OF PR.'.?^ 
 1 1954 
 
 2^0GfCALSi^ 
 
 BS 1161 .S54 S5 1880 
 Smith, W. Robertson 1846- 
 
 1894. 
 Speech delivered at a 
 
 special meeting of the 
 
COMMISSION OF FREE CHURCH ASSEMBLY, 
 27th OCTOBER 1880, 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ^OFESSOR W. ROBERTSON SMITH. 
 
 € b i n b u r Lj h : 
 :M a C N I Y E N & W A L L A C E. 
 
■E,\aJ554C= 
 
SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED AT A 
 
 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION OF 
 
 ASSEMBLY OF THE FREE CHUKCH, 
 
 ON 27th OCTOBER 1880. 
 
 PROFESSOR W. ROBERTSON SMITH. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE APPENDED 
 
 REPORT OF COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION IN 
 AUGUST TO EXAMINE THE WRITINGS OF PROFESSOR SMITH, 
 
 REASONS OF DISSENT FROM THAT REPORT GIVEN IN BY 
 PROFESSOR LINDSAY AND OTHERS. 
 
 EDINBUEGH : MACNIVEN & WALLACE. 
 
SPