the book of Job we find poetical invention of incidents, 
 attached for didactic purposes to a name apparently derived 
 from old tradition. There is no valid a j^riori reason for 
 denying that the Old Testament may contain other examples 
 
 C of the same art. The book of Jonah is generally viewed as 
 a case in point. Esther, too, has been viewed as a fiction 
 by many who are not over sceptical critics ; but on this view 
 a book which finds no recognition in the New Testament, 
 and whose canonicity was long suspected by the Christian 
 as well as by the Jewish Church, must sink to the rank of 
 
 D an apocryphal production. In the poetical as in the his- 
 torical books anonymous writing is the rule ; and along with 
 this we observe great freedom on the part of readers and 
 copyists, who not only made verbal changes (c/. Psalm xiv. 
 with Psalm liii.), but composed new poems out of fragments 
 of others (Psalm cviii. with Ivii. and Ix.). In a large part 
 
 E of the Psalter a later hand has systematically substituted 
 Elohim for Jehovah, and an imperfect acrostic, like Psalm 
 ix., X., cannot have proceeded in its present form from 
 the first author. Still more remarkable is the book of 
 Job, in which the speeches of Elihu quite break the con- 
 nection, and are almost universally assigned to a later 
 
 E hand." As also in the same article, page 640b : "In 
 this sketch of the prophetic writings we find no place 
 for the book of Daniel, which, whether composed in the early 
 years of the Persian empire, or, as modern critics hold, at 
 the time of the Maccabee wars, presents so many points of 
 diversity from ordinary prophecy as to require entirely 
 separate treatment. It is in point of form the precursor of 
 the apocalyptic books of post-canonical Judaism, though in 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 109 
 
 its intrinsic qualities far superior to these, and akin to the A 
 prophets proper." As also in the same article, pp. 635b, 
 636a: "The miscellaneous character of the Ketubim" [em- 
 bracing Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamenta- 
 tions, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
 Chronicles] "seems, in fact, to shew that after the Law 
 and the Prophets were closed, the third part of the canon B 
 was open to receive additions, recommended either by their 
 religious and historical value, or by bearing an ancient and 
 venerable name. And this was the more natural because 
 the Hagiographa had not the same place in the sj'nagogue 
 service as was accorded to the Law and the Prophets." 
 
 Quinto: — You, the said Mr William Robertson Smith,in the G 
 aforesaid article " Canticles," p. 32b, wrote as follows, vide- 
 licet: "To tradition, again, we owe the still powerful preju- 
 dice in favour of an allegorical interpretation, that is, of the 
 view that from verse to verse the Song sets forth the history 
 of a spiritual and not merely of an earthly love. To apply 
 such an exegesis to Canticles is to violate one of the first D 
 principles of reasonable interpretation. True allegories are 
 never without internal marks of their allegorical design. 
 The language of symbol is not so perfect that a long chain 
 of spiritual ideas can be develoj)ed without the use of a single 
 spiritual word or phrase ; and even were this possible it 
 would be false art in the allegorist to hide away his sacred E 
 thoughts behind a screen of sensuous and erotic imagery, 
 so complete and beautiful in itself as to give no suggestion 
 that it is only the vehicle of a deeper sense. Apart from 
 tradition, no one, in the present state of exegesis, would 
 dream of allegorising poetry which in its natural sense is 
 so full of purpose and meaning, so apt in sentiment, and so p 
 perfect in imagery as the lyrics of Canticles. We are not at 
 liberty to seek for allegory except where the natural sense 
 is incomplete. This is not the case in the Song of Solomon. 
 On the contrary, every form of the allegorical interpretation 
 which has been devised carries its own condemnation in the 
 fact that it takes away from the artistic unity of the poem 
 and breaks natural sequences of thought. The allegorical 
 
110 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 AiuteriDretation of the Song of Solomon had its rise in the 
 very same conditions which forced a deeper sense, now uni- 
 versally discarded, upon so many other parts of Scripture.' 
 As also in the same article, p. 35a : " The heroine appears in 
 the opening scene in a difficult and painful situation, from 
 which in the last chapter she is haj^pily extricated. But the 
 
 B dramatic progress which the poem exhibits scarcely involves 
 a i)lot in the usual sense of that word. The words of viii. 
 9, 10, clearly indicate that the deliverance of the heroine is 
 due to no combination of favouring circumstances, but to her 
 own inflexible fidelity and virtue. In accordance with this, 
 her role throughout the poem is simply a steadfast adherence 
 
 C to the position which she takes up in the opening scene, 
 where she is represented as concentrating her thoughts 
 upon her absent lover with all that stubborn force of will 
 which is characteristic of the Hebrews, and as frustrating 
 the advances of the king by the mere naive intensity of pre- 
 occupied affection." As also in the same article, p. 35b : "We 
 
 D learn that she was an inhabitant of Shulem or Shunem in 
 Issachar, whom the king and his train surprised in a garden 
 on the occasion of a royal progress through the north. Her 
 beauty drew from the ladies of the court a cry of admira- 
 tion." As also in the same article, p. 36b : " A poem 
 in the northern dialect, with a northern heroine and 
 
 E scenery, contrasting the pure simplicity of Galilee with 
 the corrupt s]3lendour of the court of Solomon, is clearly the 
 embodiment of one phase of the feeling which separated the 
 ten tribes from the house of David. The kingdom of Solomon 
 was an innovation on old traditions partly for good and 
 partly for evil. But novelties of progress and novelties of 
 
 F corruption were alike distasteful to the north, which had 
 long been proud of its loyalty to the principles of the good 
 old times. The conservative revolution of Jeroboam was in 
 great measure the work of the prophets, and must therefore 
 have carried with it the religious and moral convictions of 
 the people. An important element in these convictions, 
 which still claims our fullest sympathy, is powerfully set 
 forth in the Canticles, and the deletion of the book from 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. Ill 
 
 the canon, providentially averted by the allegorical theory, ^ 
 •would leave us without a most necessary complement to the 
 Judean view of the conduct of the ten tribes which we get in 
 the historical books. Written in a spirit of protest against 
 the court of Zion, and probably based on recollections of an 
 actual occurrence, the poem cannot be dated long after the 
 death of Solomon." g 
 
 Sexto: — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, 
 in the aforesaid article "Bible," page 638b, wrote as 
 follows, videlicet : " The assertion that no psalm is 
 certainly David's is hyper-sceptical, and few remains 
 of ancient literature have an authorship so well attested 
 as the 18th or even as the 7th Psalm. These, along q 
 with the indubitably Davidic poems in the book of 
 Samuel, give a sufficiently clear image of a very unique 
 genius, and make the ascription of several other poems to 
 David extremely probable. So, too, a very strong argument 
 claims Psalm ii. for Solomon, and in later times we have 
 sure landmarks in the psalms of Habakkuk (Hab. iii.) and^j 
 Hezekiah (Isaiah xxxviii.) But the greater part of the 
 lyrics of the Old Testament remain anonymous, and we 
 can only group the psalms in broad masses, distinguished 
 by diversity of historical situation and by varying degrees 
 of freshness and personality. As a rule the older psalms 
 are the most personal, and are not written for the congrega- jj^ 
 tion, but flow from a present necessity of individual (though 
 not individualistic) spiritual life. This current of productive 
 psalmody runs apparently from David down to the Exile, 
 losing in the course of centuries something of its original 
 freshness and fire, but gaining a more chastened pathos and 
 a wider range of spiritual sympathy. Psalm li., obviously p 
 composed during the desolation of the temple, marks, per- 
 haps, the last phase of this development." As also in the 
 same article *' Bible," as already quoted under heads 
 "Primo" and " Secundo," pp. 6-11. As also in the 
 same article " Bible," page 640b : " In the period of Exile 
 more than one anonymous prophet raised his voice ; for 
 not only the * Great Unnamed ' of Isaiah xl.-lxvi., but the 
 
112 CASE OF EEV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 Aauthors of other Babylonian prophecies, are probably to 
 be assigned to this time." 
 
 Septimo : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, in 
 the aforesaid article — " The Question of Prophecy in the 
 Critical Schools of the Continent," British Quarterly 
 Eevieic, April 1870, page 326, wrote as follows, videlicet : 
 ;B"The prophets prophesied into the future, but not directly 
 to the future. Their duties lay with their own age, and only 
 by viewing them as tjaey move amidst their contemporaries 
 does the critic learn to love and to admire them." As also in 
 same article, p. 323 : " True prophecy is always ideal, seeking 
 to grasp, not the immediate future, but the eternal and un- 
 Q changing principle which Jehovah, the living God, is ever 
 working out more fully among his people. The critical study 
 of prophecy has done no greater service than to point out 
 how small a fraction of the prophetic writings is strictly pre- 
 dictive." As also in the said article " Bible," p. 640a: " The 
 prophecies contain — 1st, reproof of present sin; 2d, exhorta- 
 j)tion to present duty ; 3d, encouragement to the godly and 
 threatening to the wicked, based on the certainty of God's 
 righteous purpose. In this last connection prophecy is pre- 
 dictive. It lays hold of the ideal elements of the theocratic 
 conception, and depicts the way in which, by God's grace, they 
 «hall be actually realised in a Messianic age, and in a nation 
 ■£ purified by judgment and mercy. But in all this the prophet 
 starts from present sin, present needs, present historical 
 situations. There is no reason to think that a prophet ever 
 received a revelation which was not spoken directly and 
 pointedly to his own time." As also in ai-ticle, " The Six- 
 teenth Psalm," KTi)ositor,.'i^o. XXIIL, Nov. 1876, page 369 : 
 p " That the sixteenth Psalm delineates an ideal which through- 
 out the Old Testament dispensation was never realised fully 
 — that is, in a whole life — but which only expressed the high- 
 est climax of subjective conviction, was not felt to detract from 
 its religious truth. Nay, in religion the ideah's the true. The 
 destiny of him who is admitted into full fellowship with God 
 is life, and if that fellowship has never yet been perfectly real- 
 ised, it must be realised in time to come in the consummation 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 113 
 
 of God's kingdom and righteousness. This, like other glorious A 
 promises of God, is deferred because of sin ; but, though 
 deferred, is not cancelled. Thus the psalm, originally an 
 expression of direct personal persuasion, must necessarily, in 
 its place in the Old Testament liturgy, have acquired a pro- 
 phetic significance, and so must have been accepted as 
 parallel to such highest anticipations of eschatological pro- B 
 phecy as Isaiah xxv. 8 — ' He hath swallowed up death for 
 ever.'" As also in the same article, p. 370: "We 
 may say, then, that in the mouth of the Psalmist 
 himself our psalm did not set forth a remote prophecy 
 or a religious problem, but a truth of direct spiritual intui- 
 tion. But accepted into the Old Testament liturgy as an C 
 expression of the faith of Israel, and so confronted with that 
 experience of sin and imperfect communion with God of which 
 the Old Testament was so sensible, it necessarily becamepart 
 of a problem which nms through the whole dispensation, while 
 at the same time it was a help towards the solution of the pro- 
 blem. Like other psalms, in which the ideal is developed in D 
 the teeth of the empirical, it came topossess a prophetic value 
 for the Church, and it was felt to set forth truth only in so 
 far as it was transferred from the present to the future." 
 As also in the same article, p. 371 : " The psalm is ful- 
 filled in Christ, because in Christ the transcendental 
 ideal of fellowship with God which the psalm sets forth E 
 becomes a demonstrated reality. And becoming true of 
 Christ, the psalm is also true of all who are his, and in 
 the Psalmist's claim to use it for himself the sound- 
 ness of his religious insight is vindicated ; for Christ faced 
 death not only for himself, but as our Surety and Head." 
 
 Octavo : — You, the said Mr William Eobertson Smith, in F 
 the aforesaid article "Angel," page 27a, wrote as follows, 
 videlicet: "It is indeed certain — to pass to the second 
 side of the doctrine — that the angelic figures of the Bible 
 narrative are not mere allegories of divine providence, but 
 were regarded as possessing a certain superhuman reality. 
 But this reality is matter of assumption rather than of direct 
 teaching. Nowhere do we find a clear statement as to the 
 
114; CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A creation of the angels [Gen. ii. 1 is ambiguous, and it is 
 scarcely legitimate in Psalm cxlviii. to connect ver. 2 "with 
 ver. 5]. That they are endowed with special goodness and 
 insight, analogous to human qualities, appears as a popular 
 assumption, not as a doctrine of revelation (1 Sam. xxix. 9 ; 
 2 Sam. xiv. 17, xix. 27)." As also in the same article, page 
 
 B 28a : "The angelology of the New Testament attaches 
 closely to the notion already developed." As also in the 
 same article, page 26b : " The angelophany is a theophany 
 as direct as is possible to man. The idea of a full repre- 
 sentation of God to man, in all his revealed character, 
 by means of an angel, comes out most clearly for the angel 
 
 C that leads Israel in the very old passage. Exodus xxiii. 
 20, ff. This angel is sent before the people to keep them 
 in the way and bring them to Canaan. He speaks with 
 divine authority, and enforces his commands by divine 
 sanctions, ' for my name [i.e. the compass of my revealed 
 qualities] is in him.' The question naturally arises, how 
 
 D the angel who possesses these high predicates stands related 
 to angels who elsewhere appear not representing the whole 
 self-manifestation of God to his people, but discharging 
 isolated commissions. The biblical data for the solution 
 of this question are very scanty." 
 
 All which, or one or other part or parts thereof, being 
 
 E found proven against you, the said Mr William Eobertson 
 Smith, by the said Free Presbytery of Aberdeen, before 
 which you are to be tried, by your own public confession, 
 or, after habile and competent proof, you, the said Mr 
 William Piobertson Smith, ought to be punished, according 
 to the rules and discipline of the Church, and the usage 
 
 F observed in such cases, for the glory of God, the edifica- 
 tion of the Church, and the deterring of others holding the 
 same sacred office, from committing the like offences in all 
 time coming. 
 
 Signed at Aberdeen, in name and presence and by appoint- 
 ment of the Free Presbytery of Aberdeen this day 
 of , Eighteen hundred and seventy-seven years. 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 115 
 
 After very considerable discussion upon the way in which A. 
 the report of the committee had been given in, Mr Gardiner 
 moved the adoption of the following motion, viz. : — 
 
 " The Presbytery having heard read the form of proposed 
 libel against Professor Smith, and understanding from the 
 Convener of the Presbytery's Committee that said form had 
 been submitted to the legal adviser, but returned without B 
 revision for want of sufficient time before this meeting, on 
 the distinct understanding that every question relating to the 
 relevancy and competency of the libel is left open, and that 
 the Presbytery is not to be understood as at this stage 
 approving of the said form, resolve that the form of libel now 
 presented shall anew be submitted to the legal adviser in C 
 terms of Act XIV. I860, and remit to the former committee 
 to take the necessary steps for that purpose. Farther, they 
 instruct the committee, on receiving tbe opinion of the legal 
 adviser, to communicate with the Moderator of Presbytery, in 
 order that he may convene an in hunc effedum meeting on 
 an early day for receiving the committee's report, and forD 
 further procedure." 
 
 This motion was seconded by Principal Brown. 
 
 Professor Salmond moved, " That, having heard the report 
 of their diligence given in by the committee appointed on 
 1st August to ' consider the materials on which a libel may be 
 framed, and to prepare the draft of such a libel as they mayE 
 judge called for/ the Presbytery agrees to meet on Tuesday, 
 23d October, for the consideration of said report, and orders it 
 meantime to be printed for the use of members." 
 
 This motion was seconded by Mr Moir. 
 
 Mr Gardiner then stated that Professor Salmond and he 
 had agreed to a motion, which he would now propose, with-F 
 drawing that which he had formerly submitted. The motion 
 was as follows, viz. : — " The Presbjtery having heard read the 
 form of the proposed libel in the case of Professor Smith pre- 
 pared by the committee appointed for that purpose, resolve 
 that the same lie on the table till the 23d October next, when 
 they will meet to consider farther procedure, and meanwhile 
 order the Draft Form of Libel to be printed for the use of 
 
1 1 6 CASE OF EEV. PROFESSOR SMITH, 
 
 A the members, and remit to the Committee to see this 
 done." 
 
 Professor Salmond seconded this motion, wliich was unani- 
 mously agreed to, and the Committee were instructed accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 B At Aberdeen, the 2M, clay of October 1877 yeai^s. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 Thereafter Mr Johnstone, seconded by Dr Binnie, moved, 
 
 " That it would be but shewing due respect to the memory of 
 
 Mr Gardiner, who has been so much mixed up with the case 
 
 C of Professor Smith, that we should postpone the consideration 
 
 of the case of Professor Smith till a future meeting," 
 
 Mr Bannatyne, seconded by Mr Masson, moved, " That the 
 Presbytery proceed to the consideration of Professor Smith's 
 case." 
 
 After deliberation, the Presbytery allowed Mr Johnstone 
 D to withdraw his motion. 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the case of Professor Smith. 
 
 Mr D. Mitchell gave in the following report from the com- 
 mittee anent the printing of the libel : — " The committee 
 report that they met and corrected a proof of the printed 
 draft libel, which, having been printed and revised, was circu- 
 Elated among the members of Presbytery, and they now lay a 
 corrected copy on the table of the Presbytery." 
 
 The Presbytery sustained this report. 
 
 Thereafter Mr D. Mitchell submitted the following motion, 
 viz. : — " The Presbytery, having considered the form of libel 
 laid on their table, approve of it so far as to employ it for 
 r raising the questions of relevancy that may be involved in 
 the case, and resolved to proceed with it in terms of Act V. 
 1853; but the Presbytery decline to commit themselves as to 
 the relevancy of any one of its counts, until Professor Smith 
 shall have the opportunity which that act provides for stating 
 his objections at the meeting therein required to be held. 
 Farther, the Presbytery, finding that the terms of Act XIV, 
 1860 regarding the revisal of libels by the legal adviser, do 
 
MINUTES CF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 117 
 
 not exactly define at what stage in connection with previous A 
 legislation the libel should be submitted to the legal adviser 
 for revision, resolve to refer, and do hereby refer, to the 
 ensuing meeting of the Commission of Assembly for advice in 
 the question, whether they should submit it to him before 
 sending a copy of it to Professor Smith, and appointing the 
 meeting for the consideration of the relevancy, or should delay B 
 doing so till a subsequent stage, and that the Presbytery 
 resolve to meet on the day of to receive the 
 
 deliverance of the Commission, and for farther procedure in 
 the case." 
 
 This motion w^as seconded by Dr Longmuir. 
 
 Mr Laidlaw moved " That the Presbytery, before consulting 
 the legal adviser with reference to the libel, have further 
 opportunity of considering the draft generally, and especially 
 whether it covers the entire ground of the case ; and for this 
 purpose agree to meet, in hunc efectum, on Wednesday the 
 31st current, at eleven o'clock A.M." 
 
 This motion was seconded by Mr Sloan. D 
 
 After discussion, the two motions were put to the vote, 
 the state of the vote to be, first, Mr Mitchell's; or, second, 
 Mr Laidlaw 's. And the roll being called, and votes marked, 
 it carried second motion by 21 to 15. And the Presbytery 
 find accordingly. 
 
 From this finding Mr D. Mitchell dissented, and protested g 
 for leave to complain to the Commission of the General 
 Assembly, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, and craved 
 extracts, which were allowed. To this dissent Dr Long- 
 muir, Messrs Bannatyne, Masson, Arthur, Leslie, and Selbie 
 adhered. 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Laidlaw and Sloan ap 
 committee to answer the reasons of dissent, and to defend 
 the decision of the Presbytery at the bar of the Commission 
 of the General Assembly. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the Slst day of October 1877 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
] 1 8 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 j^ It was moved by Mr Moir, seconded by Mr Yule, " That 
 the Presbytery resolve itself into a comniittee, for the pur- 
 pose of considering generally their committee's report on the 
 case of Professor Smith," 
 
 It was also moved by Mr Selbie, seconded by Mr D, 
 Mitchell, " That the Presbytery proceed to the business as 
 
 j> appointed at last meeting." 
 
 After discussion, Mr Moir, with consent of the Presbytery, 
 withdrew his motion. 
 
 Whereupon Mr Laidlaw, seconded by Mr Low, moved, 
 " That a third alternative be added to the preamble of the 
 libel, in the following terms, viz. : — or otherwise the publishing 
 
 p and promulgating of writings concerning the books of Holy 
 Scripture, which, partly by their neutrality of attitude, and 
 partly by their rashness of critical construction, tend to dis- 
 parage the divine authority and inspired character of these 
 books, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves, and in the 
 Confession of Faith, are severally and together offences," &c. 
 
 ■j^ After deliberation, the Presbytery unanimously agreed to 
 adopt this motion as amended, on the suggestion of Mr 
 D. Mitchell, in the following form, viz. : — " That the Presby- 
 tery make the following alterations on the Draft Form of Libel 
 presented by their committee, viz., after the words ' therein 
 set forth,' on the 18th line, page 3d, of printed draft, to add 
 
 •r- the following words, under reservation of their competency 
 and relevancy, viz. — ' or otherwise the publishing and pro- 
 mulgating of writings concerning the books of Holy Scripture, 
 which, partly by their neutrality of attitude, and partly by 
 their rashness of critical construction, tend to disparage the 
 divine authority and inspired character of these books, as set 
 
 P forth in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of 
 Faith.' " Also to substitute the words " are severally offences," 
 for the words, " is an offence of a heinous nature," on the 18th 
 and 19th lines, and for the words "and calls" to substitute 
 the words "which call," on the 20th line, all of said page. 
 Also after the words " therein set forth," on the 30th line, 
 page oth, to add the following words — " or otherwise to 
 exhibit neutrality of attitude, and rashness of critical con- 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 119 
 
 struction, tending to disparage the divine authority and in- ^ 
 spired character of the books of Holy Scripture, as set forth 
 in the Scriptures themselves and in the Confession of Faith, 
 as aforesaid." Also at the close of octavo page 23, the follow- 
 ing, viz. : — " Nono. You, the said Mr William Robertson 
 Smith, have exhibited the foresaid neutrality of attitude, and 
 rashness of critical construction, in all or some parts or part B 
 of the several extracts above quoted, under heads Prirao, 
 Secundo, Tertio, and Quarto respectively; and which ex- 
 tracts, or parts or part thereof, do exhibit the foresaid 
 neutrality of attitude, and rashness of critical construction," 
 
 Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Masson, moved, " That the 
 Presbytery make the following alteration on the Draft Form Q 
 of Libel presented by their committee, viz. — to substitute for 
 the word ' punished,' on line 15 of page 23, the words, ' sub- 
 jected to such sentence as may be found suitable to the 
 character of the offence.' " This motion was unanimously 
 agreed to. 
 
 Mr Yule moved, seconded by Mr Johnstone, "That the words D 
 'in themselves,' page 3, line 12, and the words 'in them- 
 selves,' page 24), be omitted." It was also moved and seconded, 
 ' That the word ' and ' be inserted immediately before the 
 words ' in their bearing,' page 3, line 13." 
 
 It was moved by Mr Selbie, seconded by Mr R. A. Mitchell, 
 " That the clause stand as it is." jj 
 
 After discussion, the first two motions were withdrawn, 
 with consent of the Presbytery, and Mr Selbie's motion was 
 agreed to. 
 
 Thereafter Mr D. Mitchell moved, seconded by Mr Laidlaw, 
 " That the Presbytery having considered the Draft Form of 
 Libel as it now stands, with the changes now agreed to, accept p 
 it so far as to employ it for raising the questions of relevancy 
 that may be involved in the case, and resolve to proceed with 
 it in terms of Act V. 1853, but the Presbytery decline to 
 commit themselves as to the competency and relevancy of any 
 one of its counts or propositions, until Professor Smith shall 
 have the opportunity which that act provides for stating 
 his objections at the meeting therein required to be held. 
 
120 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A Further, the Presbytery find that the terms of Act XIV. 1860, 
 regarding the revision of libels by the legal adviser, do not 
 exactly define at what stage in connection with the previous 
 legislation the libel should be submitted to the legal adviser 
 for revision, resolve to refer, and do hereby refer, to the 
 ensuing meeting of the Commission of Assembly for advice in 
 B the question, whether they should submit it to him before 
 sending a copy of it to Professor Smith, and appointing the 
 meeting for consideration of the relevancy, or should delay 
 doing so till a subsequent stage." 
 
 This motion was unanimously agreed to. 
 
 The Presbytery then appointed Mr Sloan and Mr D. 
 C Mitchell to state the Reference at the bar of the Commission 
 of Assembly. 
 
 It was moved by Mr Laidlaw, seconded by Mr Masson, that 
 Mr D. Mitchell be appointed Convener of the Committee for 
 preparing the libel, in room of the late Mr Gardiner. 
 
 This motion was unanimously agreed to. 
 D The Presbytery appointed the clerk and Mr D. Mitchell 
 to make the alterations now agreed upon in the Draft 
 Libel. 
 
 The Presbytery instructed the committee to get the libel 
 as now amended printed anew. 
 
 Mr D. Mitchell and the other dissentients intimated that 
 E they fell from their dissent and complaint referred to in the 
 minute of 23d October. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the Uh day of December 1877 years. — 
 Which day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. 
 Inter alia, — 
 F Thereafter Mr D. Mitchell gave in a report from the com- 
 mittee appointed to make the additions to the Draft Libel' 
 in the case of Professor Smith, agreed to by the Presbytery. 
 These additions were made, and after careful revision, the 
 draft was put into the printer's hands and one hundred copies 
 printed, and a copy forwarded to every member of Presbytery. 
 This report was ordered to be kept in retentis. 
 
 The Clerk gave in and read the deliverance of the Com- 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. ' 121 
 
 mission of the General Assembly, in the case of Professor A 
 Smith, and the tenor follows, viz. : — 
 
 " At Edinburgh, and tuithin the Free Assembly Hall, the 
 21 si day of November 1877 years. — Which day the Commis- 
 sion of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland 
 met and was constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 " The Commission took up a reference from the Presbytery B 
 of Aberdeen as to the time when the libel framed against 
 Professor Smith should be submitted for revison to the legal 
 adviser. Parties were called, and Mr Sloan, minister, and Mr 
 D. Mitchell, elder, appeared, and Mr Mitchell stated the 
 reference. The Commission sustain the reference, and advise 
 the Presbytery of Aberdeen to submit the libel for revision C 
 to the legal adviser before putting it into the hands of Pro- 
 fessor Smith. 
 
 "Extracted from the Records of the Commission of Assembly, 
 by Wm. Wilson, CI. Eccl. Scot. Lib." " 
 
 It was moved by Mr Laidlaw, seconded by Mr Sloan, and 
 unanimously agreed to, "That the Presbytery resolve, in J) 
 conformity with the advice of the Commission,' to submit the 
 proposed libel to the legal adviser before putting it into the 
 hands of Professor Smith, and accordingly instruct the Clerk 
 to send forthwith a copy of the libel to the legal adviser, -with 
 an extract of this resolution." 
 
 E 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 27th day of December 1877 years. — 
 Which day the Free Presbytery met, and was constituted. 
 Inter alia, — 
 
 The Clerk then laid on the table the libel in the case of 
 Professor Smith, as revised by the legal adviser of the 
 Church. The letter accompanying the libel and explaining p 
 the nature of the corrections and suggestions was read. 
 
 The Presbytery agreed that the Clerk should read over the 
 formal corrections, and that the pencil suggestions should be 
 taken up afterwards. 
 
 The libel was then read, and the Clerk suggested that as 
 one o'clock had been tixed upon to take up the call to Mr 
 
122 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A Sloan, the farther consideration of the libel should be deferred 
 till Mr Sloan's case was disposed of. This was agreed. 
 
 The Presbytery returned to the Hall, and resumed con- 
 sideration of the libel ; and after discussion, a vote was 
 taken whether to proceed now or to defer, and by a majority 
 it carried " defer," and the Presbytery resolved to meet at 
 
 B seven P.M. in this place. 
 
 Eoderti die, at seven o'clock j).m. — In the temporary absence 
 of Dr Spence, Mr Iverach was appointed Clerk. 
 
 The Presbytery resumed consideration of the libel in the 
 case of Professor Smith, and it was moved by Mr Laidlaw, 
 
 C seconded by Mr G. Macdonald, "That the alterations made 
 in the Draft Libel by the legal adviser be accepted by the 
 Presbytery in the sense in which the Draft Libel itself has 
 already been accepted." 
 
 It was moved by Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Masson, 
 " That the Draft Libel having been revised by the law adviser, 
 
 Dand certain alterations made thereon, the Presbytery remit 
 the said alterations to the Libel Committee, to compare the 
 same in so far as they relate to references to articles quoted 
 in the libel with the articles themselves, to consider the 
 effect of the alterations on the minor proposition, and, if 
 they shall see cause, to communicate with the legal adviser 
 
 E in regard to these and other alterations, and to report, and 
 that the following names be added to the committee." 
 
 After reasoning, both these motions were withdrawn, with 
 
 . consent of the Presbytery, and the following deliverance was 
 unanimously agreed to, viz. : — " Doubt having arisen as to the 
 effect, especially upon the minor proposition, of the altera- 
 
 F tions made by the legal adviser, the Clerk was instructed to 
 communicate with him on this point, and to report, Messrs 
 Iverach and D. Mitchell were appointed to assist the Clerk 
 in making this communication. 
 
 The Presbytery then took into consideration the sugges- 
 tions of the legal adviser — those, namely, which were written 
 in pencil on the revised draft copy of the libel. 
 
 The first suggestion was to substitute the words, " contra- 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. !' 23 
 
 diet, or are opposed to," for the word " subvert," in page i. B. A 
 2. It was moved by Mr Johnstone, seconded by Mr Laid law, 
 " That the suggestion of the legal adviser be accepted." It 
 was moved by Principal Brown, seconded by Mr Bannatyne, 
 " That the word 'subvert ' be retained in the libel." On the 
 vote being taken, 9 voted for the first motion (Mr John- 
 stone's), and 8 for the second motion fPrincipal Brown's), and B 
 the Presbytery find accordingly. From this decision Prin- 
 cipal Brown dissented, and protested for leave to complain to 
 the ensuing meeting of the Commission of Assembly in 
 March, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, and craved 
 extracts, which were allowed. Messrs W. L. Mitchell, Masson, 
 Hendry, Bannatyne, D. Mitchell, and Dr Gordon, adhered to G 
 this dissent and complaint. Principal Brown gave in the 
 following reasons of dissent, viz. : — " I dissent from the 
 Presbytery's resolution in regard to Page i. B. 2 of the libel, 
 for the following reasons : 1st, Because the words, as they 
 stand, are an intelligible arid fitting expression of the offence 
 contemplated under this head ; 2d, Because the words D 
 adopted are not so suitable for this purpose." 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Laidlaw, Johnstone, and 
 Iverach to answer the reasons of dissent, and to defend the 
 judgment of the Presbytery at the bar of the Commission. 
 
 The second suggestion of the legal adviser consisted in 
 underlining and querying the words, page i. D. 1, 2, 3, "orE 
 in their bearing on any other doctrine or doctrines therein 
 set forth." It was moved by Mr Masson, seconded by Mr 
 Bannatyne, " That these words be retained as they stand in 
 the libel." It was moved by Mr Low, seconded by Mr Yule, 
 " That these words be deleted." After reasoning, these 
 motions were withdrawn, and the Presbytery unanimously j* 
 came to the following deliverance, viz. : — " In page i. B., 
 instead of ' any other doctrine or doctrines,' insert ' the 
 doctrines of prophecy and of angels ;' also in page i. D. 2, 
 and also in page iii. G.H, 2." 
 
 From this decision Mr Bannatyne dissented. 
 
 It was agreed to accept the legal adviser's suggestion 
 to omit the word " partly," page i, D. 4. After the words. 
 
1 24 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A " neutrality of attitude," page i. D. 5, to insert the Avords, " in 
 relation to the said doctrines ;" to omit the word " partly," in 
 the same line. After the word " rashness," in the same line, 
 to insert the words, " of statement in regard to the critical 
 construction of the Scriptures ;" and to omit the words, " of 
 critical construction," page i. D. 5, E. 1. 
 
 B It was agreed to omit the word " entirely," page ii. I). 4. 
 It was agreed (subject to the dissent and complaint already 
 taken against the alteration, page i. B. 2) to insert the words, 
 " do contradict or are opposed to," instead of, " do subvert," 
 page iii. 5. 3. 
 
 At the request of Professor Smith, and with the concur- 
 
 C rence of the Presbytery, it was agreed to correct the following 
 misprints in the writings as published, viz. : — In page v. E. 1, 
 for " hierarchial," read " hierarchical ;" in page ix. C. 2, for 
 " devised," read. " derived ;" in page ix. C. 4, for " influences," 
 read " inferences." * It was also agreed, at Professor Smith's 
 request, to indicate in the extracts made in the Draft Libel 
 
 D from' the published writings of Professor Smith, the paragraphs 
 as they appear in his writings as published. 
 
 It was moved by Mr Bannatyne, seconded by Mr W. L. 
 Mitchell, and unanimously agreed to, that the Committee 
 appointed on 1st of August to draw up the libel be thanked 
 for their diligence, and discharged. 
 
 E 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 8th day of January 1878 years. — Which 
 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 Mr Johnstone gave in the following answers to Principal 
 
 Brown's Reasons of Dissent from the Presbytery's resolution 
 
 in regard to page i. B. 2 of Draft Libel, viz. : — 1. " The words 
 
 T as they stand in the Draft Libel were too vague and unde- 
 fined adequately to describe an ecclesiastical offence ; 2. The 
 words substituted on the suggestion of the legal adviser are 
 precise and definite, and afford a clear issue for the decision of 
 the Presbytery. 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the case of Professor Smith, 
 in accordance with the resolution of last meeting. 
 * Corrected in text, p. 95 et seq. 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 125 
 
 The Clerk reported tliat, as instructed by the Presbyter}'-, A 
 he had transmitted to the legal adviser a copy of the Draft 
 Libel, along with a Memorial and Queries for the opinion of 
 the legal adviser as to the effects of his alterations on the 
 minor proposition. 
 
 The Clerk then read the memorial and the answers of the 
 legal adviser to the queries submitted to him, and laid on the B 
 table a copy of the Draft Libel as again revised by the legal 
 adviser. 
 
 The Presbytery agreed to consider the amendments made by 
 the legal adviser, when Mr Laidlaw moved, " That the whole 
 of the alterations be accepted, and that the Presbytery proceed 
 to arrange the libel in accordance with these alterations." C 
 
 After reasoning, Mr Iverach moved, " That the Presbytery 
 consider the alterations and new suggestions made by the 
 legal adviser page by page from the first page." 
 
 This motion was unanimously agreed to, and the Presbytery 
 proceeded accordingly. 
 
 The first alteration, as appeared from the revised Draft D 
 Libel No. 2, was to omit the words " do contradict," substi- 
 tuted for the word " subvert " in page i. B. 2 at the meeting 
 of Presbytery held on the 27th December last. 
 
 Mr Laidlaw moved, seconded by Mr Macqueen, " That 
 the Presbytery adhere to the alterations previously agreed 
 to on page i. B. 2, reserving the rights of those who dissented E 
 and complained against that finding." This motion was 
 agreed to, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 It was agreed to substitute the words "and to" instead of 
 the word " or" in page i. B. 5 ; also to substitute the word 
 "and" instead of the word " or" in page i. D. 1; also to 
 insert the word "writings" after the word " which" in page F 
 i. D. 4, all as suggested by the legal adviser. 
 
 It was agreed not to accept the suggestion of the legal 
 adviser to delete " censure or" in page i. E. 4 and page ii. 
 A. L The Presbytery resolve that these words stand as 
 they are in the Draft Libel. The Presbytery further resolve 
 to insert the word "other" before the word "judicial" in 
 page ii. A. 1. 
 
12G CASE OF REV, PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A With regard to the deletion of the words " do contradict 
 or" made by the legal adviser, which was substituted for the 
 words " do subvert " at the meeting of Presbytery held on 
 27th December last, in page iii. F. 2, the Presbytery resolve 
 that, subject to the Dissent and Complaint then taken, these 
 words stand as agreed to at said meeting of Presbytery. 
 
 B It was agreed to substitute the words " to the doctrines of 
 Prophecy and Angels," instead of the words "other doctrine 
 or doctrines," in page iii. G. 1 ; to substitute the words " as 
 also" instead of the words " or otherwise," in page iii. G. 2 ; 
 to substitute the word " and " instead of the word " oi'," in 
 page iii. H. 1 ; to substitute the words " the doctrines of 
 
 G Prophecy and Angels" instead of the words "other doctrine 
 or doctrines," in page iii. H. 2; to substitute the words "as 
 also" instead of the words " or otherwise," in page iii. H. 2 ; 
 to insert after the word "attitude" in page iii. H. 4, the 
 words " in relation to the said doctrines ;" to insert the word 
 " rashness ;" in the same line the words " of statement in 
 
 D regard to the;" and after the word "construction" in the 
 same line the words " of the Scriptures," all as suggested by 
 the legal adviser. 
 
 It was agreed to make the minor proposition alternative, 
 and to accept the form drawn up by the legal adviser, as 
 contained in his reply to the Memorial and Queries. 
 
 E The Presbytery resolve, subject to the Dissent and 
 Complaint already taken, to insert the words " do contradict 
 or " before the words " are opposed to," in the two places 
 Avhere these occur in the form prescribed by the legal 
 adviser. 
 
 It was agreed to accept the alterations made by the legal 
 
 Y adviser, and engrossed on the Draft Copy of the Libel No. 
 2, from page iv. G, to page xviii. H. 
 
 It was also agreed to delete the words from page xviii. H 
 to page xix. A. 3, beginning " Nono," and ending " of critical 
 construction." 
 
 It was also agreed to accept the alterations made by the 
 legal adviser at page xix. A. 5 B. C. as engrossed on the 
 Draft Copy of the Libel No. 2. 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 127 
 
 At this stage, it was moved by Mr Iverach, seconded by A 
 Mr G. Macdonald, " That the Clerk, with the assistance of 
 Messrs Iverach and D. Mitchell, be instructed to print the 
 Draft Libel, with all the alterations made by the legal 
 adviser, and agreed to by the Presbytery. Further, the 
 Presbytery agree to meet on Tuesday, loth January, to 
 receive the printed libel as corrected." ^ 
 
 Mr Sloan moved, seconded by Mr Gage, " That the Pres- 
 bytery continue the consideration of the libel before having 
 it printed." After reasoning, Mr Sloan withdrew his motion, 
 and the motion of Mr Iverach became the finding of the 
 Presbytery. 
 
 From this finding Mr Sloan dissented, and gave in theC 
 following reason, viz. :—" That there are inaccuracies and 
 inconsistencies in form in the Draft Libel which have not 
 yet been considered by the Presbytery." This dissent was 
 signed by J. M. Sloan, J. Laidlaw, James Gage, and William 
 Innes. 
 
 The Clerk was instructed to circulate the corrected copy ofD 
 the libel as printed among the members of Presbytery. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 15th day of January 1878 years.— ^ hick 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 The Presbytery resumed consideration of the Draft E 
 Libel in the case of Professor Smith. 
 
 The Clerk laid on the table the revised copy of the libel 
 as printed in terms of the minute of 8th January current. 
 {See page 1 of this vol.) 
 
 At this stage, Mr Iverach asked the question, viz., "Is 
 it in the power of the Presbytery to make alterations onF 
 the libel up to the time when it shall be ordered to be 
 served on Professor Smith ?" 
 
 Mr Iverach moved, seconded by Mr James Moir, " That 
 Mr Stephen be now heard." 
 
 It was moved by Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Masson, 
 *• That' the Presbytery resolve to consider the relevancy of 
 the said Form of Libel, and the propriety of serving it at 
 
128 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A a meeting of Presbytery to be held in the Presbytery Hall 
 here, on the 12th day of February next, at eleven o'clock a.m. 
 They hereby instruct their officer to summon Mr AVilliam 
 Eobertson Smith in regular form to attend said meeting ; 
 and they hereby instruct their Clerk to transmit to him a 
 copy of the proposed libel, and of the minute now agreed 
 
 B to regarding it, in such tenns as to give him full ten day's 
 notice according to Act V. Assembly 1853." 
 
 After reasoning, Mr Iverach withdrew his motion with 
 consent of the Presbytery, and the Presbytery find in terms 
 of Mr Mitchell's motion. 
 
 The Presbytery adjourn to meet in this place on Tuesday, 
 
 Q 5th February, at eleven a.m., for ordinary business, and on 
 Tuesday, 12tli February, at eleven o'clock a.m., anent the 
 case of Professor Smith, and for ordinary business, and 
 closed with prayer. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 12th day of February 1878 years. — Which 
 ]) day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the case of Professor 
 Smith, in accordance with the minute of the 15th January. 
 
 The Clerk laid on the table and read the execution of the 
 citation of Professor Smith, which was found to have been 
 £ duly carried out. 
 
 Professor Smith appeared in his place as a member of 
 the court. 
 
 Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Masson, moved, '' That 
 as a printed paper titled, ' Answer to the Libel now before 
 the Presbytery of Aberdeen,' and circulated by Professor 
 -p Smith among members of Presbytery this morning, has, 
 before being submitted to the Presbytery, been published 
 in one of the local papers, and made the subject of an 
 article therein, the Presbytery consider such publication of 
 said paper, before it had been submitted to the Presbytery, 
 to be an irregular procedure." 
 
 Mr Low, seconded by Mr Iverach, moved, " That this 
 motion be negatived." 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 129 
 
 After discussion, Mr Low, with consent of Presbytery, A. 
 withdrew his motion, and Mr Mitchell's motion became the 
 finding of the Presbytery. 
 
 From this decision Messrs Low and Iverach dissented 
 simpliciter. 
 
 Mr Sloan, seconded by Mr Bell, moved, " That the 
 Presbytery accept the paper of date 11th February 1878, B 
 handed in by Professor Smith as an answer to the libel 
 now before the Free Church Presbytery of Aberdeen, as 
 part of his defence, and as a document in the case, {tiee 
 page 25 of this vol.) 
 
 Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Masson, moved, " That 
 the object of summoning Professor Smith to this meeting C 
 being to intimate to him definitely the form which the 
 charges, if found relevant, will assume, ' in order that he 
 may suffer no injustice;' and no provision being made by 
 the laws of the church for any formal defence by him at 
 this stage, beyond his rights as an ordinary member of 
 Presbytery, and while the Presbytery are willing to allow D 
 Professor Smith to read a statement by him anent the 
 charges, they decline to receive it as a defence or paper in 
 the case, the libel not having yet been found relevent or 
 served, more especially as the statement is not confined 
 to the relevancy, and they resolve now to proceed to con- 
 sider the relevancy as formerly arranged." E 
 
 After discussion, Mr Sloan amended his motion as fol- 
 lows, viz. : — " That the Presbytery, without deciding the 
 question of law, accept the paper of date 11th February, 
 handed in by Professor Smith, entitled * Answer to the 
 Form of Libel now before the Free Church Presbytery of 
 Aberdeen,' as a document in the case." F 
 
 Whereupon Mr "D. Mitchell withdrew his motion, with 
 consent of Presbytery, and the motion of Mr Sloan became 
 the decision of the Presbytery. 
 
 Thereafter Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Masson, 
 moved, " That Professor Smith be now allowed to read his 
 paper." 
 . Mr Moil', seconded by Mr Selbie, moved, " That the 
 
] 30 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A paper being printed, and in the hands of the members, be 
 held as read ; and that the Presbytery do now adjourn till 
 Thursday the 14th current, at ten o'clock a.m." 
 
 After deliberation, Mr Mitchell withdrew his motion, with 
 consent of the Presbytery, and Mr Moir's motion became 
 the finding of the Presbytery. 
 
 B The Presbytery then adjourned to meet, in hunc effectum, 
 anent the case of Professor Smith, in this place, on Thurs- 
 day the 14th current, at ten o'clock a.m., and closed with 
 prayer. 
 
 At Aberdeen , the 14tk day of February 1878 years. — Which 
 
 C day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 Principal Brown, seconded by Mr D. Mitchell, moved, 
 " That the Presbytery having considered the Form of Libel 
 against Professor Smith, and heard him thereanent, resolve 
 that the same, including its three charges in the major 
 
 B proposition, and the corresponding averments and extracts 
 in the minor proposition, be found relevant as a libel." 
 
 Mr Anderson, seconded by Mr Dalgarno, moved, " That 
 the Presbytery find the second charge in the major propo- 
 sition, along with the corresponding averments and extracts 
 in the minor, in their bearing on that charge, relevant." 
 
 J,; Mr Stephen moved, " That the Presbytery find that the 
 proposed libel, however excellent and applicable as a whole, 
 is irrelevant in several respects, viz. : In respect that, in 
 the first premise, it is inapplicable, stating the opinion as 
 applicable to Professor Smith's writings, that the Aaronic 
 priesthood, and the great part of the laws and ordinances 
 
 } of the Levitical system were not instituted in the time of 
 Moses : In respect that, in the second premise, the state- 
 ment is unwarranted that it is maintained in Professor 
 Smith's writings that Deuteronomy is not a historical 
 record, but was made to assume this character by a writer 
 of a later date ; whereas his opinion applies to the legisla- 
 tive parts of Deuteronomy : In respect that, in the third 
 premise, the opinion is exaggerate, assuming a standard 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 131 
 
 of judging not compatible with the human agency employed : A. 
 In respect that, in the seventh premise, the opinion is 
 inapplicable and exaggerate ' that predictions arose merely 
 from so-called spiritual insight.' The writings say they 
 arose in spiritual intuition, and the divine Spirit might 
 employ the human mind to the full extent, in the percep- 
 tion of God's righteous purposes, while superintending and B 
 controlling it all." 
 
 Mr Stephen's motion not having found a seconder, fell to 
 the ground. 
 
 At this stage, after considerable discussion on the Pres- 
 bytery's position and procedure, Mr Laidlaw, seconded by 
 Mr Johnstone, moved, "That the Presbytery proceed toQ 
 . discuss the relevancy of the first charge, and in so doing 
 exhaust the relevancy of all the particulars in the major 
 (Prirno to Octavo), and the relevancy of all the particulars 
 in the minor in relation to this first charge, before taking 
 up the relevancy of either of the alternative forms of the 
 charge for tendency." D 
 
 After some discussion, Mr Laidlaw put his motion in the 
 following form: — "That the first charge, viz. 'the pub- 
 lishing and promulgating,' &c. (Libel, page i. B.C.), being 
 truly a subject of Church censure, this portion of the major 
 where the offence is stated in its simple and abstract form, 
 and that the Presbytery find accordingly : Further, that e 
 the Presbytery having so found, proceed to examine the 
 relevancy of the particulars {Primo to Octavo), both in the 
 major and in the minor, in the way of determining (1) 
 whether, as stated in the major, they are all or any of them 
 relevantly supported by the quotations in the minor ; and 
 "if so (2), whether they are relevant to constitute the offence ^ 
 which in its simple and abstract form has now been found 
 relevant." 
 
 After considerable discussion as to how the Presbytery 
 ought to proceed at this stage, Mr Iverach, seconded by 
 Mr Moir, moved, " That the debate be now suspended, and 
 that the order of procedure be settled." 
 
 Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Bannatyne, moved, 
 
132 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A" That after various motions had been made, seconded, and 
 debated at length, it is incompetent and interfering with 
 the Hberty of discussion to suspend the debate -without 
 putting the various motions in regular manner to the 
 vote." 
 
 A vote was then taken between the motions of Mr Iverach 
 
 Band Mr D. Mitchell, and the roll being called and votes 
 marked, Mr Iverach's motion carried by 21 to 19, and the 
 Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 From this decision Mr D. Mitchell dissented, and pro- 
 tested for leave to complain to the ensuing Commission in 
 March, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, craved 
 
 C extracts, which were allowed, and gave in the following 
 reasons, viz. : — " 1. Assuming, but not admitting, that at 
 a meeting specially held for considering the relevancy of 
 the Form of Libel it was competent to arrange any parti- 
 cular mode of procedure, it should have been done before 
 commencing the debate. 2. That after several motions had 
 
 D been duly made, seconded, and debated at length, the only 
 waj^ that those motions could be disposed of was by regular 
 votes, whereas they were now laid aside without being 
 disposed of. 3. That. any motion bearing upon or dis- 
 posing of the relevancy, in whole or in part, was relevant, 
 and could not be laid aside without a vote, and so to lay it 
 
 E aside was undue interference with the freedom of dis- 
 cussion." 
 
 Drs Brown and Longmuir, Messrs Bannatyne, Masson, 
 Selbie, Arthur, Anderson, and Hendry, adhered to this 
 dissent. 
 
 Mr Iverach gave notice that at the evening sederunt he 
 
 F would move, " That the Presbytery proceed to consider the 
 relevancy of the libel seriatim." 
 
 The Presbytery adjourned, to meet in this place at half- 
 past six o'clock in the evening, and closed with prayer. 
 
 Eodem die, at half -past six p.m. — The Presbj'tery met by 
 adjournment, and was constituted. 
 
 Mr Iverach, in terms of the notice of motion given at 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 133 
 
 the previous sederunt, moved, " That the Presbj-terj^ A 
 proceed to consider the relevancy of the libel seriatim." 
 This motion was seconded by Mr Johnstone. 
 
 After deliberation, this motion was agreed to. 
 
 Principal Brown said that, subject to the motion of a 
 more general nature, which he had made in the forenoon, 
 he would now move, " That the Presbytery find the first B 
 charge in the major proposition of the Form of Libel 
 against Professor Smith, with the corresponding averments 
 and extracts in the minor proposition, in their bearing 
 upon said charge, to be relevant." 
 
 Mr Laidlaw here stated that part of his motion at the 
 forenoon sederunt had been to consider the relevancy of C 
 the various particulars, from Primo to Octavo. Whereas the 
 motion of Dr Brown was a slump motion, covering the 
 whole of the particulars, without examining them seriatim, 
 as ranged under the first charge. 
 
 Whereupon Dr Brown, with consent of the Presbytery, 
 withdrew his motion in the terms in which it had been put. D 
 
 Mr Laidlaw, seconded by Mr Bell, then moved, " That 
 the first charge, viz., ' publishing and promulgating of 
 opinions,' &c., being truly a subject of Church censure, 
 this portion of the major, where the oft'ence is stated in its 
 simple and abstract form is relevant, and that the Presby- 
 bytery find accordingly." E 
 
 This motion was agreed to. 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the first {Primo) particular 
 under the first alternative major proposition. 
 
 Whereupon Principal Brown, seconded by Mr D. Mitchell, 
 moved, " That the Presbytery find that the first particular 
 under the major proposition of the Form of Libel against F 
 Professor Smith, with the corresponding extracts and 
 averments in the minor proposition, to be relevant." 
 
 Mr Iverach moved, seconded by Mr Moir, " That defer- 
 ring for the moment the question of the relevancy of the 
 abstract proposition under Primo, the Presbytery find that 
 the said proposition is not brought home to Professor 
 Smith's articles by the narrative in the minor." 
 
] 34 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A Mr Laidlaw, seconded by Mr Sloan, moved, " That the 
 first particular under the major proposition, with the corre- 
 sponding averments and extracts in the minor, be held not 
 relevant to support the first charge." 
 
 After deliberation, Mr Iverach, with consent of the Pres- 
 bytery, was allowed to withdraw his motion. 
 
 13 Tho two motions (Professor Brown's and Mr Laidlaw's) 
 were then put to the vote, and the roll being called and 
 votes marked, Mr Laidlaw's motion was carried by 18 to 14, 
 and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 From this decision Principal Brown dissented, and pro- 
 tested for leave to complain to the ensuing Synod in April, 
 
 C took instruments in the Clerk's hands, and craved extracts, 
 which were allowed. 
 
 The Presbj^tery adjourned to meet, in hunc effectum (case 
 of Professor Smith), in this place, on Tuesday the 19th 
 current, at eleven o'clock a.m., and closed with prayer. 
 
 D At Aberdeen, the 19th day of Fchniary 1878 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Laidlaw, Iverach, and 
 Johnstone, a committee to answer the Keasons of Dissent 
 given in by Mr D. Mitchell on the 14th current, and to 
 
 E defend the decision of the Presbytery at the bar of the 
 Commission in March. 
 
 Dr Brown gave in the following Eeason of Dissent from 
 the finding of the Presbytery on the 14th current, with 
 relation to Primo, viz. : — "Because, based as it is upon a 
 severance of the priesthood of x\aron from the separation 
 
 p of the Levites to be their assistants in the service of 
 the tabernacle, the latter being represented as having no 
 actual existence for many centuries after the death of 
 Moses, it compromises the historical authenticity, and 
 consequently the divine inspiration and authority of a 
 large and fundamental portion of the Pentateuch, and 
 ought to be resisted to the last." 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Moir, Yule, Laidlaw, 
 
MIKUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 135 
 
 and Sloan, a committee to answer Principal Brown's A 
 reason of dissent. 
 
 The Presbytery then took np the second particular 
 (Secundo). 
 
 Dr Brown, seconded by Mr D, Mitchell, moved, " That 
 the Presbytery find the second particular under the major 
 proposition of the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, b 
 with the corresponding averments and extracts in the 
 minor proposition, to be relevant." 
 
 Mr Moir, seconded by Mr E. A. Mitchell, moved, " That 
 the Presbytery finds, under Secundo, that this particular, 
 and its corresponding extracts and averments in the minor, 
 are not relevant to sustain the first alternative of theg 
 general major." 
 
 After discussion, the two motions were put to the vote, 
 and the roll being called and votes marked, the second 
 motion (Mr Moir's) was carried by 26 to 20, and the Pres- 
 bytery find accordingly. 
 
 From this decision Dr Brown dissented, and protestedQ 
 for leave to complain to the ensuing Synod in April, took 
 instruments in the Clerk's hands, and craved extracts, 
 w^hich were allowed, and gave in the following reasons. 
 {See foot of page.) 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Moir, Yule, Sloan, and 
 E. A. Mitchell, a committee to answer the Seasons of Dis-g- 
 sent, and to defend the judgment of the Presbytery at the 
 bar of the Synod. 
 
 •. The Presbytery adjourned to meet in this place, in hunc 
 effectum (case of Professor Smith), on Thursday the 21st 
 current, at ten o'clock a.m., and closed with prayer. 
 
 F 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 21si February 1878 years. — Which day 
 the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 Dr Brown gave in the following Eeason of Dissent from 
 the finding of the Presbytery on the 19th current, with 
 relation to Secundo : — " Because the book of Deuteronomy, 
 being on the face of it a professedly historical book, to 
 represent it as not possessing that character, but was 
 
136 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A made to assume it by a writer in a much later age who, 
 in the name of God, presented, in a dramatic form, instruc- 
 tions and laws, as proceeding from the mouth of Moses, 
 which never did proceed nor could have proceeded from 
 his mouth, is to compromise the historical authenticity, 
 and consequently the inspiration and divine authority of 
 B that canonical book," 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the third particular (Tertid). 
 
 Mr Masson, seconded by Mr Bannatyne, moved, " That 
 
 the Presbytery find the third particular under the major 
 
 proposition of the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, 
 
 with the corresponding averments and extracts in the 
 
 C minor proposition, to be relevant." 
 
 At this stage, after considerable discussion, Mr Masson 
 agreed, with consent of the Presbytery, to amend his motion 
 by adding the words " under the first charge of the general 
 major." 
 
 Dr Brown moved, " That the Presbytery find the third 
 D particular under the major proposition of the Form of Libel 
 against Professor Smith, with the corresponding averments 
 and extracts in the minor proposition, to be relevant." 
 
 This motion was seconded by Mr D. Mitchell. 
 
 Mr Iverach, seconded by Mr Gage, moved, "That the Pres- 
 bytery find, under Tertio, that this particular, with its cor- 
 Y responding averments and extracts in the minor proposition, 
 is not relevant to sustain the first alternative of the major." 
 
 The two motions (Mr Masson's and Mr Iverach's) were 
 put to the vote, and the roll being called and votes marked, 
 the second motion (Mr Iverach's) was carried by 25 to 10, 
 and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 p- From this decision Messrs Masson and Bannatyne dis- 
 sented, and protested for leave to complain to the ensuing 
 Synod, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, and craved 
 extracts, which were allowed, and gave in the following 
 reason, viz. : — "Because the various statements made in 
 Tertio amount to a virtual denial of the divine authority 
 and infallibility of the word of God as laid down in the 
 Confession of Faith." 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 137 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Moir, Yule, Sloan, and A. 
 R. x\. Mitchell, a committee to answer said reasons of dissent, 
 and to defend the judgment of the Presbytery at the bar 
 of the Synod. 
 
 Mr Moir gave in the following answer to Dr Brown's 
 Reason of Dissent given in on the 19th current, in relation 
 to Primo, viz. : — " The Presbytery are not concerned just B 
 now to resist Professor Smith's views on the Aaronic priest- 
 hood, nor to determine whether they are true or false, but 
 to determine whether they amount to a contradiction of the 
 Standards of our Church, which in the opinion of the Pres- 
 bytery has not been proven." 
 
 The Presbytery sustained this answer. C 
 
 The Presbytery adjourn to meet in this place, in hunc 
 effcctiim (case of Professor Smith), on Tuesday, the 26th 
 current, at ten o'clock a.m., and closed with prayer. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 26th day of February 1878 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter D 
 alia, — 
 
 On the report of their Committee, the Presbytery adopted 
 the following answers to Reason of Dissent by Dr Brown 
 in relation to Secimdo, viz. : — 
 
 1. There is nothing in the writings of Professor Smith fitted 
 to impugn the historical character of the book of Deutero- R 
 nomy, or to represent it as different from what it professes 
 to be. 
 
 2. That Professor Smith's views, as set forth in his 
 articles, relate only to the literary form of Deuteronomy, 
 and, as explained by him, do not affect in any way the 
 veracity of the writer or the value of his book as an integral F 
 part of revelation. 
 
 Mr Sloan gave in the following answer to the Reason of 
 Dissent given in by Mr Masson at last meeting, in relation 
 to Tertio, viz. : — " As from the constitution of men's minds 
 there is large room for diversity of opinion as to what con- 
 stitutes virtual deiiial of any confessional position, the Pres- 
 bytery regards the very large majority in this division (25 
 
 9 
 
138 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 -A to 10) a sufficient vindication of its decision that no virtual 
 denial of the divine authority and infallible truth of God's 
 word was made out." 
 
 The Presbytery accepted this answer. 
 The Presbytery then took up the fourth particular 
 (Qiiarto). 
 
 B Dr Longmuir, seconded by Dr Gordon, moved, " That 
 the Presbytery find the fourth particular under the major 
 proposition of the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, 
 with the corresponding averments and extracts in the minor 
 proposition, to be relevant under the first charge of the 
 general major." 
 
 C Mr Sloan, seconded by Mr Johnstone, moved, " That the 
 Presbytery finds the particular Quarto irrelevant under the 
 first of the major, inasmuch as it is not explicit in state- 
 ment, is destitute of any corresponding averment in the 
 minor, and is not substantiated by the extracts adduced in 
 support of it." 
 
 D These motions were put to the vote. The state of the 
 vote to be — first (Dr Longmuir's) or second motion (Mr 
 Sloan's); and the roll being called and votes marked, the 
 second motion carried by 24 to 12, and the Presbytery find 
 accordingly. 
 
 From this decision Drs Longmuir, Brown, and Gordon 
 
 E dissented, and protested for leave to complain to the ensuing 
 Synod, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, craved 
 extracts, which were allowed, and gave in the following 
 reasons, viz. : — " 1. Because the assertion that the book of 
 Jonah is an instance of ' poetical invention ' is contrary to 
 the references of the Saviour to it as history. 2. Because 
 
 F the denial that Daniel was a prophet is in opposition to the 
 declaration of Jesus Christ, that Daniel was indeed a 
 prophet." 
 
 The Presbytery appointed the following Committee to 
 answer the Eeasons of Dissent, and to defend the judgment 
 of the Presbytery at the bar of the Synod, viz., Messrs 
 Moir, Sloan, and R. A. Mitchell. 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the fifth particular (Quinto). 
 Dr Longmuir, seconded by Dr Gordon, moved, " That 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 139 
 
 the Presbytery find the fifth particular under the major A 
 proposition of the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, 
 with the corresponding averments and extracts in the minor 
 proposition to be relevant under the first charge of the 
 general major." 
 
 Mr A. F. Moir, seconded by Mr Sloan, moved, " That 
 the Presbytery find that the particular Quinto, with the B 
 corresponding extracts and averments in the minor, is not 
 relevant to sustain the first alternative of the general 
 major." 
 
 These motions were put to the vote, the state of the vote 
 being — first (Dr Longmuir's) or second (Mr Moir's) ; and 
 the roll being called and votes marked, it carried second C 
 motion by 25 to 9, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 From this judgment Drs Brown, Longmuir, and Gor- 
 don dissented, and protested for leave to complain to the 
 ensuing Synod, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, and 
 craved extracts, which were allowed, and gave in the fol- 
 lowing reasons, viz. : — " 1. Because the representation of J) 
 Canticles as a mere political allegory is inconsistent with 
 the declaration of the Confession of Faith, that Canticles is 
 one of the books that were given by the inspiration of God. 
 2. That the theory expounded and embraced by the writer 
 of the article ' Canticles ' exhibits both Solomon and the 
 ' betrothed maiden ' in a degraded, if not immoral view, jj 
 which is inconsistent with a book inspired by the Holy 
 Spirit of God." 
 
 The Presbytery appointed the following Committee to 
 answer the Keasons of Dissent, and to defend the judgment 
 of the Presbytery at the bar of the Sjmod, viz. : — Messrs 
 Moir, Yule, Selkirk, Sloan, and E. A. Mitchell. p 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the sixth particular (Sexto). 
 
 Dr Brown, seconded by Mr Piitchie, moved, " That the 
 Presbytery find the sixth particular under the major pro- 
 position of the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, with 
 the corresponding averments and extracts in the minor 
 proposition, to be relevant under the first charge of the 
 general major." 
 
 Mr Yule, seconded by Mr K. A. Mitchell, moved, " That 
 
140 CA.SE OF KEV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A the Presbyteiy find the particular Sexto irrelevant, inas- 
 much as there is no specification of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment testimony, which Professor Smith is said to have con- 
 tradicted, and inasmuch as the extracts in the minor do not 
 substantiate the charge as relevant under the first of the 
 major." 
 
 B These two motions were put to the vote. The state of 
 the vote to be — first (Dr Brown's) or second (Mr Yule's) ; and 
 the roll being called and votes marked, the second motion 
 carried by 24 to 10, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 From this decision Dr Brown dissented, and protested 
 for leave to complain to the ensuing Synod, took instru- 
 
 ments in the Clerk's hands, and craved extracts, which 
 were allowed, and gave in the following reason, viz. : — 
 " That explicit testimony given in the Old Testament, and 
 also that of our Lord and his apostles in the New Testa- 
 ment, upon which authorship most momentous teaching is 
 based, is explicitly contradicted in some cases, and syste- 
 
 D matically ignored in others." 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Moir, Yule, Sloan, 
 Selkirk, and Pi. A. Mitchell a committee to answer the 
 Reasons of Dissent, and to defend the judgment of the 
 Presbytery at the bar of the Synod. 
 
 Mr Iverach gave in the following answers to Mr D. 
 
 E Mitchell's Reasons of Dissent, viz. : — " 1. It is competent 
 to the Presbytery to arrange its order of procedure. 2. 
 These motions are not yet disposed of, and therefore the 
 reasoning of the second Reason of Dissent does not apply. 
 3. It is not said that Dr Brown's motion was irrelevant ; it 
 is only said, it is a most inconvenient way of considering 
 
 F the relevancy of the libel." 
 
 These answers were sustained. 
 
 The Presbytery then adjourned, to meet, in luinc effcctum 
 (case of Professor Smith), in the Free Church College Hall, 
 on Thursday, the 28th curt., at ten o'clock a.m., and closed 
 with prayer. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the IStli day of February 187S years, — Which 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 141 
 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter A 
 alia, — 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the seventh particular 
 (Scptimo). 
 
 Dr Brown, seconded by Mr Bannatyne, moved, " That 
 the Presbytery find the seventh particular under the major 
 proposition of the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, B 
 with the corresponding averments and extracts in the minor 
 proposition, to be relevant under the first charge of the 
 general major." 
 
 Mr A. F. Moir, seconded by Mr E. A. Mitchell, moved, 
 " That the Presbytery having considered the particular 
 Septimo in the major proposition of the Libel against Pro- C 
 fessor Smith, with the relative extracts and averments in 
 the minor, finds that these are not relevant to sustain the 
 first alternative in the general major." 
 
 These motions were put to the vote, the state of the vote 
 being — first (Dr Brown's) or second (Mr Moir's) ; and the 
 roll being called and votes marked, it carried second motion D 
 by 26 to 14, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 From this decision Dr Brown and Mr Bannatyne 
 dissented, and protested for leave to complain to the 
 ensuing Synod of Aberdeen, took instruments in the Clerk's 
 hands, and craved extracts, which were allowed. 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Moir, Yule, Sloan, e 
 Selkirk, and E. A. Mitchell a committee to answer the 
 Eeasons of Dissent, and to defend the judgment of the 
 Presbytery at the bar of the Synod. 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the eighth particular 
 (Octavo). 
 
 Mr Craven, seconded by Mr Arthur, moved, " That theF 
 Presbytery find that the eighth particular under the major 
 proposition of the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, 
 with the corresponding averments and extracts in the 
 minor proposition, be found relevant under the first charge 
 of the general major." 
 
 Mr Sloan, seconded by Mr Semple, moved, " That the 
 Presbytery finds the particular Octavo irrelevant under the 
 
142 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A first of the major, inasmuch as the contents of that parti- 
 cular, and of the corresponding extracts in the minor, 
 when properly understood, are in entire consonance with 
 Scripture and the Confession of Faith." 
 
 These two motions were put to the vote, the state of the 
 vote to be — first (Mr Craven's) or second (Mr Sloan's) ; and 
 
 B the roll being called and votes marked, the second motion 
 carried by 25 to 5, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the IWi day of March 1878 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 C There was then given in and read the Deliverance of the 
 Commission of Assembly anent the Dissents and Com- 
 plaints from this Presbytery in the case of Professor 
 Smith, viz. : — 
 
 "At Edinburgh, andwitliin the Free Assembly Hall, the 6th 
 day of March 1878 years. — Which day the Commission of 
 
 Dthe General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland 
 met and was constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 " The Commission took up a Dissent and Complaint 
 from a judgment of the Presbytery of Aberdeen in the ease 
 of Professor Smith, finding that the word " subvert " 
 should not be retained in the proposed libel against him. 
 
 E Parties were called, when there appeared in support of the 
 Dissent and Complaint Principal Brown and Mr Bannatyne, 
 and for the Presbytery of Aberdeen, Mr Moir and Mr 
 Inverach. The Commission agreed, first of all, to consider 
 whether this Dissent and Complaint was competently 
 taken to the Commission, and parties were heard on that 
 
 F point. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed 
 to, that the Commission find that the Dissent and Com- 
 plaint does not refer to that kind of preliminary questions 
 which should have been brought to the Commission ; but 
 authorise the Presbytery to deal with it as if it had been 
 taken to the Synod, and authorise the Synod to receive it. 
 The Commission took up Dissent and Complaint from a 
 judgment of the Presbytery of Aberdeen in the case of 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 143 
 
 Professor Smith, finding that the Presbytery should suspend A 
 discussion on motions made and seconded till the Presby- 
 tery had determined the order of procedure. Parties 
 were called, when there appeared in | support of the 
 Dissent and Complaint Mr D. Mitchell, elder; and Messrs 
 Bannatyne and Anderson, ministers ; and for the Presby- 
 tery of Aberdeen, Messrs Moir and Iverach. Parties B 
 having been heard, were removed. After reasoning, it was 
 moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to, that the 
 Commission sustain the Dissent and Complaint, to the 
 effect of finding that the Presbytery could not competently 
 prevent the motions made and seconded from being put 
 to the vote, but not to the effect of vitiating subsequent C 
 procedure, and instruct the Presbytery, at some stage 
 previously to the meeting of the court of review, to have 
 those motions put to the vote, if this be required by the 
 movers and seconders, even though they should be nega- 
 tived on the ground that they are inconsistent with 
 judgments already come to, or are otherwise incompetent. D 
 DrCandlish dissented." 
 
 "Extracted from the Eecords of the Commission, by 
 " William Wilson, CI. Eccl. Scot. Lib." 
 
 Dr Brown then craved that, in terms of the deliverance 
 of the Commission of Assembly, the Presbytery now put 
 to the vote the motion standing in his name on the 14th E 
 February last, viz. : — " That the Presbytery having con- 
 sidered the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, and 
 heard him thereanent, resolve that the same, including 
 its three charges in the major proposition, and the cor- 
 responding averments and extracts in the minor proposi- 
 tion, in their bearing upon these charges respectively, be F 
 found relevant as a libel." 
 
 Mr Moir, seconded by Mr Semple, moved " That the 
 Presbytery having reserved the rights of the parties whose 
 motions ha.ve not yet been disposed of, and having, in 
 considering the libel seriatim, found the first alternative 
 charge of the general major relevant, but the eight parti- 
 culars under the general major, with the corresponding 
 
144 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A narrative of the minor, irrelevant, in respect of the foresaid 
 charge, do now find against the motion on the table in Dr 
 Brown's name, on the ground that it is inconsistent with 
 their former procedure." 
 
 These motions were put to the vote, the state of the vote 
 being — first (Dr Brown's) or second (Mr Moir's) ; and the 
 
 Broil being called and votes marked, the second motion 
 carried by 26 to 15, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 From this decision Dr Brown, Messrs Bannatyne, D. 
 Mitchell, and Dr Gordon dissented, and protested for leave 
 to complain to the ensuing Synod, took instruments in the 
 Clerk's hands, craved extracts, which were allowed, and 
 
 C gave in the following reasons, viz. : — " We dissent from the 
 Presbytery's resolution to reject the general motion — 
 1. Because the general statement of each charge in the 
 major proposition is a relevant ground of censure. 2. 
 Because the particular specification in the major proposi- 
 tion, and the corresponding averments and extracts in the 
 
 D minor proposition, exhibit relevant matter. 3. Because 
 the general motion rejected was thus justified by the 
 circumstances in which it was brought forward." 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Laidlaw, Johnstone, and 
 Iverach to answer said Eeasons of Dissent, and to defend 
 the judgment of the Presbytery at the bar of the Synod. 
 
 E Thereafter Mr Anderson craved that the motion standing 
 in his name on the 14th February be put to the vote, viz., 
 " That the Presbytery find the second charge in the major 
 proposition, along with the corresponding extracts in the 
 minor in their bearing on that charge, relevant." 
 
 After discussion, Mr Anderson departed from this crave, 
 
 J' on the understanding that all his rights are reserved. 
 
 Mr Anderson then moved, " That the second charge in 
 the general major be found relevant." 
 This motion was seconded by Mr Clark. 
 Mr Yule, seconded by Mr Johnstone, moved, " That the 
 Presbytery find the second general charge in the major 
 irrelevant, because ' tendency ' is not a matter which can 
 properly be disposed of under a libel," 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 145 
 
 Dr Brown gave in Reason of Dissent from the finding of A 
 the Presbytery under Septhno, viz., " Because the vie^Ys 
 given of prophecy in the extracts under this head are not 
 consistent with the predictive element in prophecy." 
 
 Mr Moir gave in the following answers to Dr Longmuir's 
 Reasons of Dissent under Quarto,Yiz. : — " 1. Professor Smith 
 never asserted that the book of Jonah ' is an instance of B 
 poetical invention.' In the statement referred to, he is 
 reporting the opinions of others. 2. In the instance 
 libelled, Professor Smith is writing of the book of Daniel, 
 not of Daniel himself, and he is writing concerning the 
 place which the book occupies in the Hagiographa." 
 
 Mr Moir gave in answers to Dr Brown's Reasons of Dis- C 
 sent under Quinto, viz., " 1. This Reason misrepresents 
 Professor Smith's view of the book of Canticles, when it 
 affirms him to regard it as 'a mere political aUegory.' 
 2. The exhibition of persons ' in a degraded if not im- 
 moral view ' is not in itself inconsistent with the divine 
 inspiration of a book of Scripture." D 
 
 Mr Moir gave in the following answer to Dr Brown's 
 Reason of Dissent under Sexto, viz., " We have failed to 
 find any ' explicit contradiction ' of the testimony referred 
 to in the extracts libelled, and it is denied that they 
 systematically ignore it." 
 
 After a vote, the Presbytery agreed to adjourn to meet in £ 
 this place on Thursday the 14th inst., anent the case of Pro- 
 fessor Smith, and for ordinary business, and on Tuesday the 
 26th current, in the Presbytery Hall, and closed with prayer. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 14th day of March 1878 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter F 
 alia, — 
 
 After lengthened discussion, the motions by Mr Anderson 
 and Mr Yule at last meeting were put to the vote, the 
 state of the vote to be — first (Mr Anderson's) or second 
 (Mr Yule's) ; and the roll being called and votes marked, 
 the first motion carried by 21 to 20, and the Presbytery 
 find accordingly. 
 
146 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A From this decision Professor Smith dissented in his own 
 right, and protested for leave to complain to the ensuing 
 Synod, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, and craved 
 extracts, which were allowed, and gave in the following 
 reasons, viz., from page 9 to page 16 of his answer to the 
 Form of Lihel. 
 
 B Messrs Yule, Johnstone, Moir, Selkirk, Semple, Iverach, 
 Low, E. A. Mitchell, Innes, and Macqueen, ministers ; and 
 Messrs Paterson and J. Moir, elders, also dissented, and 
 protested for leave to complain to the Synod, and gave in 
 the following reasons, viz. : — " 1. Because the charge of 
 'tendency' is too vague to be dealt with under a libel, 
 
 C where definite proof is required of every alleged fact. 2. 
 Because, granting that a dangerous unsettling tendency 
 does exist, there is a competent and convenient way of 
 dealing with it open to the Presbytery, if the graver charge 
 is found irrelevant by the courts of review. 3. Because 
 we believe that to allow a charge of tendency, as distin- 
 
 D guished from a charge for contradicting, or being incon- 
 sistent with the Standards, to stand, is a dangerous and 
 unsettling innovation on the previous practice of this 
 Church." 
 
 The Presbytery appointed the following Committee to 
 answer the Eeasons of Dissent, viz., Dr Brown, Messrs 
 
 E Anderson and Masson, and to defend the judgment of the 
 Presbytery at the bar of the Synod. 
 
 Professor Smith requested an interval, in order that he 
 might lay before the Presbytery a supplementary statement 
 in his defence. The Presbytery granted the request, and, 
 in the view of the nearness of the Communion and of the 
 
 F Synod, resolved to delay the further consideration of the 
 case till after the Synod, reserving the question whether 
 these defences should be received as papers in the case. 
 Closed with prayer. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 2Qth dajj of March 1878 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. 147 
 
 There were then given in to the Presbytery by Mr A 
 Iverach answers to Dr Brown's Reasons of Dissent, given 
 in on 12th March, anent the general motion, viz. : — 
 
 1. There may be room for difference of opinion as to 
 whether some of the alternatives charged contain relevant 
 ground of censure. It is certain, however, that in an 
 alternative libel only one or other of these charges ought B 
 to be found relevant, where the alternatives are based on 
 no uncertainty as to the facts, but only on a doubt as to 
 the denomination of offence to which the facts belong in 
 point of law. 
 
 2. Dr Brown's motion has no specific reference to the 
 particular abstract charges in the major proposition ofC 
 the Hbel, and his second reason of dissent thus introduces 
 matter which is not in his motion. 
 
 3. No circumstances can justify an incompetent motion. 
 Dr Brown's motion is clearly incompetent as appears from 
 the first answer, and is also inconsistent with the previous 
 findings of the Presbytery. D 
 
 These answers were sustained. 
 
 Mr Anderson gave in answer to Professor Smith's Pieasons 
 of Dissent, given in on 14th March: 1. Professor Smith 
 wrongly assumes that the judicial power of the Church 
 can be exercised only in the lines of preceding legislation. 
 2. His reference to the form of process is both scripturally E 
 and historically inconclusive. 3. Fresh legislation would 
 not meet existing cases. 4. He has overlooked the most 
 serious elements to which this second charge refers, those 
 of inherent danger to what is vital. 5. The vagueness 
 which he ascribes to the word ''tendency" is not found 
 when the charge is fully stated, and applied to special F 
 opinions. 6. There is the greatest difference between the 
 "tendency" of the opinions of a private member, and 
 that of a Professor's published writings. 7. Difficulties 
 adhering to recognised truths cannot be classed with those 
 that are created by unproved theories. 
 
 Mr Anderson also gave in answers to Mr Yule's Eeasons 
 of Dissent given in on 14th March, viz. : 1, The vagueness 
 
148 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A complained of is only apparent ; it vanishes when the 
 charge is examined and applied to the particulars. 2. 
 There is no reason to believe that if the charge of "danger- 
 ous and unsettling tendency " had been left out of the libel 
 there would have been any other way of dealing with it 
 according to its importance. 3. Libels are rare, especially 
 
 B those bearing on critical errors. It is denied however that 
 in this charge there is any principle introduced which can 
 justly be called an " innovation," because unfounded on 
 Scripture, or hitherto unrecognised by the Church. 
 
 Mr Moir gave in answer to Dr Brown's Reason of Dissent 
 under Se])timo, given in on 12th March, viz.: The extracts 
 
 C do not contain anything inconsistent with the existence of a 
 strictly predictive element in prophecy, and moreover the 
 existence of such an element is expressly and emphatically 
 asserted in the writings of Professor Smith. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the l^tli day ofAiirll 1878 years. — Which day 
 D the Free Presbytery met and was constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the case of Professor Smith. 
 The extract minute of Synod with reference thereto was 
 read, and the tenor follows : — 
 
 ^' At Aberdeen, and ivithin Free Holburn Church, the 10th 
 day of April 1878 years. — The Free Synod of Aberdeen 
 p] met and was constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 " The Synod took up the Dissents and Complaints by 
 Professor Smith, and by a minority of the Presbytery 
 of Aberdeen, against a judgment of the Presbytery, 
 finding the second charge in the general major of the 
 Draft Form of Libel relevant. Extract minutes from the 
 K Presbytery Piecord, dated 12th March, 14th March, and 
 28th March, 1878,* having been read, parties were called. 
 There appeared at the bar. Professor Smith in support of 
 his Dissent and Complaint; Mr Yule in behalf of the 
 minority of Presbj^tery ; and Mr Anderson and Principal 
 Brown, as representing the Presbytery. Parties were 
 heard and removed. After reasoning, it was moved and 
 
 * See page 142. 
 
MLNUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEX. 149 
 
 seconded, that the Dissents and Complaints be dismissed, A. 
 and that the judgment of the Presbytery be affirmed. It 
 was also moved and seconded, that the Dissents and 
 Complaints be sustained, that the judgment of the Presby- 
 tery be reversed, and that the second alternative charge 
 of the major proposition be found irrelevant. The roll 
 was called and votes marked, when it appeared that 19 B 
 had voted for the first motion, and 20 for the second. 
 The Synod accordingly declared that the second motion 
 had carried; and in accordance therewith sustained the 
 Dissents and Complaints, reversed the judgment of the 
 Presbytery, and found the second alternative charge of the 
 major proposition irrelevant. In this linding Professor c 
 Smith and Mr Yule acquiesced. Against this finding Mr 
 Anderson protested, and appealed to the ensuing General 
 Assembly, took instruments, and craved extracts, which were 
 granted, and gave in the following reasons of appeal : — 
 ' 1. Because, according to this decision the Church's power 
 of self-preservation can bear only against errors that j) 
 "contradict or are opposed to" the Confession, and thus 
 leaves all other errors, however dangerous, unchecked. 
 2, Because the Church is thus assumed to be powerless 
 to protect her students and control her chairs, unless a 
 special violation of her subordinate Standards can be 
 proved. 3. Because this charge in the Form of Libel, p' 
 which is now declared by the Synod to be irrelevant, 
 though it may seem vague, especially from the addition of 
 the word " tendency," is rendered distinct by the expression 
 "in themselves," which points to a danger inherent in cer- 
 tain opinions. 4. Because, while it makes prominent the 
 injurious influence of opinions, it would not necessarily p 
 involve the severer forms of censure, those connected with 
 a charge of heresy.' To this protest, appeal, and reasons, 
 Dr Longmuir and Dr James Gordon adhered. Principal 
 Brown, Messrs Bannatyne, Bell, and David Mitchell, pro- 
 tested and appealed for reasons to be afterwards given in. 
 Messrs Murdoch, Ferguson (Ellon), and Paterson (Fraser- 
 burgh), dissented, and protested for leave to complain to 
 
150 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A the Assembly for reasons to be afterwards given in. Mr 
 Smith (Tarland) dissented, and protested for leave to com- 
 plain, took instruments, and craved extracts, which were 
 granted, for the following reason : — ' Because, if the finding 
 of the Synod be allowed to stand, any office-bearer of the 
 Church may sign the formula, and at the same time tell 
 
 B the Church that he holds himself free to promulgate opinions 
 which are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling 
 tendency in their bearing on fundamental doctrines.' 
 Messrs Yule (Rutherford Church), Clark (Foveran), Moir 
 (\Yoodside), and Miller (Buckie), were appointed to support 
 the judgment of the Synod at the bar of the Assembly. 
 
 Q " Extracted on this and the three preceding pages, by 
 " James Sutherland, Synod Clerk." 
 After considerable discussion as to what action the Pres- 
 bytery should now take with reference to the decision of the 
 Synod, Professor Salmond, seconded by Mr Gage, moved, 
 " That the Presbytery fall from the appeals taken, for 
 
 J) different reasons, by its representatives against the decision 
 of the Synod, which reversed the finding of the second 
 alternative charge of the major relevant, reserving the rights 
 of the individual members of the Presbytery." 
 
 Mr D. Mitchell, seconded by Mr Hendry, moved, " That 
 the motion now made is irregular and incompetent, and 
 
 P ought not to be put to the vote." 
 
 These two motions were put to the vote, the state of the 
 vote to be — first (Professor Salmond's) or second (Mr D. 
 Mitchell's) ; and the roll being called and votes marked, it 
 carried first motion by 24 to 9, and the Presbytery find 
 accordingly. 
 
 Y From this judgment Mr D. Mitchell dissented, and pro- 
 tested for leave to complain to the ensuing General 
 Assembly, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, and 
 craved extracts, w^liich w^ere allowed, gave in the following 
 reasons, viz. : — " 1. The Presbytery having already given its 
 judgment on the second general charge, the matter is in the 
 meantime out of its hands. " 2. The motion is an attempt 
 to reconsider and re-decide what the Presbytery has already 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. lol 
 
 decided. 3. The appeal was taken in name of the Pres- ^ 
 bytery as constituted before the meeting of Synod, it became 
 a final act by the giving in of reasons while the Synod was 
 sitting, and the Presbytery were assumed to be present, and 
 the majority of the Presbytery who found charge relevant 
 cannot now by the decision complained of be competently 
 placed in a less advantageous position before the Assembly 3 
 than they would have been had they been in a minority and 
 carried their views to the Synod by dissent and complaint." 
 
 To this dissent Messrs Hendry, W. L. Mitchell, Selbie, 
 and Dr Gordon, adhered. 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Professor Salmond and Messrs 
 Yule and Iverach a committee to answer the Pieasons ofQ 
 Dissent, and to defend the judgment of the Presbytery at 
 the bar of the Assembly. 
 
 Thereafter Mr Iverach, seconded by Mr Selby, moved, 
 " That the Presbytery having on the 14th day of March 
 last found, on the motion of Mr Anderson, that the 
 second alternative charge in the major proposition wasrv 
 relevant, and a dissent and complaint to the Synod of 
 Aberdeen having been taken, the Synod sustained the 
 dissent and complaint, reversed the judgment of the Pres- 
 bytery, and found the second alternative charge of the 
 major proposition to be irrelevant. The Presbytery there- 
 fore now find it incompetent to consider the particular tj, 
 charges in the major pro^DOsition, together with the corres- 
 ponding averments and extracts in the minor proposition 
 in their bearing on the second alternative charge in the 
 major proposition, unless the judgment of the Synod is 
 reversed by the Assembly." 
 
 This motion was unanimously agreed to. „ 
 
 At this stage Professor Smith requested leave to make a 
 statement, viz.. That at last meeting of Presbytery he asked 
 for some time to prepare a printed statement to lay before the 
 Presbytery with regard to the second alternative of " tend- 
 ency." That printed statement cannot now be laid before 
 the Presbytery, because the Presbytery has resolved that it 
 cannot go into details. He had a large part of that defence 
 
152 CASE OF llEV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A in print before the Synod, and when it is finished, he would 
 propose to publish the defence so far as it relates to the 
 Pentateuchal question, for the information of the Church, 
 and those who might be interested in the case. 
 
 After some remarks, the Presbytery tacitly acquiesced in 
 Professor Smith's proposal. 
 
 "B Thereafter Mr Iverach called attention to the fact that 
 the Presbytery had been instructed to give Mr Anderson 
 and his seconder an opportunity of bringing forward the 
 general motion which they had proposed on 14th February, 
 in regard to the second alternative charge, with its corres- 
 ponding particulars. Mr Anderson not being present, his 
 
 Q seconder, Mr Dalgarno, was asked if he was prepared to 
 proceed with that motion. Whereupon Mr Dalgarno said 
 that Mr Anderson in a note to him stated that he did not 
 desire to press his original motion. Whereupon the Presby- 
 tery agreed to record, " That an opportunity having been 
 given in accordance with the instructions of the Commis- 
 
 ]3 sion to Mr Anderson to move his motion, it was intimated 
 by Mr Anderson, through his seconder, that he did not 
 desire to press it." 
 
 The Presbytery then took up the third alternative charge 
 in the libel, viz., " The publishing and promulgating of 
 writings concerning the books of Holy Scripture, which 
 
 ■g writings, by their neutrality of attitude in relation to the 
 said doctrines, and by their rashness of statement in regard 
 to the critical construction of the Scriptures, tend to dis- 
 parage the divine authority and inspired character of 
 these books, as set forth in the Scriptures themselves, and 
 in the Confession of Faith." 
 
 Y Mr Selbie moved, " That, as the third general charge in 
 the Form of Libel is of a similar nature, and to some 
 extent involves the same principles as the second general 
 charge, and is virtually included in the reference by the 
 Synod to the General Assembly of Dr Brown's motion, it is 
 incompetent in hoc statu to consider and decide the relevancy 
 of said third charge." 
 
 This motion was seconded by Mr Bannatyne. 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF ABERDEEN. ] 53 
 
 Mr Johnstone moved, " That the Presbytery find the A 
 third alternative general charge in the general major 
 irrelevant." 
 
 This motion >vas seconded by Mr Semple. 
 
 The motions were put to the vote ; the state of the vote 
 being— first (Mr Selbie's) or second (Mr Johnstone's) ; and 
 the roll being called and votes marked, it carried second B 
 motion by 27 to 9, and the Presbytery find accordingly. 
 
 Mr Selbie dissented for the reasons stated in the motion 
 itself, and protested for leave to complain to the ensuing 
 General Assembly, took instruments in the Clerk's hands, 
 and craved extracts, which were allowed. 
 
 The Presbytery appointed Messrs Yule and Iverach a q 
 committee to answer the Eeasons of Dissent, and to defend 
 the judgment of the Presbytery at the bar of the Assembly. 
 
 At Aberdeen, the 7th day of May 1878 years. — Which 
 day the Free Presbytery of Aberdeen being met and con- 
 stituted, loiter alia, — jy 
 
 The Clerk stated that Mr D. Mitchell had Sent to him on 
 the 23d April a third Reason of Dissent from the finding of 
 the Presbytery on the 16th April, and the Presbytery agreed 
 to record the same, and the tenor follows, viz. : — 
 
 "III. The appeal was taken in name of the Presbytery as 
 constituted before the meeting of Synod ; it became a final -^ 
 act by the giving in of reasons while the Synod was sitting, 
 and the Presbytery were assumed to be present; and the 
 majority of the Presbytery who found the charge relevant 
 cannot now by the decision complained of be competently 
 placed in a less advantageous position before the Assembly 
 than they would have been had they been in a minority and p 
 carried their views to the Synod by dissent and complaint."* 
 
 Professor Salmond gave in the following Answers to Mr D. 
 Mitchell's Reasons of Dissent given on 16th April, viz. : — 
 
 " I. It is not disputed that the matter is in the meantime 
 out of the Presbytery's hands so far as the judgment of the 
 * See p. 151 A. 
 
 10 
 
154< CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 ^ second alternative charge is concerned, and the Reason there- 
 fore is not pertinent. 
 
 "II. No attempt is made to re-decide what the Prsebytery 
 has already decided, the motion dealing only with the 
 question whether the Presbytery shall prosecute an appeal to 
 the Assembly in face of the Synod's decision." 
 
 ]3 Professor Salmond also gave in Answer to Mr D. Mitchell's 
 third Reason of Dissent given in on the 23d April, viz. : — 
 
 " III. This reason seems to proceed on the erroneous 
 supposition that the Presbytery has no power to fall from an 
 appeal. In the present case it would also be implied that 
 the Presbytery prosecutes an appeal for two distinct and 
 
 Q inconsistent sets of reasons." 
 
 Extracted, &c., by Alex. Spence, Presb. Clk. 
 
 Answers to Reasons of Dissent and Complaint given 
 in by Messrs Smith, M^Crie, and Murdoch, 
 against . the finding of Synod at Sess. Ill,, 
 excluding the word '^ subvert " from the Libel.* 
 
 1. The words as they stand in the Draft Libel are too 
 vague and undefined adequately to describe an ecclesiastical 
 offence. 
 
 2. The words substituted on the suggestion of the legal 
 adviser are precise and definite, and afford a clear issue for 
 the judgment of the Court. 
 
 Alex. F. Moir, Convr. of Committee. 
 
 The above is a true copy, 
 
 James Sutherland, Synod Clk. 
 
 * Seep. 156 B. 
 
MINUTES OF SYNOD OF ABERDEEN. 155 
 
 MINUTES OF SYNOD OF ABERDEEN. 
 
 At Aberdeen, within Holburn Free Church, the 9th day of ^ 
 April ] 878 years. — The Free Synod of Aberdeen being met 
 and duly constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 The S3mod took up a Dissent and Complaint by Principal 
 Brown from a judgment of the Presbytery of Aberdeen in 
 the case of Professor Smith, which judgment was to the 
 effect that the word "subvert" should not be retained in 3 
 the proposed libel against the Professor. The clerk read 
 the minutes of Presbytery bearing on this matter, dated 
 27th December 1877 and 8th January 1878.* From these 
 minutes it appeared that the dissent and complaint had 
 been taken to the Commission of Assembly. There was 
 also read an extract minute of Commission, dated 6th q 
 March 1878, authorising the Synod to receive -the dissent 
 and complaint as if it had been taken to this Court. 
 Parties were called, when there appeared Principal Brown 
 as complainant, and members of the Presbytery of Aber- 
 deen in behalf of the Presbytery's judgment. Parties were 
 heard, — namely, PrinciiDal Brown in support of his com- j) 
 plaint, Messrs Moir and Johnstone in behalf of the judg- 
 ment of the Presbytery, and Professor Smith for himself 
 as having an interest in the case. Parties having been 
 removed, it was moved and seconded, That the Synod dismiss 
 the dissent and complaint, and affirm the decision of the 
 Presbytery. It was also moved and seconded. That the -^ 
 Synod sustain the Dissent and Complaint, reverse the find- 
 ing of the Presbytery, and restore the word "subvert," in 
 place of the words " contradict or are opposed to," in the 
 Form of Libel. The roll having been called and votes 
 
 * See pp. 122 F, 125 A. 
 
156 CASE OF REV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 ^ marked, the first motion was declared carried by twenty-six 
 to twenty-two, and the Synod found in terms thereof. In 
 this finding the Presbytery of Aberdeen and Professor Smith 
 acquiesced. Against this finding Messrs Smith, Tarland, 
 M'Crie, Clola, and Murdoch, Pitsligo, dissented, and 
 protested for leave to complain to the ensuing General 
 
 p Assembly, took instruments, and craved extracts, for the 
 following reasons: — 1. "Subvert" is an intelligible word, 
 which fairly expresses the charge intended. 2. " Contra- 
 dict or are opposed to " do not so suitably or fairly 
 express the charge intended. Messrs Clark, Foveran, 
 Miller, Buckie, Moir, Woodside, and Johnstone, Belhelvie, 
 
 Q were appointed to answer the above reasons,* and to 
 support the Synod's judgment at the bar of the Assembly. 
 
 Eodem loco, lOtJi day of April 1878 years. — Principal 
 Brown asked leave to protest and appeal to the ensuing 
 General Assembly against the Synod's judgment at the third 
 
 T-) sederunt, excluding the word "subvert" from the Form 
 of Libel against Professor Smith, and for the same reasons 
 as were given in by Mr Smith, Tarland, and others, in 
 their dissent and complaint. Messrs Bannatyne, David 
 Mitchell, Hendry, and Dr Gordon, asked leave to adhere 
 to Principal Brown's protest and appeal. Messrs Pater- 
 
 -p son, Fraserburgh, and Forbes, Drumblade, asked leave to 
 dissent and protest for leave to complain to the ensuing 
 General Assembly, for reasons to be afterwards given in.t 
 Leave was granted to all these parties accordingly. 
 
 The Synod resumed consideration of Professor Smith's 
 case, and took up dissent and complaint by Principal 
 
 .p. Brown and others against a judgment of the Presbytery of 
 Aberdeen, of date 12th March 1878. On reading the 
 minute of Presbytery above referred to,t it appeared that 
 Dr Brown had craved that, in terms of the deliverance of 
 the Commission of Assembly, the Presbytery should put to 
 the vote the motion standing in his name on 14th February 
 last — namely, " That the Presbytery, having considered 
 the Form of Libel against Professor Smith, and heard him 
 
 * See p. 154 C. t See p. 161 B. + See p. 142 C. 
 
MINUTES OF SYNOD OF ABERDEEN. 157 
 
 thereanent, resolve that the same, including its three A. 
 charges in the major proposition, and the corresponding 
 averments and extracts in the minor proposition, in their 
 bearing upon these charges respectively, be found relevant 
 as a libel." It appeared further, that the following was 
 the Presbytery's judgment in the matter : " The Presby- 
 tery, having reserved the rights of the parties whose B 
 motions have not yet been disposed of, and having, in 
 considering the libel seriatim, found the first alternative 
 charge of the general major relevant, but the eight par- 
 ticulars under the general major, with the corresponding 
 narrative of the minor, irrelevant in respect of the foresaid 
 charge, do now find against the motion on the table in Dr c 
 Brown's name, on the ground that it is inconsistent with 
 their former procedure." From this judgment of the 
 Presbytery Dr Brown and others dissented, and complained 
 to the Synod. Parties were called to the bar. Without 
 hearing parties, but with their consent, it was resolved to 
 refer the above dissent and complaint simpliciter to theD 
 ensuing General Assembly, on the ground of the bearing 
 of the point involved on other minutes of Presbytery, the 
 difficulty of having these minutes printed for the considera- 
 tion of the Synod, the length of time that would be required 
 for disposing of them otherwise, and the nearness of the 
 meeting of the approaching Assembly. ^^ 
 
 The Synod took up dissents and complaints by Principal 
 Brown and others against seven judgments of the Presby- 
 tery of Aberdeen, finding the first seven particulars under 
 the major proposition of the libel against Professor Smith, 
 with the corresponding averments and extracts, irrelevant 
 to support the first charge.* Parties were called. Without p 
 hearing parties, but with their consent, it was resolved to 
 refer these several dissents and complaints simpUciter to 
 the ensuing General Assembly, on the ground of the volu- 
 minousness of the papers, the difficulty of having them 
 printed for the consideration of the Synod, the length of 
 time that would be required for disposing of them other- 
 wise, and the nearness of the approaching Assembly. 
 
 * See p. 133 E et seq. 
 
lo8 CASE OF REV, PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A The Synod took up dissents and complaints by Professor 
 Smith, and by certain members of the Presbytery of Aber- 
 deen, against a judgment of the Presbytery, of date 14th 
 March 1878, which judgment found, by a majority of 
 21 to 20, that the second charge in the general major 
 of the libel against Professor Smith be held relevant. 
 
 £ The following papers were read, namely : Extract Minutes 
 of Presbytery, dated 12th March, 14th March, and 26th 
 March 1878.* Piirties were called. There appeared Pro- 
 fessor Smith in support of his dissent and complaint, Mr 
 Yule, in behalf of certain members of Presbytery complain- 
 ing, and Mr Anderson and Dr Brown as representing the 
 
 C Presbytery, and defending their judgment. Without hearing 
 parties at this stage, it was moved and seconded, That the 
 Synod proceed to hear parties on the second alternative 
 charge of the major proposition, and to come to a finding 
 thereanent. It was also moved and seconded, That the 
 dissents and complaints against the judgment of the Pres- 
 
 D bytery, in reference to the second alternative charge of 
 the major proposition of the libel, be referred simpliciter 
 to the General Assembly. The roll having been called and 
 votes marked, the first motion was carried by 23 to 15, 
 and the Synod resolved in terms thereof to resume con- 
 sideration of the dissents and complaints at the evening 
 
 E sederunt. 
 
 Eod. die et loco. — The Synod resumed consideration of 
 dissents and complaints by Professor Smith, and by certain 
 members of the Presbytery of Aberdeen, against a judg- 
 ment of the Presbytery, to the effect that the second charge 
 F in the general major of the libel against Professor Smith 
 be found relevant. Parties were called, and appeared as 
 before. Parties were heard and removed. After reasoning, 
 it was moved and seconded, that the dissents and com- 
 plaints be dismissed, and that the judgment of the Presby- 
 tery be affirmed. It was also moved and seconded, that 
 the dissents and complaints be sustained, that the judgment 
 of the Presbytery be reversed, and that the second alter- 
 
 * See p. 142 ei seq. 
 
MINUTES OF SYNOD OF ABERDEEN. 159 
 
 native charge of the major proposition be found irrelevant. A 
 The roll was called and votes marked, when it appeared 
 that 19 had voted for the first motion, and 20 for the 
 second. The Synod accordingly declared that the second 
 motion had carried, and in accordance therewith, found 
 the second alternative charge of the major proposi- 
 tion of the libel irrelevant. In this finding Professor B 
 Smith and Mr Yule acquiesced. Against this finding Mr 
 Anderson protested and appealed to the ensuing General 
 Assembly, took instruments in the Clerk's hands and craved 
 extracts, which were granted, and gave in the following 
 reasons : — " 1. Because according to this decision the 
 Church's power of self-preservation can bear only against C 
 errors that ' contradict or are opposed to ' the Confession, 
 and thus leaves all other errors, however dangerous, 
 unchecked. 2. Because the Church is thus assumed to be 
 powerless to protect her students and control her chairs, 
 unless a special violation of her subordinate standards can 
 be proved. 3. Because this charge in the Form of Libel, D 
 which is now declared by the Synod to be irrelevant, 
 though it may seem vague, especially from the addition of 
 the word 'tendency,' is rendered distinct by the expression 
 ' in themselves,' which points to a danger inherent in 
 certain opinions. 4. Because, while it makes prominent 
 the injurious influence of opinions, it would not necessarilyE 
 involve the severer forms of censure — those connected with 
 a charge of heresy." Wm. Anderson. 
 
 To this protest, appeal, and reasons Dr Longmuir and 
 Dr James Gordon adhered. Principal Brown, Mr Banna- 
 tyne, Mr Bell, and Mr David Mitchell protested andp 
 appealed, for reasons to be afterwards given in.* Messrs 
 Murdoch, Pitsligo, Ferguson, Ellon, and Paterson, Fraser- 
 burgh, dissented and protested for leave to complain to 
 the Assembly, for reasons to be afterwards given in.* Mr 
 Smith, Tarland, dissented and protested for leave to 
 complain to the Assembly, took instruments, craved 
 extracts, and gave_ in the following reason : — " Because, 
 
 * See p. 160 C. 
 
160 CASE OF KEV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A if the finding of the Synod be allowed to stand, any office- 
 bearer of the Church may sign the Formula, and at the 
 same time tell the Church that he holds himself free to 
 promulgate opinions which are in themselves of a danger- 
 ous and unsettling tendency in their bearing on funda- 
 mental doctrines." Messrs Yule, Eutherford Church ; 
 B Clark, Foveran ; Moir, Woodside ; and Miller, Buckie, 
 were appointed to support the judgment of the Synod at 
 the bar of the Assembly. 
 
 Extracted on this and the nine preceding pages, from 
 the Eecord of the Free Synod of Aberdeen, by 
 James Sutherland, Synod Clk. 
 
 c 
 
 Keasons of Protest and Appeal by Principal Brown 
 and others, against the finding of the Synod on 
 the second general charge in the Form of Libel.* 
 
 We protest against the finding of the Synod on the 
 I) second general charge in the Form of Libel, for the follow- 
 ing reasons : — 
 
 1. Because, to come to a judicial finding, that the pub- 
 lishing and promulgating of opinions, which are in them- 
 selves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in their 
 bearing on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, is not 
 
 E an offence which the Church is entitled to deal with in the 
 way of libel, is to affirm a principle fitted to shut up the 
 Church from employing what may be found to be the only 
 adequate means of arresting the evil. 
 
 2, Because the grounds on which this decision was 
 advocated and adopted were such as to imply, that no 
 
 F opinions on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures can 
 justly be treated as dangerous and unsettling, short of a 
 denial or contradiction of that doctrine ; a principle which 
 is fitted to encourage laxity on the whole subject of the 
 inspiration and divine authority of the word of God. 
 
 David Brown. John Longmuir. 
 
 David Mitchell. Henry W. Bell. 
 
 Alexr. M. Bannatyne. 
 
 * See p. 159 A F. 
 
MINUTES OF SYNOD OF ABERDEEN. 161 
 
 Messrs Murdoch, Pitsligo ; Ferguson, Ellon ; and Pater- A 
 son, Fraserburgh, dissented and complained for the same 
 reasons as above. 
 
 Eeasons of Dissent and Complaint by Mr Paterson, g 
 Fraserburgh, against the Synod's judgment 
 excluding the word '^subvert" from the Form 
 of Libel/'' 
 
 I dissent from the finding of the Synod refusing the sub- 
 stitution in the major of the Form of Libel of the word q 
 ** subvert " for the words " contradict or are opposed to," 
 because it prevents the investigation of the offence in terms 
 which appear to me suitable and relevant, and renders it 
 necessary to be made in terms which seem to me to be 
 unsuitable to the actual case, and to involve a different 
 offence. William Paterson. jy 
 
 The above are true copies, as given in to me, 
 
 James Sutherland, Synod Clk. 
 
 Answers to Reasons of Dissent, &c,, given in 
 to the Free Synod of Aberdeen, April 1878, by JE 
 parties in Professor Smith's case. 
 
 L Answers to Reasons given in by Mr Anderson (as engrossed 
 in Synod Record, Sess. 6) : — t 
 
 1. There are other means of self-preservation available for 
 the Church besides libel, which is the only matter in question ^ 
 here. 
 
 2. The answer made to the former reason applies 'mutatis 
 mutandis to this. 
 
 3. If the expression "in themselves" is understood to 
 point to a danger inherent in the opinions, it must be taken 
 somehow to imply logical inconsistency with the standards ; 
 in which case it would properly come under the first alterna- 
 
 * See p. 156 A E. t See p. 159 C. 
 
162 CASE OF EEV. PROFESSOR SMITH. 
 
 A tive charge. If something else is intended, the vagueness 
 still continues. 
 
 4. The question of the degree of censure suspended upon 
 the charge does not concern the relevancy of the charge. 
 
 II. Answers to Reasons of Appeal given in by Dr Brown, and 
 ]3 of Dissent, &c., given in by Mr Murdoch and others : — * 
 
 1. It is not denied that the offence alleged is one "which 
 the Church is entitled to deal with in the way of libel," pro- 
 vided the "tendency" in question is understood to involve 
 some form of evil intent, or of demonstrable inconsistency 
 with the standards ; in which latter case more precise lan- 
 
 guage should be employed. 
 
 2. The grounds on which this decision was adopted, so far 
 as they are in the record, imply no such thing as is asserted ; 
 and it was constantly contended that any " opinions of 
 dangerous and unsettling tendency " which might exist, would 
 be dealt with in another way. 
 
 D 
 
 III. Answer to Reason given in by Mr Paterson, Fraser- 
 burgh : — -J- 
 
 The finding of the Synod is in accordance with the law 
 and practice of the Church hitherto ; and if the said law and 
 practice are to be altered, the alteration should be effected by 
 E legislation in the usual way. 
 
 IV. Answer to Reason given in by Mr Smith, Tarland (as 
 engrossed in Synod Record, Sess. 6) : — J 
 
 The Church would have its constitutional means of dealing 
 with any such office-bearer. Alex. F. Mom. 
 
 F Alexander Yule. 
 
 John S. Clark. 
 Alexander Miller. 
 The above is a correct copy of Answers, 
 
 James Sutherland, Synod Clk. 
 SOth April 1878. 
 
 * See p. 160 C. + See p. 161 B. X See p. 159 F, 
 
 For other Answers, see p. 154 C. 
 
CASE 
 
 KEY. MAECUS DODS, D.D, 
 
CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION: 
 
 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 A SERMON BY MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 Third Edition, with a Neiu Preface. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 I AM ashamed to be compelled to explain the meaning of A 
 statements which to myself seem already intelligible. But 
 I find that while this sermon has in part effected its purpose 
 by enabling some to accept the contents of the Bible with 
 increased satisfaction, it has in other minds created only 
 perplexity. And while this more fully convinces me that 
 this whole subject is one about which men have thought tooB 
 little and are unwilling to think much, I recognise the 
 necessity of stating with still greater precision what I mean. 
 In the first place, I should have expected intelligent 
 readers to apprehend that the sermon was written as an 
 apologetic attempt. My main object was to indicate that, 
 so far as the historical contents of Scripture are concerned, Q 
 Eevelation stands firm, although there should prove to be 
 no such thing as Inspiration. It will not be disputed by 
 any ordinarily informed person, that a large amount of the 
 current scepticism is due to the mixing up of these two 
 distinct things. If Eevelation is to be conserved, it must 
 not be bound up and made to stand or fall with a special]) 
 theory of Inspiration. My aim was to shew that of these 
 two distinct things. Revelation is by far the more important, 
 
106 CASE OF EEY. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A that in certain books of Scripture the separation between the 
 two can very well be effected, and that, supposing you give 
 up that theory of Inspiration which unquestionably staggers 
 many intelligent and earnest men, Eevelation remains. All 
 that we need to contend for is the historic credibility of the 
 narratives. This we can establish in the completest way : 
 
 B anything beyond this is not indispensable. 
 
 Kegarding the prophetical and apostolical writings, I 
 meant to make no affirmation, further than to suggest, that 
 in their case also the Eevelation of truth to the mind of the 
 writers was the matter of prime importance. "When a Pro- 
 phet says, " Thus saith the Lord," I accept what he says as, 
 
 to all intents and purposes, an immediate revelation. How 
 God has revealed the truth to him, I do not know ; but that 
 He has done so, I do know. I can say little or nothing 
 about the Inspiration of the prophets, but I can distinctl}^ 
 affirm that a Eevelation has been made to them. Similarly 
 of the Apostles, I of course believe they are the authoritative 
 
 D teachers of the Church, and that, in order to fit them to be 
 so, special revelations were made to them. And, therefore, 
 in their case also, I desire, as Paul himself obviously did, 
 to bring the Eevelations made by God into the foreground, 
 and to allow the inspired state of the human mind to fall 
 back into a secondary place. 
 
 E It has been asked, why this sermon deals only with the 
 historical books. There are two reasons for this. The first 
 is, that from an apologetic point of view the historical books 
 are the most important. Assure us of the facts of the 
 gospel history and of the history which led up to the Incar- 
 nation, and unbelief gives place to faith. The second reason 
 
 J' is, that it is only in these books the Eevelation can be easily 
 and manifestly disentangled from the Eecord of it. 
 
 Eeading the sermon from this point of view, I do not see 
 how any one can justly take exception to the statement : 
 " I do not believe what Paul says, because I first believe 
 him to be inspired ; but I believe him to be inspired, because 
 he brings light to my spirit, which can only have proceeded 
 from God." This I still conceive to be a simple reading ofl' 
 
PREFACE TO SEEMON. 1G7 
 
 from one of the outstanding facts of mental experience. I A 
 13ut it to every one who is accustomed to analyze his own 
 mental history, whether this is not a true account of the 
 order in which a man advances from unbelief to belief. No 
 rational sceptic first comes to believe in Inspiration, and 
 from that belief passes on to belief in God. Such a course 
 is, strictly speaking, preposterous. The Eevelation first B 
 lays hold of him, and afterwards he constructs his theory of 
 Inspiration. How can a man believe in Inspiration, until 
 he believes in Christ as able to communicate the Spirit? 
 
 But it is said that I should in consistency accept as 
 inspired every one who brings, light to my spirit. Had I 
 thought any one could make so childish a deduction, I would Q 
 certainly have guarded my language. And for the sake of 
 those who need further explanation, I now add, that I accept 
 as authoritative those whose, teaching is connected with the 
 historical revelations of God, and I decline to accept as 
 authoritative any others. There has been a distinct series 
 of such revelations culminating and terminating in thej) 
 Incarnation. Those whom God raised up to preserve and 
 diffuse the knowledge of these revelations I accept; but all 
 teachers out of the historical line or arising subsequently to 
 its termination in Christ, I take for what they are worth ; 
 but even when they teach me most valuable truth, I cannot 
 put them on a level with those whose teaching is directly jj 
 connected with God's revelation of Himself in history. 
 
 There need be no mystery about the actual history of 
 belief in one's own mind. An Epistle of Paul's comes into 
 my hands, and I find that the writer claims to have received 
 a revelation and to be specially commissioned to teach it. 
 But do I at once accept his statement, or how do I knowp 
 that this is a true representation? I read on and am con- 
 vinced. I believe he has received a revelation, because to 
 me it is a revelation ; and I accept him as authoritative 
 because his claim is consistent. I may not be able at once 
 to accept all he teaches : I cannot accept it merely because 
 it comes to me with authority. I can only accept in doctrine 
 that which fits itself in with my previously received ideas 
 
168 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A and my stage of mental growth. When the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is conveyed to me, I accept this because I find in it 
 the root which the facts of redemption require. But if as 
 yet I have not received the leading facts of redemption, I 
 shall be unable to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, on 
 whatsoever authority announced. But having accepted 
 
 B Paul or any one as an authoritative teacher, it is of course 
 at my own risk I disagree with him in any one particular. 
 He remains the authority and not I. And so long as there 
 remains in his writings something which I cannot accept 
 and assimilate to the rest of my belief, I hold his authority 
 over my own head as a warning, and seek through the 
 
 C Apostle to attain to the very mind of Christ Himself. 
 
 Further, I am curious to know how those who object to 
 the statement referred to, make up their Canon. I admit 
 that our Confession may seem to lay too much stress on 
 subjective considerations. I admit that Calvin, in the 
 reaction against the authority of the church, may have 
 
 D ascribed too much to the right of private judgment. His 
 words are : "To ask how we are to be convinced that 
 Scripture comes from God if we do not listen to the voice 
 of the Church, is just as if one were to ask, how are we to 
 learn to distinguish light from darkness, black from white, 
 or sweet from bitter. For Scripture carries in itself as 
 
 E distinct a sense of its truth as black and white things of 
 their colour, or sweet and bitter things of their taste." 
 Calvin, Luther, and fficolampadius, no doubt shewed a 
 boldness and firmness of hand in applying this principle to 
 the individual books of Scripture, which must be very 
 astounding to this generation ; but if they made too much 
 
 F of the right of private judgment, it is quite as dangerous 
 and much less Christian to make too little of it. Without 
 it, and without the cognate principle stated above, that 
 those writings are authoritative which are directly connected 
 with God's historical revelations, there is no meaning in 
 Protestantism, and no possibility of forming a valid col- 
 lection of Canonical Scriptures. 
 
 Finally, it may be suspected that though I cordially 
 
PREFACE TO SERMON. 1 69 
 
 accept the statement of the Confession, that all the books A 
 which compose our Bible are " given by inspiration of God, 
 to be the rule of faith and life," I at the same time evacuate 
 the term ' inspiration,' at least as regards the historical 
 books, of the meaning which is commonly supposed to 
 attach to it. I have no wish to shelter myself and hide 
 what I believe to be the truth under an ambiguous term.B 
 Therefore, I say plainly, that if I supposed the Confession 
 to mean what Dr Hodge says it means, I could not 
 accept it. Dr Hodge, on p. 55 of his Commentary on 
 the Confession, and speaking of Inspiration, says : " The 
 nature of this Divine influence we, of course, can no more 
 understand than we can in the case of any other miracle. C 
 But the effects are plain and certain, viz., that all written 
 under it is the very word of God, of infaUible truth and of 
 Divine authority ; and this infallibility and authority attach 
 as well to the verbal expression in which the revelation is 
 conveyed as to the matter of the revelation itself." This I 
 distinctly deny. In presence of the facts, no such infalli-D 
 bility can be made out, and no such theory could ever have 
 been formed from an unbiassed consideration of what the 
 various writers of Scripture say of themselves. No careful 
 student of Scripture can well deny that there are inac- 
 curacies in the gospels and elsewhere — inaccuracies such 
 as occur in ordinary writings through imperfect informations 
 or lapse of memory. These are trifling, it will be said. 
 Certainly they are trifling ; so trifling as in no appreciable 
 degree to damage the historicity or trustworthiness of 
 Scripture, but sufficient entirely to explode the averment of 
 literal infallibility. What is infallibility but incapacity to 
 err ? Unless we are prepared to go as far as Hodge — which F 
 I fancy few men will be found hardy enough to do — we 
 must give up the claim of absolute, throughgoing, literal 
 infallibility. In any case it were utter folly in us as 
 defenders of Revelation to bind ourselves to make out such 
 a view as of the essence of our position. 
 
 This, to my thinking, is the knot of the whole matter. 
 
 11 
 
170 CASE OF llEV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A I do not think much can be made of discussing what 
 Inspiration is, but the question is : Does Inspiration secure 
 infallibility in every particular, or does it not ? It is not 
 a question to be settled by a priori reasoning from the idea 
 of inspiration, nor by considerations of what might seem to 
 us desirable. It is a simple question of fact. All that I 
 
 B contend for is an Inspiration which does not preclude the 
 necessity of acquiring information by the ordinary means, 
 and which does not involve infallibility as defined by Dr 
 Hodge. I believe the Scriptures contain an infallible rule 
 of faith and life, I believe they are the authoritative records 
 of the revelations which God has made, but it is impossible 
 
 C to affirm that all the statements contained in Scripture are 
 strictly accurate ; impossible, that is, to claim for Scripture 
 an absolute infallibility. M. D. 
 
 May 1877. 
 
 ^ EEVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 
 
 Besides Christianity and Judaism, there are six great 
 religions which possess canonical Scriptures or Sacred 
 Books. The comparison of these Scriptures with our own 
 is instructive. We find in some of them a moral teaching, 
 
 E little if at all inferior to that contained in our own. We 
 meet with hymns which astonish us by their earnest 
 supxDlication and humble acknowledgement of weakness 
 and wrong- doing. But we fail to find that which charac- 
 terizes our Scriptures — a consecutive and sufficient history 
 of the connection of God with men. In the Bible we have 
 
 F what professes to be an account of the whole series of 
 revelations which God has made of His nature and relation 
 to our race. And it is this which chiefly distinguishes it. 
 Some other sacred books profess to be a revelation, to be 
 written by God or at his dictation ; but the Bible, without 
 saying anything about its authorship, at once commences 
 its task of giving a clear and consecutive and complete 
 account of the various revelations of Himself which God 
 
SERMON. 171 
 
 has made to man. It is to this aspect of the Bible as a A. 
 record of historical revelations I desire now to direct 
 attention. 
 
 There are books of Scripture which do not fall under 
 the category of history, and with these we do not in this 
 sermon directly concern ourselves. There are psalms, 
 prophecies, speculative writings, and doctrinal utterances, B 
 and in all of these the method of revelation is more inward, 
 and therefore more obscure. It is easier to understand 
 how God reveals Himself in history, in national events and 
 institutions, than to trace any private and inward revela- 
 tion of Himself which he may be pleased to make to an 
 individual. And we prefer to advance from the more to Q 
 the less easily intelligible. If we can attain to any clear 
 view as to the conjoint working of revelation and inspira- 
 tion in the production of the historical books of Scripture, 
 we may thus gain material assistance in understanding 
 the method by which the remaining books were written. 
 
 To understand, then, precisely what our Bible is, wej) 
 must apprehend the distinction between these two things, 
 God's revelation of Himself, and the narrative or record of 
 that revelation in the Bible. God has not only given some 
 intimations of His presence, some hints about His nature, 
 in the works of creation, and especially in the conscience 
 and entire nature of man, but He has, at various times j; 
 since the creation, given such intimations of His presence 
 and purposes as were quite unmistakable to those who 
 were prepared to receive them. Little by little as men 
 could receive it, He disclosed now one feature of His 
 character, and now another, and by degrees revealed His 
 whole purpose of good towards our race. In the desola- p 
 tion of the world by the flood, for example, there was a 
 very distinct revelation of God. He plainly declared to 
 men that His holiness was genuine, and his law not to be 
 tampered with. He gave, that is to say, one of the earliest 
 and most fundamental lessons regarding himself which 
 men could receive, and he gave it in a language suited to 
 the times, a language intelligible to the dullest mind. 
 
172 CASE OF EEV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A That is tlie revelation, aucl the Bible gives us an account 
 of this revelation. And so with each great disclosure of 
 His v^Sijs and purjDoses, there were ever men to see what 
 was significant, and to record each revelation as it was 
 given. 
 
 On the very surface there lie two characteristics of the 
 
 B Bible, which, to say the least, predispose the candid mind 
 to accept it as a faithful record of the revelations of Him- 
 self which God has seen fit to make. In the first place, it 
 is through the Bible that the knowledge of God does 
 actually, and in point of fact come to us. It is not pre- 
 tended that there is any higher, worthier idea of God pre- 
 
 C sent to the mind of the most discipHned or spiritual thinker 
 than just that idea which the Bible conveys. No doubt 
 the idea of God conveyed in the earlier portions of the 
 record is incomplete, but it is unfair and unscientific to lay 
 hold upon the first steps in a process and proclaim their 
 insufiiciency. We must accept the fully developed Biblical 
 
 D idea of God, and, doing so, we find that beyond this idea 
 of God men have not yet risen. In other words, the Bible, 
 whether you accept it as an inspired book or not, is the 
 book which has actually been the means of imparting to 
 the world its best knowledge of God. 
 
 In the second place, the accuracy of the writer can be 
 
 E tested. If photographs were sent to a parent in India of 
 his child in this country, and if the third in the series 
 represented a boy of twelve, while the fourth and pro- 
 fessedly subsequent one shewed a boy of ten, the parent 
 would say, these are false. Now, what we have in the 
 Bible is a series of representations of God extending over 
 
 F many hundreds of years and giving us the whole develop- 
 ment of man's knowledge of God from the first dawning 
 light to the meridian splendour of the Incarnation ; and 
 though the writers who contributed to this unique litera- 
 ture lived in circumstances of every variety, and used all 
 literary forms to express their thought, and were some- 
 times, as in the case of Abraham, unaware of any previous 
 revelation, the representations of God they make are in a 
 
SERMON. 173 
 
 regular progression — a fact which seems to imply that A 
 they were not producing from their own minds what may 
 he called fancy sketches, hut were publishing impressions 
 made upon them from without, by one who was actually 
 training men to understand Him thoroughly, that they 
 might thoroughly enter into sympathy with Him. 
 
 In the Bible then we meet with two things — God's revela-B 
 tion of Himself, and the literature in which these revela- 
 tions are recounted and preserved. We are introduced to 
 two parties — God revealing, and men prepared to see the 
 revelation. 
 
 I. The act of revelation belongs to God. I cannot but 
 make revelations of myself as I live among my fellows. IQ 
 come to be known on the whole pretty much as I am. But 
 there are actions in my past life which no man knows or 
 can know, and there are purposes of evil or of good in my 
 heart which I can if I please make known, but which no 
 man can divine without my help. And so though God 
 cannot altogether hide Himself from those who live uponD 
 and among His works, there are great depths in His nature 
 and hidden purposes of His which no man can possibly 
 know unless God pleases to make them known. And when 
 we speak of revelation we mean the imparting by God Him- 
 self of knowledge about Himself which man could not 
 otherwise have attained to. Eevelation is different fromp 
 speculation, from a natural development of national thought, 
 institutions, and literature. It is not man, by searching, 
 striving to find out God ; it is God presenting Himself 
 before man. It is not men feeling after God if haply they 
 may find Him ; but God making Himself known.* 
 
 And if it be questioned whether indeed there is any suchp 
 
 * ' ' Belief in revelation is the belief that the knowledge of God and His 
 will, which is necessary unto salvation, cannot be reached by any man 
 exercising his natural powers on the works of creation and providence ; that 
 man can know and find God as his Eedeemer only when God has personally 
 manifested Himself as such. Unbelief denies that any such personal 
 manifestation is possible, or has taken place. Belief says that God first 
 finds and chooses man. Unbehef says that man first finds and chooses 
 God." — Prof. W. Robertson Smith, 
 
174- CASE OF REV. MARCUS D0D8, D.D. 
 
 A distinction in fact, whether what we are accustomed to call 
 revelation may not after all be merely some better thoughts 
 about God, the thoughts of men inheriting a style of 
 thinking that has been clarified by preceding generations 
 of earnest and thoughtful men, the answer seems to be 
 written broadly on the history of the world. Laid alongside 
 Bof the speculations of the best thinkers, the writings of 
 David and Isaiah and Paul are at once recognised to be 
 of quite a different kind. How is it that the Hebrews 
 succeeded where the more civilised and cultured races 
 failed ? How are we to explain the fact that, while the 
 most strenuous efforts of the wisest of other races only 
 C proved man's incompetence to find out God, the Hebrews, 
 who had neither the colonising and commercial energy of 
 the Phoenicians, the speculation and culture of the Greeks, 
 nor the statesmanship of the Eomans, yet possessed 
 throughout their whole history an assured knowledge of 
 God ? It was not, that, as if by accident or exceptional 
 D genius, one or two of their great men rose to conceptions 
 of God which were above the ordinary thoughts of men — 
 but we find that the distinctive property of the race 
 throughout its whole history was a steadily developing 
 knowledge of God, and an assurance of its own connection 
 with Him. It is obvious to point to the writings of Plato 
 j; and say, That is what unassisted human genius can accom- 
 plish ; that is the mark left b}' the most vigorous human 
 effort to scale the inaccessible : and then to open the Old 
 Testament and say, There is the revelation made by God. 
 The two results are essentially distinct. 
 
 And if we further enquire how there was obtained in 
 ■p Israel a result so different from that observable anywhere 
 else, we see that it was obtained by God's adopting a 
 singular method in His treatment of Israel. This also is 
 apparent on the first blush. The nation was separate from 
 all others — separate on account of its religion. God entered 
 into a special relation with them, and dealt with them in 
 specially instructive providences, so that, as their history 
 went on, their knowledge of God deepened. There is at 
 
SERMOX. 175 
 
 present in their national life a special Divine guidance b,y A 
 which the ways of God and His character became known 
 to all who had a mind to know them. It was in that 
 people and history that God was pleased most markedly to 
 reveal Himself. 
 
 Before passing from this part of the subject we may draw 
 one conclusion from the fact that the great object of the B 
 Bible is to convey to us an accurate idea of the revelation 
 of God — and that conclusion is that we must not expect it 
 to teach anything else. Much injustice has been done the 
 Bible by a neglect of this very obvious truth. It has been 
 erected into an infallible oracle on all matters it incidentally 
 touches, and when eventually it has been found imperfectly q 
 informed on such matters, its authority on the matters 
 properly belonging to it has been brought in doubt. It has 
 been considered infallible not only in regard to the revela- 
 tion it contains, but in regard to the whole form in which 
 that revelation is conveyed to us, and so when errors and 
 imperfections have been pointed out, those whose faith has jy 
 rested on its verbal and universal infallibility, have received 
 a violent shock as if revelation itself were being brought 
 into danger. The truth is, it is no concern of the Bible's 
 to teach history or science, or to correct all the erroneous 
 impressions and popular fallacies which existed in the 
 minds of those who contributed to the Scriptures. The ^ 
 information which its writers intended to convey to us, they 
 were allowed to convey in the language of their own day 
 and also in the style of thought of their own day. Their bad 
 grammar and rudeness of style were not corrected, neither 
 were their erroneous impressions regarding ordinary matters. 
 Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy p 
 Ghost, but this did not prevent their speaking with a 
 provincial accent, neither did it prevent them from speaking 
 in that whole region of thought in which their contempor- 
 aries moved. General culture was not required to fit men 
 to know God, any more than a knowledge of mathematics 
 is required to give a dramatist knowledge of men. A blind 
 man may be an admirable musician ; an uneducated man 
 
176 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A may have as strong filial love and as clear a sense of duty 
 as the educated. And in like manner it is not mental 
 enlightenment or emancipation from every kind of error 
 which fits men to know God, but a difterent thing altogether. 
 11. Turning now to the second part of the process, we 
 inquire what was the special equipment of those who were 
 
 B chosen to record the revelations which God made. So far 
 as regards the narration of events in which God revealed 
 Himself, we find the historical writers of Scripture* in 
 thorough agreement with criticism, asserting that the 
 prime requisite is, knowledge of these facts at first hand. 
 Luke grounds the credibility of his gospel, not on any 
 
 C inspiration which could give him a knowledge of events of 
 which he could not in any other way be cognisant, but 
 upon the ordinary grounds of belief in history — viz., that 
 he had his facts from those who were eye-witnesses. We 
 have only one gospel which claims for itself to have been 
 written by an apostle, and he bases his trustworthiness on 
 
 D the fact of his being an eye-witness of what he relates and 
 an honest man. " He that saw it bare record, and his 
 record is true ; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye 
 might believe." The apostles nowhere maintain that their 
 inspiration raised them above the necessity of establishing 
 the fact of the resurrection of Christ on the ordinary 
 
 E grounds — on the contrary, the very foundation on which 
 their apostleship stood was this, that they had kept com- 
 pany with the Lord in his life-time, and had with their 
 own eyes seen Him after His death. They never ask us to 
 take their word for a thing which they had not good means 
 of knowing in the ordinary way, they do not come before 
 
 F us as men who by a process called inspiration were made 
 aware of facts which had not come within their own 
 observation or knowledge, neither do they bid us accept 
 their testimony without question as infallible, but they say 
 that by many infallible proofs Christ had appeared to them 
 
 * Meaning by the " historical writers of Scripture " not always those who 
 brought the books into their final shape, but those, whoever they were, who 
 first recorded the revelations made, 
 
SERMON. 177 
 
 after the resurrection, and they ask us to believe their A 
 word, as honest men, that they saw Him. 
 
 The inspiration of the apostles fitting them to preserve 
 to the world the life and character of our Lord, was not an 
 influence which served them instead of eyes and memory, 
 but it was an influence which set them in the right attitude 
 towards Him they were to reflect, and which made them B 
 sensitive to everything in Him which was of the highest 
 value. We have nothing in them of the trifling gossiping 
 biographer, who tells you the colour of his hero's eyes, or 
 details his daily habits and the kinds of food he relished : 
 here we are in a spiritual region, because we are in the 
 hands of spiritual men. The evangelists had the Spirit of C 
 Christ, and therefore coincided with Him as to what was 
 important and what was little in His life. He was the 
 perfect revelation of the Father, because He was one in 
 will, in character, with the Father : they were the fit and 
 worthy representatives of Christ, because they were one 
 with Him in character and will. D 
 
 This is the doctrine enunciated by our Lord Himself. 
 If you ask who is the man who sees God, and is fit to 
 reveal Him to others — our Lord shews the whole process 
 in a few words : " he that hath my commandments and 
 keepeth them, he it is that loveth me : and he that loveth 
 me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and E 
 will manifest myself to him;" or as He elsewhere still 
 more tersely says : " If any man will do His will, he shall 
 know of the doctrine." The kind of truth about God which 
 the world needed, was not that which is reached by reason- 
 ing from first principles and the nature of things, but that 
 which is attained experimentally by those who hold life- F 
 long fellowship with God. It was those who were most in 
 sympathy with the purposes of God, and who were most 
 imbued with His own Spirit, who were best prepared to see 
 and recount His revelations. The man who gave himself 
 up to God, who was emptied of self-seeking and worldly 
 ways of looking at things, was best fitted to understand 
 what God sought to declare to men. Such a man became 
 
1 78 CASE OF REV. MARCUS UODS, D.D. 
 
 A the purest possible channel of the Spirit. What he sees, 
 he sees clearly and truly, having no interest to see anything 
 different from what God actually makes known. And what 
 he sees he utters authoritatively, knowing that it is not his 
 own will he is declaring, but the will of God. He is merged 
 in God, is merely His ambassador, and speaks with the 
 
 B authority of God. 
 
 Inspiration, in short, is a spiritual gift, and only indi- 
 rectly a mental one. It illuminates the mind as enthu- 
 siasm does, by stimulating and elevating it ; it enriches the 
 memory as love does, by intensifying the interest in a 
 certain object, and by making the mind sensitive to its 
 
 C impressions and retentive of them. It brings light to the 
 understanding, and wisdom to the spirit, as purity of inten- 
 tion does, or as a high aim in life does. But it is not a gift 
 conferring intellectual acuteness where that did not pre- 
 viously exist, nor imparting any superhuman power of 
 knowledge. If an error existed in the records used by the 
 
 D compiler of the Books of Chronicles, if the documents from 
 which he was gathering his information mis-stated the 
 numbers that fell in some battle, inspiration furnished 
 him with no means of detecting such an error, any more 
 than it furnished him with the ability to sit down and write 
 the entire history of Israel out of his own brain without 
 
 E any documentary aid at all. 
 
 If then, we ask, What is it then that distinguishes these 
 writers of Scrij^ture ? we answer, Mainly this, that they 
 had the revelation at first hand, that they were the men 
 before whom the revelation was made, and who were so 
 impressed with it and saw its meaning, as to be moved to 
 
 F preserve and perpetuate this impression for the sake of 
 others. As John remarkably says, " That which we have 
 seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have 
 fellowship with us." Even they may not have seen all 
 that was in each revelation. We can scarcely suppose 
 that the evangelists saw all that was to be seen in Christ. 
 But we can only see through them. They saw it and tell 
 us of it. They were, above all else, eye-witnesses. And 
 
SERMON. 179 
 
 therefore no subsequent writers can take their place and A 
 supersede their testimony. No writers can do so, however 
 wise, however filled with the Holy Spirit, because no men 
 can now stand in the historical line of revelation as these 
 men stood. These writers of Scripture stand in the same 
 relation to the revelation of God that the great secular his- 
 torians stand to the epochs of which they write. They are B 
 the original, first-rate authorities. Other men may write 
 more fully of the early Eoman empire than Tacitus, other 
 men may use his material for various purposes, but no 
 subsequent writer can ever tell the story at first hand. 
 
 I have said that I mean these remarks to be confined to 
 the historical books of Scripture, but if we would see C 
 whether any light is gained from this point of view upon 
 the authority of the Scriptural writings which are not 
 purely historical, let us take up the Epistles of Paul. 
 Many objections are made to these epistles : their use of 
 the Old Testament is inconsistent, the arguments are far- 
 fetched, they occasionally seem to disclaim infallibility, D 
 and to be satisfied with merely giving advice. But let us 
 put aside for the moment all minor considerations, and 
 look at these epistles broadly, and ask ourselves, What 
 work did they do in the world ? And we at once see that 
 this little fragment of the world's literature has really 
 effected more than any other documents whatever, scarcely e 
 excepting the Gospels. For, in point of fact, it was Paul 
 who most distinctly saw what Christianity really was, and it 
 is in these epistles he communicated to the world the know- 
 ledge that the true religion, the religion of the spirit had 
 come. They teach, in a word, that spirit supersedes law. 
 This is the ultimate religious teaching the world needs or p 
 can have. True religion is to have one spirit with God. 
 You may put it in a thousand variations ; you may illus- 
 trate, reiterate, enforce it ; but you cannot get into Paul's 
 place and say it for the first time, neither can you say 
 anything higher or deeper, for everything is here. Paul 
 was, in point of fact, the man who saw what God meant in 
 the revelation made in Christ, 
 
180 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A Tins, I say, is mere matter of fact about which all are 
 agreed, and in comparison with this it seems quite a 
 secondary question to ask what was Paul's inspiration, and 
 how far did it carry him ? For, put the word " inspira- 
 tion" out of court for a while, and what remains? The 
 fact remains that here you have the literature of the 
 
 B world's religious crisis, the literature which actually made 
 it clear to men that Christianity is a religion of the 
 spirit, the ultimate and universal religion therefore. These 
 epistles are the actual utterances which set clear before 
 the understanding of men what the essence of the true 
 religion is, what God's final revelation was. This was 
 
 C Paul's work, and he did it. I will not deny that he was 
 occasionally wrong in a date, but is not the criticism which 
 founds anything on that ludicrously superficial ? I will 
 not deny that his style is often awkward, nor that his ideas 
 and modes of argument are sometimes strangely out of 
 harmony with our modes of thought ; but I would, at the 
 
 Bsame time, remember that it is somewhat dangerous to 
 differ from a man who could see what Paul saw, who had 
 one of the world's hugest tasks to perform, and who per- 
 formed it. I, for my part, do not care what meaning a 
 man attaches to the word " inspired," nor, indeed, whether 
 he says these epistles are inspired or not, so long as he 
 
 E accepts their teaching. The only inspiration worth con- 
 tending for is the ability to see and represent truly a reve- 
 lation of God. I do not believe what Paul says, because I 
 first believe him to be inspired ; but I believe him to be 
 inspired, because he brings light to my spirit, which can 
 only have proceeded from God. 
 
 F It is indeed a question for further discussion : What was 
 that process by which Paul was enabled authoritatively to 
 deduce a doctrinal system from the revelation made to him, 
 and on what ground does this authority rest ? but that he 
 was enlightened to perceive the essential meaning of the 
 revelation of God made in Christ, no one who understands 
 Christianity can deny. 
 In the Bible, then, we have a book which contains a 
 
SERMON. 
 
 181 
 
 faithful record of all the important revelations which God A 
 has made of Himself. We may not have them all, but we 
 have enough to give us a complete view of God. God may 
 reveal Himself to us individually in some event of our own 
 life, or in some long experience through which we are made 
 to pass, and we may be more affected by such a close and 
 impressive revelation of God than we have ever been by B 
 the Bible. But we are to consider that our minds are now 
 charged full with the truth about God which the Bible 
 delivers, and it is in the light of that truth that we read 
 all experiences of our own life. And on consideration we 
 do see that these revelations of God in our life do not give 
 any further information about God, but merely repeat and Q 
 illustrate those truths regarding Him and His ways which 
 have already been pubhshed in the great historical revela- 
 tions which He has made. 
 
 It is, however, these private revelations of God to our- 
 selves which remind us that the great object of the Bible is 
 to impart to us the knowledge of God. It is not faith in j) 
 itself w4iich the Bil)le seeks to create as its ultimate object, 
 but faith in God. It is the glass which discloses to us and 
 makes quite plain what we could only dimly and unin- 
 telligibly descry with the naked eye. It is the teacher who 
 seeks to make us familiar with his subject rather than with 
 himself, and does not so much care what we think of him, g 
 if only the subject lays hold of and possesses us. So the 
 Bible does not seek to detain our faith or attention on itself, 
 but that through it we may be able so to see God as to 
 come into loving fellowship with Him. The Bible has not 
 done its work until it takes us past itself, and makes us 
 independent of it. It is so with every teacher. The student ^ 
 tirst believes in the circulation of the blood on the authority 
 of his teacher ; but, guided by his teacher, he experiments 
 for himself and sees the thing with his own mind. The 
 traveller first accepts the guidance of the routes laid down 
 by previous explorers, but when through their means he 
 has himself made acquaintance with the country, he is 
 independent of them. So when the Bible has done its work 
 
182 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A and has brought us into a living fellowship with God, when 
 by its guidance we have come and acquainted ourselves 
 with Him, we say to it as the Samaritans said to the 
 woman, " Now we believe, not because of thy saying ; 
 for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is 
 mdeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." "When first 
 
 Byou tried some new medicine, you did so on the authority 
 of your physician ; you believed in him, and therefore you 
 believed in it. But now you believe in it because of your 
 own knowledge of its effects, and you cannot perhaps 
 remember who it was who first taught you to use it. And 
 this same progress from belief in Christ on the authority 
 
 Q of Scripture to belief in him from personal acquaintance is 
 expected of every Christian. It is expected, but it is little 
 realised. Doubtless many have so acquainted themselves 
 with Christ that His image can never more be obliterated 
 from their minds, nor their faith in Him be destroyed by 
 sickness, or blindness, or any disaster which might preclude 
 
 J) them from the use of the Bible. But each new generation 
 needs the testimony of the Scriptures, and in this life the 
 Bible remains to us all the one unfailing reminder of Christ. 
 Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of 
 Christ, but it is Christ Himself who is the light of every 
 man that cometh into the world. 
 
 E Note. —For suggestions on the whole of this subject, I desire to acknow- 
 ledge my indebtedness to Erskine's Spiritual Order, Home's Jicasoii and 
 Revelation, and Eainy's Cunningham Lectures. 
 
 The foregoing 27 pages contain the edition of Dr Dods' 
 Sermon and Preface laid on the table of the Presbytery, and 
 referred to in the Eeport. 
 ^ A. Melville, Pres. Clk. 
 
 The above Sermon was laid on the table of the Synod. 
 
 A. Wilson, Clk. Syn. 
 
REPORT OF co:*r:\iiTTEE. 1 83 
 
 Report of Committee of Free Presbytery of Glasgow ^ 
 on Dr Dods' Sermon. 
 
 The motion in connection with which the Committee were 
 appointed was in these terms : — " The Presbytery, having 
 special respect to the difficulties felt and expressed by brethren 
 regarding the views of Dr Dods on the subject of Revelation 
 and Inspiration, as stated by him in a sermon lately published, 
 entitled Revelation and Inspiration, resolve to appoint a 
 Committee to consider deliberately whether the Presbj'tery is 
 called to take any action with reference to said views, and if 
 so, of what nature, and to report to a subsequent meeting of 
 Presbytery." The Committee have given their most careful 
 attention to the subject remitted to them, they have done so^ 
 under a deep sense of responsibility, and they now beg to 
 report as follows : — 
 
 1 . The distinction which Dr Dods makes between revela- 
 tion and inspiration is a real one ; it is also an important one 
 in certain respects, especially is it so for apologetic purposes, 
 and it is for these purposes that it is brought forward and-'-' 
 insisted on in the sermon. It is of no small consequence to 
 shew that divine revelation, and with it the Christian faith, 
 can be maintained, so far as the real substance of them is 
 concerned, apart from any special theory of inspiration ; that 
 even if adversaries could successfully impugn the doctrine of 
 inspiration altogether, they would not thereby subvert the 
 great historical verities of sacred Scripture. This ground is 
 often taken up in works on apologetics ; and that the sermon 
 belongs to this class of writings, and is to be judged of 
 accordingly, may be inferred from its structure, and at all 
 events is rendered certain by the express statement of the 
 author in the preface. But it is manifest that such a line of* 
 argument, however legitimate and useful, exposes him who 
 follows it to a certain temptation and danger. He will be apt 
 to place revelation in the front, and to throw inspiration for 
 the time into the back-ground ; and, unless he exercises the 
 greatest care, he will at least appear to magnify the one and 
 
184 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A depreciate the other. The Committee are of opinion that Dr 
 Dods has not sufficiently guarded against this tendency, and 
 that he does use language which, however unintentionally, 
 yet really, seems to cast doubt on the necessity and import- 
 ance of divine inspiration. The proof of the statement now 
 made lies rather in the general strain of the sermon than in 
 
 B particular passages, but they may point, in confirmation of it, 
 to two such passages : " All that we need to contend for is 
 the historic credibility of the narratives. This we can estab- 
 lish in the completest way ; anything beyond this is not indis- 
 pensable " (Preface, p. 166 B). "I, for my part, do not care 
 what meaning a man attaches to the word 'inspired,' nor, 
 
 Q indeed, whether he says these epistles are inspired or not, so 
 long as he accepts their teaching" (Sermon, p. 180 D).* 
 
 2. As regards inspiration, the Committee have no doubt 
 that Dr Dods holds most sincerely and strongly that the 
 sacred Scriptures were divinely and supernaturally inspired. 
 Whatever may be thought of the clearness or obscurity of Dr 
 
 J) Dods' teaching as to this in the sermon, in a written com- 
 munication which was laid before the Committee he gives his 
 testimony on the point in terms the most direct and unequi- 
 vocal. There is, and can be, therefore, no room for difference 
 of opinion as to his orthodoxy in this respect, which is the 
 fundamental matter here involved. It was natural for him, 
 
 J) considering the course and design of his argument, to bring 
 forward and insist much on the human element or agency in 
 the production of Sacred Sci^ipture. That factor, though 
 subordinate, is not less real than the divine, as every intelli- 
 gent reader of the Bible must be aware. The Committee, 
 however, are clearly of opinion that in setting forth this 
 
 p aspect of the truth Dr Dods has indulged in speculation, to 
 an unwarrantable and perilous extent, regarding the nature 
 and mode of inspiration, thus presenting a striking contrast 
 to the Church's Standards, which assert the great fact with- 
 out laying down any theory on the subject. They also think 
 that he has instituted comparisons and made representations 
 Avhich have a tendency to limit the sphere and lower the 
 * All quotations are made from the third edition of the Sermon. 
 
REPORT BY COMMITTEE, 185 
 
 Idea of inspiration, as when he says, " The inspiration of the A 
 apostles fitting them to preserve to the world the life and 
 character of our Lord, was not an influence which served 
 them instead of eyes and memory, but it was an influence 
 which set them in the right attitude towards Him they were 
 to reflect, and which made them sensitive to everything in 
 Him which was of the highest value" (p. 177 A). Again, " In-B 
 spiration, in short, is a spiritual gift, and only indirectly a 
 mental one. It illuminates the mind as enthusiasm does, by 
 stimulating and elevating it ; it enriches the memory as love 
 does, by intensifying the interest in a certain object, and by 
 making the mind sensitive to its impressions and retentive of 
 til em. It brings light to the understanding, and wisdom to Q 
 the spirit, as purity of intention does, or as a high aim in life 
 does. But it is not a gift conferring intellectual acuteness 
 where that did not previously exist, nor imparting any super- 
 human power of knowledge" (p. 178 B).* And finally on 
 this point, they are deeply persuaded that he has given rise 
 to much anxiety regarding his views, by not connecting hisj) 
 vindication of the part which the sacred writers had in the 
 production of Scripture with sufiiciently explicit and pro- 
 minent balancing statements as to the divine authorship, 
 which underlies and shines through all the human authorship 
 of the Bible. 
 
 3, The chief difficulty connected with the sermon, it isg 
 believed, lies in the fact that Dr Dods holds a theory of 
 inspiration which consists with the existence of certain 
 inaccuracies or errors in sacred Scripture. He makes state- 
 ments like the following : " No careful student of Scripture 
 can well deny that there are inaccuracies in the gospels and 
 elsewhere — inaccuracies such as occur in ordinary writings j* 
 through imperfect information or lapse of memory" (p. 169 D). 
 " It is impossible to affirm that all the statements contained 
 in Scripture are strictly accurate — impossible, that is, to claim 
 for Scripture an absolute infallibility " (page 170 C). " It has 
 been considered infallible not only in regard to the revelation 
 * With reference to this statement, see Correspondence, p. 190. 
 
 12 
 
186 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A it contains, but in regard to the whole form in which that 
 revelation is conveyed to us, and so when errors and imper- 
 fections have been pointed out, those whose faith has rested 
 on its verbal and universal infallibility have received a violent 
 shock as if revelation itself were being brought into danger" 
 (p. ] 75 B). " I will not deny that he (Paul) was occasion- 
 
 C ally wrong in a date, but is not the criticism which founds 
 anything on that ludicrously superficial" (p. 180 C). Dr 
 Dods not only admits but maintains that these alleged defects 
 are of a trifling nature, that they are of no real importance 
 whatever, and that they have no bearing on doctrine or duty, 
 on faith or life. He holds that the Bible was not intended 
 
 C to teach men history or science, to give them any authorita- 
 tive information on those matters in connection with which 
 the inaccuracies he contends for occur. 
 
 Here the Committee are constrained to express the con- 
 viction that the whole mode of representation adopted on this 
 part of the subject is seriously objectionable. It appears to 
 
 D them that Dr Dods gives an unhappy prominence to these 
 alleged inaccuracies, that he dwells on them in a way which, 
 while far from intended, is fitted to grate on the feelings of 
 those who tremble at the Divine Word. They greatly prefer 
 to regard many of the matters referred to as unsolved diffi- 
 culties, and they cannot but here quote the words of one who 
 
 E agrees with Dr Dods in refusing to accept a view of inspira- 
 tion which excludes the possibility of mistake on the part of 
 the Sacred writers. Dr Farrar says, " It has, indeed, been 
 often and emphatically denied that this possibility of mistake 
 could affect them (the apostles) in what they wrote. That 
 they did so err I am not so irreverent as to assert, nor has 
 
 F the ividest learning and acutest ingenuity of scepticism ever 
 'pointed to one complete and demonstrable error of fact or 
 doctrine in the Old or New Testament"^ But while they 
 cannot approve of the language employed in the sermon, as 
 little can they deny that the view maintained is one which 
 has been held and advocated by theologians of the highest 
 authority, of world-wide reputation for orthodoxy, not less 
 * Bible Educator, vol. L, p. 207. 
 
REPORT BY COMMITTEE. 187 
 
 than for ability and learning. They have the assurance of A 
 Dr Dods that he really contends for nothing more than is 
 covered by the following quotations from the works of Dr C. 
 Hodge and Thomas Scott, the well-known commentator ; and 
 that indeed, with refei^ence to the imjDortance of these 
 inaccuracies, he would be contented to express his meaning 
 in terms rather falling within than going beyond those which B 
 one of them employs. Dr Hodge thus writes — (1) "These 
 apparent discrepancies, although numerous, are for the most 
 part trivial, relating, in most cases, to numbers or dates. 
 (2) The great majority of them are only apparent, and yield 
 to careful examination. (3) Many of them may fairly be 
 ascribed to errors of ti'anscribers. (4) The marvel and the Q 
 miracle is that there are so few of them of any real import- 
 ance." ..." The errors in matters of fact which sceptics 
 search out bear no proportion to the whole. No sane man 
 would deny that the Parthenon was built of marble, even if 
 here and there a speck of sandstone should be detected in its . 
 structure. Not less unreasonable is it to deny the inspiration j) 
 of such a book as the Bible, because one sacred writer says 
 that on a given occasion twenty-four, and another says that 
 twenty-three thousand, men were slain. Surely a Christian 
 may be allow^ed to tread such objections under his feet." * 
 Thomas Scott, in his essay on Inspiration, thus states the 
 matter : " By the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, I ^ 
 mean such an immediate and complete discovery by the Holy 
 Spirit to the minds of the sacred penmen, of those things 
 which could not have been otherwise known, and such an 
 effectual superintendency as to those matters which they 
 might be informed of by other means, as entirely to preserve 
 them from all error, in every particular, which could in the w 
 least affect any of the doctrines or commandments contained 
 in their writings." . . . "Nor does it at all invalidate the 
 complete inspiration of the sacred writers, to allow that they 
 expressed themselves in common language, and Avrote of 
 things as men generally spoke of them, rather than according 
 to philosophical exactness, or in the style that was used in 
 * Theology, vol. I., p. 1C9, 170. 
 
188 CASE OF KEY. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A the schools of the learned, during the ages in wliich they lived. 
 Supposed, or unimportant errors, or inaccuracies of expression 
 in such things, are not in the least inconsistent with that 
 entire divine inspiration of which we speak ; for the Scriptures 
 were not written to render us exact philosophers, or to 
 instruct us in ancient history and geography, but to make us 
 
 B vvise unto salvation. Nor do the few immaterial mistakes, 
 which in a long course of years have crept in, through the 
 errors of transcribers, create any difficulty or uncertainty to 
 the humble and teachable inquirer, though they may give 
 occasion to the self-sufficient to cavil and object; for 'the 
 Lord taketh the wise in their own craftiness.'"* 
 
 Q 4. There are various remarks and expressions in the sermon 
 to which serious objection has been taken, and to some of 
 these it may be proper to advert very briefly. Thus : — 
 
 (1.) In the opening sentences of the discourse these words 
 occur : " We find in some of them" (that is, the sacred books 
 of other religions than the Christian) "a moral teaching, 
 
 J) little if at all inferior to that contained in our own." In the 
 opinion of the Committee that statement is much stronger 
 than the facts of the case warrant ; but they recognise the 
 intention as being not to disparage the Scriptures, for the 
 statement is made to give emphasis to the contrast drawn 
 between these Scriptures as presenting a clear, consecutive, 
 
 j^ and complete historical account of God's revelation of himself 
 to men, and all other sacred books, which want this grand 
 characteristic, whatever their excellence in certain respects. 
 
 (2.) At page lOj it is said that " inspiration does not pre- 
 clude the necessity of acquiring information by the ordinary 
 means," and the same idea is largely insisted on throughout 
 Y the sermon. Dr Dods is dealing with the historical books of 
 Scripture, and it is an undoubted and remarkable feature of 
 God's way of working, that even in the case of miracles he 
 honours the natural, and makes use of it up to the utmost 
 limits of its proper sphere. But nothing is more certain than 
 that the author of the discourse believes and teaches, that 
 the Scriptures are full of truths which no unaided powers of 
 * Theol. Works, p. 164. t See p. 170 B. 
 
REPORT BY COMMITTEE. 189 
 
 men could ever have discovered, or recorded as they stand in A 
 the Bible, where there is a height and depth, a length and 
 breadth, which these powers could not have reached even 
 when putting forth their greatest efforts and rising to their 
 noblest exercise. 
 
 (3.) At page 22 * it is said that " inspiration is not a gift 
 imparting any superhuman power of knowledge." ThisB 
 language is difScult to reconcile with the idea of inspiration 
 as a gift which raises him on whom it is bestowed above the 
 merely natural or ordinary human sphere, and therefore the 
 Committee are happy to have Dr Dods' express assurance 
 that he does not stand by it, and that it would have been 
 corrected but for the difficulty of doing so under the circum- 
 stances which had arisen. The explanation is important, and 
 the difficulty felt in connection with the words ought to be 
 regarded as satisfactorily removed. 
 
 (4.) Much fault has been found with the statement in page 
 25 :-f* " I do not believe what Paul says, because I first believe 
 him to be inspired, but I believe him to be inspired, becauseD 
 he brings light to my spirit which can only have proceeded 
 from God." But startling as the language at first is, it seems 
 intended to be but a strong way of expressing the distinctively 
 Protestant view of the self-evidencing power of Scripture. 
 Any number of testimonies as to this self-evidencing power 
 might be adduced, but one taken from the sainted Haly-E 
 burton's Reason of Faith may suffice. " That whereon all, 
 to whom the word of God comes, are bound to receive it with 
 the faith above described, is not any particular word of the 
 Scripture bearing testimony to all the rest. As for instance, 
 it is not merely or primarily upon this account that I am 
 bound to receive all the written word as the Word of God, p 
 because the Scripture says, 2 Tim. iii. 16, 'that all Scripture 
 is given by inspiration of God.'" "The formal reason or 
 ground whereon I assent to, or receive the whole Scriptures, 
 and every particular truth in them, and am obliged in duty 
 so to do, is, the authority and truth of God speaking in them, 
 and speaking every truth they contain, evidencing itself to 
 * See p. 178 C. t See p. 180 E. 
 
190 CASE OF llEV. MAKCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A my faith, Avlien duly exercised about them and attending to 
 them by their own distinguishing light and power. Or when 
 it is inquired, wherefore do ye believe, receive, assent to, and 
 rest on the Scriptures as indeed the Word of God, and not of 
 man ? I answer, I do believe them, because they carry in 
 them, to my faith, an evidence of God, or do evidence tliem- 
 
 !E selves by their own light and power to my faith duly 
 exercised about them, that they are the word of God and not 
 of man." (Prop. vii. x.)* 
 
 In conclusion, the Committee are satisfied that the sermon 
 is open to grave objections, in the respects and on the grounds 
 already specified, and they do not wonder at the anxiety 
 
 C which it has awakened. It is fragmentary and immature, 
 and in it Dr Dods, as they are persuaded, has not done 
 justice either to his own remarkable gifts and influential 
 position, or to the weighty and difficult subject which is here 
 handled. In consideration of all this, and very specially of 
 the serious doubts and misapprehensions as to his real mean- 
 
 D ing to which the sermon has given rise, he would probably do 
 well not to carry the publication any farther, at least in its 
 present form. But it is a relief to them, while saying all this, 
 to be able to add, that in their judgment the Presbytery is 
 not called to institute any process, or to take any further 
 action in the matter ; and they now beg to report accordingly. 
 
 E 
 
 Correspondence. 
 
 I. Letter from Dr Adam to Dr Dods. 
 
 Glasgoiv, IWi September 1877. 
 My dear Dr Dods, — It will be a favour to myself, and it 
 f may be helpful to the Committee, if you will kindly answer 
 the following questions : — 
 
 1. Am I right in believing, as I do, that you hold, and do 
 not mean by anything in your sermon to call in question, the 
 divine supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testaments ? 
 
 2. Do you regard the alleged inaccuracies which you speak 
 
 * Halyburton's Works, p. 531-2. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 191 
 
 of in your sermon as in any way affecting the Scriptures as A 
 a revelation of doctrine and duty — a divine authoritative rule 
 of faith and life ? 
 
 3. Does your view of these inaccuracies differ from that 
 presented in the two quotations which I enclose, the one from 
 the theological works of Thomas Scott, the other from those 
 of Dr C. Hodge ? B 
 
 Add to the answers anything which you wish to be specially 
 in view of the Committee when considering the statements 
 contained in your sermon and preface. — Believe me, yours 
 very truly, J. Ad AM. 
 
 Rev. Dr Dods. 
 
 Note.— The two quotations referred to in the letter are those given in the C 
 foregoing Eeport, p. 187 B. 
 
 II. Letter in reply from Dr Dods to Dr Adam. 
 
 13 Burnbank Gardens, 24th September ]877. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In reply to yours just received, I have to 
 say, 1st. You are right in believing that I hold, and do notD 
 mean by anything in my sermon to call in question, the divine 
 supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 
 2d. I hold that the inaccuracies alluded to in my sermon 
 in no way affect the authority and sufficiency of the Scrip- 
 tures as an infallible revealed rule of faith and life. 
 
 3d. The quotations from Scott and Hodge which you sub-E 
 mit to me pretty accurately express my view of the inaccu- 
 racies in Scripture. Only I object to Hodge's admission that 
 there are some of " real importance." I am not aware of any 
 which have any " real importance." 
 
 In connection with the first of your questions, I may add 
 that I regret to find that I have given occasion for its being F 
 asked. On p. 22 of my sermon I have said that inspiration 
 does not impart any superhuman power of knowledge.* This 
 expression is much too broad and sweeping, and I would have 
 withdrawn it long since ; but this is one of the evils which 
 ecclesiastical procedure entails, that no alteration can be made 
 on a document to which the attention of the Church has been 
 * See p. 178 C. 
 
192 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D, 
 
 A turned. All that I could do in the circumstances I did : I wrote 
 a preface by which I desire that the sermon be interpreted. 
 
 Regretting the trouble I am giving to you and other friends, 
 I remain, yours very truly, Marcus Dods. 
 
 Dissents by Members of Committee. 
 
 B Free Preshyterij House, 
 
 Glasgow, 5th November 1877. 
 We, the undersigned members of the Committee of Pres- 
 bytery appointed to consider the sermon on " Revelation and 
 Inspiration," recently published by the Rev. Dr Dods, hereby 
 intimate our dissent from the report adopted by that Com- 
 
 C mittee, in so far as regards the following particulars : — 
 
 First. We dissent from, and disapprove of, the apologetic 
 tone apparent in several parts of the report, and especially the 
 apologetic way in which the report meets the charges that 
 Dr Dods brings against the Scriptures as originally given, of 
 containing " inaccuracies such as occur in ordinary writings 
 
 D through imperfect information or lapse of memory," of con- 
 taining " errors and imperfections," &c. At the top of page 
 5th of the report* it is stated, that while the Committee 
 " cannot approve of the language employed in the sermon, as 
 little can they deny that the view maintained is one which 
 has been held and advocated by theologians of the highest 
 
 E authority, of world-wide reputation for orthodoxy, not less 
 than for ability and learning." The only authors referred to 
 in support of this statement are Dr Charles Hodge and Mr 
 Thomas Scott, the commentator, and the quotations from 
 them are not relevant, for they do not admit that any errors 
 were in the Scriptures as originally given ; on the contrary, 
 
 F as shewn by the context, and other portions of their writings, 
 they hold the divine authorship of Scripture, and their infal- 
 lible truth, as originally given. The clause in the quotation 
 from Mr Scott, in which he speaks of " supposed, or unim- 
 portant errors, or inaccuracies of expression in such things'' as 
 shewn by the preceding sentence, applies only to such things 
 as arise from the use of common language, rather than the 
 * See p. 186 F. 
 
DISSENTS BY MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE. 193 
 
 language of philosophical exactness. It is not correct, there- A 
 fore, to say that these " theologians of the highest authority, 
 and of world-wide reputation for orthodoxy," agree with Dr 
 Dods, for they do not. 
 
 Second. We dissent from, and disapprove of, the last 
 sentence but one of the report as being far too weak and 
 altogether inadequate to meet the requirements of the case. B 
 Dr Dods has given a theory of inspiration in which he has 
 ignored the divine authorship of Scripture ; in which he has 
 denied the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, at 
 least in so far as regards the " verbal expression " in which 
 God's revelation is communicated,* and in which he has 
 brought against the Scriptures as originally given charges of 
 containing " inaccuracies," " errors and imperfections," and 
 " imperfect information." The Committee's report admits 
 that Dr Dods "has indulged in speculation to txnumv arrant- 
 able and perilous extent;" that they "are constrained to 
 express the conviction that the whole mode of representation 
 adopted on this part of the subject is seriously objectionable;" O 
 that Dr Dods gives an unhappy prominence to these alleged 
 inaccuracies, that he dwells on them in a way which, while 
 far from intended, is fitted to grate on the feelings of those 
 who tremble at the divine word ;" that " the sermon is open 
 to grave objections in the respects, and on the grounds already 
 stated ;" that " they do not wonder at the anxiety it has R 
 awakened;" and yet the only thing proposed to be done, 
 according to this report, is to say to Dr Dods that " Probably 
 he would do ivell not to carry the publication any farther, 
 at least in its present form." From this we dissent, as far 
 too weak and altogether inadequate, and submit that the 
 sermon should be disapproved of by the Presbytery, and thai p 
 Dr Dods should be enjoined not to carry the publication any 
 farther, A. C. Fullarton. 
 
 Andrew A. Bonar. 
 
 John Riddell. 
 
 William Jeffrey. 
 
 James H. Dickson. 
 
 * See preface to Sermon of Dr Dods, p. 9, at top (p. 169 C). 
 
194) CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 We dissent from the Kej)ort — specially from the conclusion 
 — for the following and other reasons : — 
 
 I. The Keport implies that, though some views are set 
 forth in a seriously objectionable manner, and in language of 
 which the Committee cannot approve, yet no opinion is ex- 
 ■pj pressed which in itself calls for disapproval or censure on the 
 part of the Presbytery. Whereas, in our judgment, the pub- 
 lication contains statements contrary to, or inconsistent with, 
 the Word of God and Confession of Faith, in so far as — 
 
 1. It is asserted that there are inaccuracies and errors in 
 some parts of Scripture, such as occur in ordinary writings 
 
 Q through imperfect information or lapse of memory, and from 
 the erroneous impressions of the human writers regarding 
 ordinary matters not being corrected (pages 9, 10, 17, 18, 3d 
 edition). Tliis is inconsistent with the Confession, which 
 declares the Holy Scripture to be the Word of God written — 
 that God is the author thereof — that it is all given by inspira- 
 
 j) tion of God — and is of infallible truth and divine authority 
 (Cap. I. 1, 2, 4, 5), and contrary to the teaching of Scripture, 
 which, throughout, asserts the purity, perfection, certainty of 
 all the words of God — Psalms xii. 6, &c., &c., &c. Our Lord 
 constantly appeals to the very words of Scripture — " It is 
 written " — " How readest thou " — " Have ye not read what 
 
 •g David did " — " The Scripture cannot be broken," &c., &c., &c. 
 
 2. The special equipment ascribed to the human writers 
 who were chosen to record the revelations is nothing more 
 than a high degree of sanctifying grace, with opportunity of 
 knowing a revelation at first hand, and historical facts in the 
 ordinary way (pp. 19, 20, 21, 22). This is not inspiration, 
 
 ji but something essentially differing from it, and is therefore 
 contrary to the foresaid statements of the Confession, and to 
 the Scripture itself 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Cor. ii. 13, &c., &c. 
 
 II, The publication as a whole, in its general scope and 
 tenor, is of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in its bear- 
 ing on the doctrine of inspiration, as taught in Scripture and 
 the Confession, and as hitherto understood in this church. 
 
 III. The Presbytery is therefore called to disapprove and 
 
DISSENTS BY MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE. 195 
 
 censure said publication on the grounds above specified, and A. 
 to require that it be withdrawn. Alex. Ubquhakt. 
 
 Henry Anderson. 
 
 R C. Smith. 
 
 EOBERT GaULT. 
 
 George Campbell. 
 Glasgoiv, otJi Nov. 1877. B 
 
 I dissent from the third section of the Report. 
 
 (1.) Because it does not contain a sufficiently explicit con- 
 demnation of those parts of the Sermon and Preface which 
 seem to affirm that there are real errors in the original 
 Scriptures. G 
 
 (2.) Because, while the quotations from the theological 
 works of Dr Hodge and Thomas Scott are of value, inasmuch 
 as they "pretty accurately express" Dr Dods' "view of the 
 inaccuracies in Scripture," the connection in which they are 
 introduced is such as to suggest an unfair representation of 
 the views of the respective authors, seeing it is manifest fromD 
 the context and from other portions of their writings that 
 neither of them admits that there are any inaccuracies in the 
 original Scriptures, " such as occur in ordinary writings 
 through imperfect information or lapse of memory." 
 
 I dissent from the conclusion of the Eeport. E 
 
 (1.) Because, notwithstanding the instructions given to the 
 Committee to advise the Presbytery as to its duty in this 
 matter and the strong condemnation expressed in the Report, 
 an expression of the Presbytery's disapproval of the Sermon 
 is not recommended. 
 
 (2.) Because advice is given to Dr Dods as to his probable F 
 dut}^ in reference to the continued publication of the Sermon, 
 instead of being given to the Presbytery as to its duty in that 
 matter, which, in my judgment, is to enjoin Dr Dods not to 
 carry the publication any farther, at least in its present form. 
 
 Robert Howie. 
 
 I dissent from section three, as making a use of passages 
 
196 CASE OF EEV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A from the writings of Dr C. Hodge and Thomas Scott, which 
 is unfair to the writers, and may be misleading to others ; 
 and for the same reason, though in stronger degree, I dissent 
 from section four in its use of a passage from the works of 
 Halyburton. James Nicoll. 
 
 B The foregoing fifteen pages contain a true copy of the 
 Report of the Presbytery's Committee on Dr Dods' sermon, 
 and of the accompanying documents. 
 
 A. Melville, P. C. 
 
 The above Report, &c., Avas laid on the table of the Synod. 
 C Alex. Wilson, CI. Syn. 
 
 Minutes of Free Presbytery of Glasgow. 
 
 At Glasgow, the 7th day of November 1^11 years. — The 
 ■jj Free Presbytery of Glasgow being met and constituted. 
 Inter alia, — 
 
 Dr Adam gave in the Report of the Committee to consider 
 Dr Dods' sermon, from which it appeared, that while the 
 Committee are satisfied that the sermon is open to grave 
 objections, and while they think that Dr Dods would probably 
 •g do well not to carry the publication further, at least in its 
 present form, in their judgment the Presbytery is not called 
 upon to institute any process or take any further action in 
 the matter. 
 
 The report was accompanied by dissents from various 
 members of Committee. 
 ■p The Presbytery agreed that the report should be printed 
 for the use of the members, and resolved to meet to consider 
 it on Tuesday, the 27th instant, at twelve o'clock noon. 
 Notices of motion on the subject were given in by Dr Adam, 
 Mr Bremner, Mr Howie, Dr Bonar, and Mr Gordon. 
 
 Extracted by Andw. Melville, Presb. Clk. 
 
 At Glasgow, the 27th day of November 1877 years.— The 
 
MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY OF GLASGOW. 1 97 
 
 Free Presbytery of Glasgow being met and constituted. A 
 Inter alia, — 
 
 Dr Adam moved as follows -.—The Presbytery approve of 
 the report of the Committee now submitted, and in accord- 
 ance with the conclusion of it, find that the sermon of Dr 
 Dods is open to grave objections, in the respects and on the 
 grounds specified in the report; also that for the reasons B 
 there stated, the desirableness of not continuing the publica- 
 tion of the sermon, at least in its present form, should be 
 represented, as it hereby is, to Dr Dods ; but at the same 
 time they find that they are not called to institute any pro- 
 cess or take any further action in the matter. 
 
 Mr Isdale seconded the motion, O 
 
 Mr Robert Bremner moved as follows : — Whereas the 
 sermon and preface referred to in the report now on the 
 table contain numerous very objectionable statements and 
 opinions ; whereas, in particular, the direct or indirect denial 
 in said sermon and preface of the miraculous inspiration of 
 the sacred writers, and of the plenary inspiration and infalli-D 
 bility of the Bible, and the assertion that the inspiration of 
 the sacred writers was simply a spiritual gift, and that the 
 Bible contains errors and inaccuracies such as occur in ordi- 
 nary writings, through imperfect information or lapse of 
 memory, are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the testimony 
 of Scripture, the teaching of the Confession of Faith, andE 
 the doctrine hitherto held and professed by this Church, 
 fitted to subvert all faith in the infallible truth and divine 
 authority of the Bible as the word of God, and therefore 
 deserving of the decided condemnation of the Presbytery ; 
 and whereas, nevertheless, the Committee by whom the 
 aforesaid report was prepared and submitted to the Presby- p 
 tery, while taking exception more or less strongly to the 
 language occasionally employed in said sermon and preface, 
 to the speculations occasionally indulged in, and to the mode 
 or form adopted in some instances by the author in the 
 representation of his views, do not see anything seriously 
 objectionable in the views themselves, or express any con- 
 demnation of them ; but, on the contrary, apologise for them, 
 
19S CASE OF EEV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A and even vindicate and defend the author in holding them, 
 declaring them to be such as have been held and advocated 
 by the ablest and most orthodox theologians, and therefore 
 recommend the Presbytery to take no further action in 
 regard to them. 
 
 The Presbytery, on the foregoing grounds, decline to 
 B approve of the said report, or to adopt the recommendation 
 with which it concludes ; strongly condemn the aforesaid 
 views ; censure the publication of them, as fitted to be most 
 unsettling and injurious, especially to the young ; enjoin the 
 author to withdraw the sermon and preface in which they are 
 promulgated from publication, and appoint a committee to 
 C confer with him as to the views in question, and to report. 
 
 Mr R C. Smith seconded the motion. 
 
 Dr Bonar then moved as follows : — The Presbytery receive 
 the report, and record their thanks to the Committee and 
 the Convener. In the line of the strictures of the report, 
 the Presbytery disapprove of the sermon and preface, espe- 
 £) cially of those parts that seem to limit the sphere and lower 
 the idea of inspiration, as also of those that appear to assert 
 the existence of real errors in the Holy Scriptures, as originally 
 given ; and they intimate to the author that they regard it as 
 his duty not to carry the publication any further. 
 
 Mr Fullarton seconded the motion. 
 ■£ Mr Gordon moved as follows : — That the correspondence 
 between Dr Adam and Br Dods, with reference to the sermon 
 by the latter on Revelation and Inspiration, sliall not form 
 part of the report. 
 
 Mr Hugh M'Dougall seconded the motion. 
 
 Thereafter the Presbytery adjourned, to meet in this place 
 •p on Thursday, at eleven o'clock, to continue the discussion. 
 
 Extracted by Andw. Melville, Presb. Clk. 
 
 At Glasgoiu, the 20tJi day of N'ovemher 1877 years. — The 
 Free Presbytery of Glasgow being met and constituted. 
 Inter alia, — 
 
 Mr Howie moved as follows : — The Presbytery thank the 
 Committee and the Convener for their dilifrence, but refrret 
 
jriXUTES OF PRESBYTEEY OF GLASGOW. 1 99 
 
 that they cannot approve of the report, or adopt the recom- .V 
 niendatiou with which it concludes ; disapprove of and censure 
 the views set forth in the sermon 'and preface regarding 
 Inspiration and the Infallibility of the Bible, as contrary to 
 the Word of God and the Standards and teaching of this 
 Church ; instruct the author not to carry the publication any 
 further, and appoint a committee to confer with him in B 
 regard to the views in question, and to report. 
 
 Mr Nicol seconded the motion. 
 
 In favour of this motion, Mr R Bremner and Dr Bonar, 
 with consent of the Presbytery, withdrew their respective 
 motions. 
 
 Dr Adam having replied, Mr Gordon also withdrew hisQ 
 motion, and the vote was taken between Dr Adam's motion 
 and Mr Howie's, when the roll being called and votes marked, 
 it was found that 54 voted for Dr Adam's motion, and 51 for 
 Mr Howie's. The Presbytery therefore resolve in terms of 
 Dr Adam's motion. 
 
 From this resolution Mr Robert Bremner dissented, in hisD 
 own name and in the name of all who might adhere to him, 
 protested for leave to complain to the Free Synod of Glasgow 
 and Ayr, for reasons to be given in in due time, took instru- 
 ments in the Clerk's hands, and craved extracts, which were 
 granted. 
 
 Messrs Gault, R. C. Smith, Hugh M'Dougall, George 3 
 Campbell, Anderson, Urquhart, Gordon, Fordyce, and Mur- 
 chison, ministers, and Mr Thomas Macklin, elder, adhered to 
 Mr Bremner's dissent. 
 
 Extracted by Andw, Melville, Presb. Clk. 
 
 At Glasgoiv, the 5th day of December 1877 years. — Thep 
 Free Presbytery of Glasgow being met and constituted. 
 loiter alia, — 
 
 Mr Howie, minister, and Allan Munro, elder, intimated 
 their adherence to the dissent taken by Mr Robert Bremner 
 against the judgment of the Presbytery, on the report of the 
 Committee on Dr Dods' sermon. 
 
 Extracted by Andw. Melville, Presb. Clk. 
 
200 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DOBS, D.D. 
 
 A At Glasgow, the 2d day of January 1878 years. — The 
 Free Presbytery of Glasgow being met and constituted. 
 Inter alia, — 
 
 Reasons of Dissent and Complaint by Mr Robert Bremner 
 and others, against the judgment of the Presbytery on the 
 report of Dr Dods' Sermon, which had been lodged in due 
 j^time, were read. 
 
 The following were appointed to answer these reasons, and 
 to defend the judgment of the Presbyter}'- at the bar of the 
 Synod, viz. : — Dr Adam, Dr Douglas, Dr Macmillan, Mr 
 Isdale, Mr Waterston, and Mr Wells, ministers; Messrs 
 George Reith, James Templeton, John Hart, and AValter 
 Q Duncan, elders ; Dr Adam, Convener. 
 
 Messrs Riddell, Fullarton, James Stuart, Macintosh, and 
 Tullo, ministers, and Mr D. Maccallum elder, intimated their 
 adherence to the dissent taken by Mr R. Bremner, against the 
 judgment on Dr Dods' Sermon. 
 
 Extracted by Andw. Melville, Presb. Clk. 
 
 D A true copy. Alex. Wilson, Clk. Synod. 
 
 Reasons of Dissent and Complaint by Rev. R. 
 Bremner and others, 8th December 1877. 
 
 jj Glasgow, 8th December 1877. 
 
 We, the undersigned, dissent from the judgment of the 
 Presbytery on 29th November, in the case of the Rev Dr 
 Dods, and complain against it to the ensuing meeting of the 
 Free Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, for the following reasons, 
 and for others to be urged at the bar of the Synod : 
 
 •p 1. First. Because in the report approved of, the Committee 
 by whom it was submitted do not bring before the Presbytery 
 a full and faithful representation of the unscriptural and 
 dangerous character of the views set forth in the sermon and 
 preface reported on, especially of those which bear upon the 
 inspiration and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, but, on 
 the contrary, apologise for them, and not only so, but even 
 vindicate the author in holding and publishing that there 
 
REASONS OF DISSENT AND COMPLAINT. 201 
 
 were errors and inaccuracies in the Scriptures, as originally ^ 
 given, by declaring that the very same view has been held 
 and advocated by " theologians of the highest authority and 
 of world-wide reputation for orthodoxy, not less than for 
 ability and learning." 
 
 2. Secondly. Because the Presbytery, while finding that 
 the said sermon and preface are open to grave objections, doB 
 so merely " in the respects and on the grounds specified in 
 the report" — that is, not on the ground of the matter of 
 doctrinal teaching contained in them, but solely on the ground 
 of the manner or form in which that teaching is expressed. 
 Whereas they ought to have condemned and censured the 
 said sermon and preface, as containing views on tlie inspira- Q 
 tion and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, and other 
 matters contrary to or inconsistent with the Word of God, and 
 the Standards and teaching of this Church. 
 
 3. Thirdly. Because the Presbytery have merely repre- 
 sented to the author the desirableness of not continuing the 
 publication of the sermons and preface in the present form ; Q 
 Avhereas, considering the unscriptural and dangerous character 
 of their teaching, he ought to have been instructed not to 
 carry the publication of them any further, and the case other- 
 wise disposed of according to the laws of the Church. 
 
 4. Fourthly. Because the decision of the Presbytery will, if 
 unreversed, authoritatively declare that any minister of this g 
 Church may, without challenge, not only hold, but also preach 
 and publish such views as are promulgated in this sermon. 
 Signed — Robert Bremner, minister ; Andrew A. Bonar, 
 minister ; Robert Gault, minister ; Alexander Urquhart, 
 minister ; Evan Gordon, minister ; R. C. Smith, minister ; 
 Robert Howie, minister ; James Nicol, minister ; G. L. p 
 Campbell, minister ; Henry Anderson, minister ; D. K. 
 M'Meikan, minister ; William Jeffrey, minister ; John F. 
 M'Gregor, minister ; Robert Marshall, elder ; Donald 
 M'Pherson, elder ; Robert M'Callum, elder ; James Allan, 
 elder ; N. M'Kinnon, elder ; Malcolm M'Gregor, elder ; 
 James Donald, elder ; George Munro, elder ; James 
 Robertson, elder ; William C. Morton, elder ; William 
 
 13 
 
202 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A Morton, elder ; John Buchanan, elder ; Allan Munro, elder ; 
 Thomas Macklin, elder ; Thomas Laurie, elder ; A. C. Ful- 
 larton, minister ; Hugh M'Intosh, minister ; William Tullo, 
 minister ; Duncan M'Callum, elder ; John Stewart, minister ; 
 George Campbell, minister ; John Riddell, minister ; Alex- 
 ander Andrew, minister; R. M. Thornton, minister; James 
 
 B Fordyce, minister ; James Stuart, minister ; Alexander 
 Murchison, minister ; John Wands, elder ; William Beith, 
 elder ; J. Smith, minister ; James Drysdale, minister ; G. W. 
 Gumming, minister ; William Scott, minister. 
 8th December 1877. — Lodged with me this day. 
 
 A. Melville, P. C. 
 
 C A true copy. A. M., P. C. 
 A true copy. Alex. Wilson, CI. Synod. 
 
 Answers to Keasons of Dissent in Dr Dods' Case. 
 
 At Glasgoiv, the Gth day of February 1878 years. — The 
 Free Presbytery of Glasgow being met and constituted. Inter 
 alia, — 
 
 Dr Adam read answers to the Reasons of Dissent in Dr 
 Dods' case, prepared by the Committee for that purpose, 
 which were ordered to be kept in retentis. 
 
 ■^ Extracted by Andw. Melville,. Presb. Clk. 
 
 Answers to Reasons of Dissent by Mr R. Bremner 
 and Others. 
 
 1. The Presbytery have to state in reply that the Com- 
 •p mittee brought forward in the report approved of what the 
 Presbytery deemed a full and faithful representation of the 
 views set forth in Dr Dods' sermon and preface ; that they 
 took exception to these views, in the respects and on the 
 grounds specified at length in the report; and that so far 
 from vindicating the teaching of Dr Dods on the subject of 
 inaccuracies in the original Scriptures, they expressed strong 
 disapproval of the same, while the admission could not 
 
MINUTES OF SYNOD OF GLASGOW AND AYR. 203 
 
 honestly be withheld, that in more guarded form and with A 
 certain limitations, teaching substantially identical so far as 
 that particular point is concerned, had proceeded from theo- 
 logians, not only of the highest reputation for learning, but 
 of general and acknowledged orthodoxy. 
 
 2. This reason is contradicted by the whole strain of the 
 report, in which exception is taken to the teaching of the B 
 sermon itself, as marked both by dangerous tendencies, of a 
 positive kind, and by serious defects, and not merely to the 
 form or manner in which that teaching is expressed. They 
 disavow the idea, by whomsoever entertained, that their 
 objects were directed simply against the time at which, or the 
 language in which, Dr Dods' views were published. 
 
 3. The Presbytery took the proper, and as it has actually 
 proved, the effectual way to secure the withdrawal of the 
 sermon, and any other could have proceeded only on an 
 exercise of authority, which admitted of being enforced, and 
 if resisted, behoved to be enforced by a judicial process — a 
 course of action for which the Presbytery were not prepared D 
 in the present instance. 
 
 4. The decision of the Presbytery goes the utmost length 
 in guarding against the holding and teaching of the views 
 contained in the sermon and preface, which it is believed the 
 standards of this Church and the circumstances of the case 
 warrant. E 
 
 A true copy. A. M., P. Clk. 
 
 A true copy. Alex. Wilson, Clk. Syn. 
 
 Minutes of Synod of Glasgow and Ayr. 
 
 At Glasgow, and within the Free Tron Church, the 9th p 
 day of April 1878 years. — In terms of adjournment, the 
 Free Synod of Glasgow and Ayr met and was constituted. 
 Inter alia, — 
 
 The Synod called for the Report of the Committee on 
 Bills, which was given in and read by Mr Cowan, transmitting 
 Dissent and Complaint, by Mr Robert Bremner, minister at 
 Glasgow, and others, against a judgment of the Presbytery of 
 
SO-i CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A Glasgow, of dcate 29th November 1 877, in the case of Dr 
 Dods, with relative papers, viz. : — * 
 
 I. Extract Minutes of the Presbytery of Glasgow, of date 
 7th, 27th, and 29th November 1877. 
 
 II. Keasons of Dissent and Complaint. 
 
 III. Sermon (printed) on Revelation and Inspiration. A 
 B certified copy. 
 
 IV. Report (printed) of Presbytery's Committee, anent 
 Sermon on Revelation and Inspiration. A certified copy. 
 
 V. Presbytery's Answers to Reasons of Dissent and Com- 
 plaint. 
 
 The Reasons of Dissent and Complaint, the Extract 
 C Minutes of Presbytery, and the Answers by the Presbytery 
 to the Reasons of Dissent and Complaint having been read, 
 and the Sermon of Dr Dods and the Report of the Com- 
 mittee of Presbytery thereanent, having been held as read, 
 parties were called. 
 
 Compeared for the Complainants, Messrs R. Bremner, 
 
 D Howie, R. C. Smith, Nicol, Dr Bonar, Messrs Riddel 1, H. 
 
 M'Intosh, Fullarton, Gault, H. M'Dougall, and Evan Gordon ; 
 
 and for the Presbytery of Glasgow, Dr Adam, Mr Waterston, 
 
 and Mr Isdale. 
 
 It was moved and seconded that the case be referred to the 
 Assembly simpliciter. 
 E It was also moved and seconded that the case be not 
 referred to the General Assembly. 
 
 On a show of hands, it was agreed not to refer the case to 
 the General Assembly. 
 
 It was then moved and seconded that the Synod adjourn 
 
 until this day fortnight, that the papers in the case may be 
 
 F printed and put into the hands of all the members of the Court. 
 
 It was also moved and seconded that the Synod do not 
 
 adjourn, but proceed to take up the case. It was agreed that 
 
 the state of the vote be adjourn, or go on. 
 
 The roll having been called and votes marked, it carried, 
 go on, by 53 to 48 votes. 
 
 The Synod resolved to proceed with the case. 
 * See p. 196. 
 
MINUTES OF SYNOD OF GLASGOW AND AYR. 205 
 
 Mr Howie having been heard in part for the Complainants, A. 
 the Synod adjourn, to meet in this place this evening at 
 half-past seven o'clock ; whereof public intimation having 
 been made, this sederunt was closed with prayer. 
 
 Extracted by Alex. Wilson, Clk. Synod. 
 
 At Glasgoiu, and ivithin the Free Tron Church, the 9th B 
 day of Ai^il 1878 years, at half-imst seven o clock p.m. — In 
 terms of adjournment, the Free Synod of Glasgow and Ayr 
 met and was constituted. Inter alia, — 
 
 The Synod resumed the hearing of parties at the bar in 
 the case of Dr Dods. 
 
 Parties having been heard, were removed. C 
 
 It was moved by Mr Laughton, and seconded by Mr 
 Cowan, The Synod sustain the complaint, in so far as the 
 deliverance of the Presbytery commits all who concur in it to 
 an approval of the Committee's report ; but, at the same time, ■ 
 find it unnecessary to give any judgment on the report itself, 
 or on anything contained in it. The Synod disapprove of the]) 
 sermon and preface in question, as open to grave objections, 
 in respect of statements and reasonings which seem to limit 
 the sphere and lower the idea of inspiration, and as giving rise 
 to serious doubts and misapprehensions as to the author's real 
 meaning. But considering the explanations he has given, and 
 further, that he has agreed not to continue the publication of E 
 the sermon and preface, find that there is no reason for taking 
 further steps in the matter. But in giving this deliverance 
 the Synod do not admit any understanding that the views 
 objected to in this publication are to be tolerated in future. 
 
 It was moved by Mr M'Crie, and seconded by Mr Thomas 
 Robertson, Dismiss the Dissent and Complaint, and affirm thep 
 judgment of the Presbytery. 
 
 It was moved by Mr J. B. Sturrock, and seconded by Mr 
 Richardson, Dailly, Sustain the Dissent and Complaint, in so 
 far as it takes exception to the report approved of by the 
 Presbytery, as not being a full representation of the dangerous 
 character of the views set forth in the sermon and preface 
 reported on, especially in not with sufficient emphasis con- 
 
206 CASE OF EEV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 j^ demning the view that there are errors in the Scriptures, as 
 originally given ; and the Synod, moreover, take this oppor- 
 tunity of affirming the doctrine endangered by said sermon, 
 and which is contained in the Standards of the Church, viz., 
 the infallibility and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures ; 
 and further, having learned from the bar that the sermon is 
 ■D now withdrawn, the Synod is of opinion that the case should 
 here take end. 
 
 After deliberation, the Synod proceeded to vote. It was 
 agreed that Mr M'Crie's motion and Mr Sturrock's should be 
 put to the vote. The roll having been called, and votes 
 marked, it carried Mr Sturrock's motion by 33 to 19 votes. 
 Q It was then agreed to take the vote on Mr Laughton's 
 motion and Mr Sturrock's, and the roll having been called 
 and votes marked, it carried Mr Sturrock's motion by 31 to 
 21 votes. 
 
 Therefore, in terms of Mr Sturrock's motion, the Synod 
 
 sustain the Dissent and Complaint, in so far as it takes 
 
 jN exception to the report approved of by the Presbytery, as not 
 
 being a full representation of the dangerous character of the 
 
 views set forth in the sermon reported on, especially in not 
 
 with sufficient emphasis condemning the view, that there are 
 
 errors in the Scriptures, as originally given ; and the Synod, 
 
 moreover, take this opportunity of affirming the doctrine 
 
 P which was endangered by said sermon, and which is contained 
 
 in the Standards of the Church, viz., the infallibility and 
 
 divine authority of Holy Scriptures; and further, having 
 
 learned from the bar that the sermon is now withdrawn, the 
 
 Synod is of opinion that the case should here take end. 
 
 Parties having been recalled, this decision was intimated 
 
 „ to them. 
 
 From this judgment Mr G. Webster, minister at Girvan, 
 dissented, and protested for leave to complain to the General 
 Assembly, for himself and all who may adhere to him, pro- 
 mising reasons in due time, took instruments in hands of the 
 clerk, and craved extracts, which were granted. 
 
 To this dissent and complaint Mr M'Crie, Mr J. Clugston, 
 Mr Adamson, Mr Doak, and xMr Lang, ministers, adhered. 
 
KEASONS OF PROTEST AND APPEAL. 207 
 
 Against said judgment Mr Evan Gordon, minister, for ^ 
 himself and all who may adhere to him, protested for leave 
 to appeal to the General Assembly, promising reasons in due 
 time, took instruments in the clerk's hands, and craved 
 extracts, which were allowed. 
 
 Also, against said judgment of Synod, Dr Adam on behalf 
 of the Presbytery, protested for leave to appeal to the General 3 
 Assembly, promising reasons in due time, and craved extracts, 
 which were allowed. 
 
 Mr Nicol, Mr H. Macintosh, and Mr Howie acquiesced in 
 the judgment of the Synod. 
 
 The Synod appoint Mr J. B. Sturrock, Mr William Findlay, 
 and Mr Alexander M'Intosh to defend the judgment of the q 
 Synod at the bar of the General Assembly. 
 
 It being 12-45 o'clock A.M. of the 10th day of April, the 
 Synod now adjourn. 
 
 Extracted by Alex. Wilson, Clk. Synod. 
 
 D 
 
 Reasons of Protest and Appeal against the judgment 
 
 of the Free Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, of date 
 10th April 1878. 
 
 We, the undersigned, while acquiescing in the judgment of 
 the Synod on the 10th inst. in the Eev. Dr Dods' case, so far ^ 
 as it homologates our Reasons of Dissent and Complaint, 
 nevertheless feel constrained to protest and appeal to the 
 General Assembly against said judgment, for the following 
 reasons, and others, to be pled at the bar of the Assembly : — 
 
 First. Because the Synod do not reverse the judgment of 
 the Presbytery complained of, and so indirectly affirm that p 
 judgment, in respect of everything in it not actually specified 
 in the Synod's judgment. 
 
 Secondly. Because the Synod give no deliverance, either 
 upon our complaint against the judgment of the Presbytery 
 in reference to the sermon and preface, as set forth in our 
 second reason of dissent, or upon our complaint against the 
 way in which the Presbytery propose to deal with the author 
 
208 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A in regard to the withdrawal of said sermon and preface, as 
 set forth in our third reason of dissent. 
 
 Thirdly. Because the Synod, while affirming the doctrine of 
 our Standards on the infallibility of Holy Scripture, do not 
 declare the views of Dr Dods on these and other points, as 
 set forth in our second reason, to be contrary to, or incon- 
 
 £ sistent with, these standards, and so leave it doubtful as to 
 whether they regard them in that light or not. 
 
 Fourthly. Because the Synod do not censure the publica- 
 tion of the views called in question, and prohibit tbeir further 
 publication under any form, but hold the sermon and preface 
 as withdrawn, although it had been denied from the bar that 
 
 (^ these publications could be so regarded, seeing the under- 
 standing and express ground on which the author had ex- 
 pressed his willingness to withdraw them had been, however, 
 unwarrantably repudiated by the Presbytery in their answers 
 to our reasons of dissent and complaint. 
 
 Fifthly. Because the Synod do not instruct the Presbytery 
 
 J) to confer with Dr Dods in regard to the unscriptural and 
 dangerous character of the views contained in his sermon, 
 with a view to his renunciation of them, or even suggest the 
 necessity, or propriety, of such brotherly dealing. 
 
 Lastly. Because, not having reversed the judgment of the 
 Presbytery, the Synod indirectly, however unintentionally, 
 
 j; admitted the right of Dr Dods, or any other minister of this 
 Church, as set forth in our fourth reason of dissent and com- 
 plaint, to hold, preach, and publish the views contained in 
 the sermon and preface in question. Signed — Evan Gordon, 
 minister; Robert Bremner, minister ; Robert Gault, minister; 
 David M'Meikan, minister ; Hugh M'Dougall, minister ; 
 
 jr R C. Smith, minister ; Andrew A. Bonar, minister ; Alex. 
 TJrquhart, minister ; Wm. Tullo, minister ; Henry Anderson, 
 minister ; George Campbell, minister ; Alexander Murchison, 
 minister ; James Fordyce, minister ; Wm. Jeffrey, minister ; 
 John Stewart, minister ; James Robertson, elder ; Robert 
 M'Callum, elder; Allan Munro, elder; Thomas Macklin, 
 elder ; Wm. Beith, elder ; Tliomas Laurie, elder ; William C. 
 Morton, elder ; Robert Marshall, elder; John Buchanan, 
 
REASONS OF PROTEST AND APPEAL. 209 
 
 elder; Donald MTlierson, elder; Duncan M'Callum, elder ; ^ 
 James Allan, elder. 
 
 Lodged with me on the 19th day of April 1878. 
 
 A true copy. Alex. Wilson, CI. Synod. 
 
 Answers to Reasons of Protest and Appeal by 
 the Rev. Evan Gordon, Glasgow, and others, 
 against the judgment of the Free Synod of 
 Glasgow and Ayr, in the case of the Rev. Dr 
 Dods, of date 10th April 1878. 
 
 G 
 
 1. The decision of the Synod virtually, though not 
 formally, reverses the judgment of the Presbytery, and does 
 so in such a way as leaves no ground for the statement made 
 by the appellants. 
 
 2. The Synod in their deliverance do condemn the views 
 in the sermon and preface, and deemed it unnecessary toD 
 take notice of the complaint set forth in the appellants' 
 third reason of dissent from the judgment of the Presbytery, 
 because they learned from the bar that the sermon had been 
 withdrawn. 
 
 3. The decision of the Synod manifestly regards the views 
 in the sermon as not being in accordance with the standards ijj 
 of the Church, inasmuch as that decision affirms that the 
 infallibility and divine authority of holy Scripture is a 
 doctrine of the standards, and that this doctrine is endangered 
 by the sermon. 
 
 •i. In condemning the views in the sermon, the Synod 
 virtually condemn their publication, and this condemnation p 
 without the prohibition asked for by the appellants was 
 deemed sufficient, as it was admitted by the bar that the 
 sermon had been withdrawn. 
 
 5. The decision of the Synod was intended, and, in their 
 judgment, was fitted to secure the acquiescence of all parties, 
 including Dr Dods, and the Synod therefore considered that 
 the action suggested by the appellants was unnecessary. 
 
 14 
 
210 CASE OF REV. MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 A 6. The Synod having virtually reversed the judgment of 
 Presbytery, having condemned the views of the sermon and 
 preface, and having affirmed that these views are not in 
 accordance with the standards of the Church, necessarily, and 
 by implication, deny "the right of Dr Dods, or any other 
 minister of this church, to hold, preach, and publish the 
 
 B views contained in the sermon and preface in question." 
 
 James B. Sturrock. 
 William Findlay. 
 Alex. Mackintosh. 
 A true copy. Alex. Wilson, Synod Clk. 
 
 C nth May 1878. 
 
 5 
 
 O 
 
Date Due 
 
 i^Mtti^^^.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■:^^m 
 
 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■mm 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 wM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MH 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 fli 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 
 
 
BW5546.S65F7 
 
 Case of Reverend Professor Smith ; Case 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00038 7318 
 
 ^m^ 
 
 ri'«;j, 
 
 •-«^'^ 
 
 
 
 *^^-i-.- -il 
 
 'M^m^. 
 
 ■*:-. ...SkJ 
 
 i:.|^.« 
 
 »#.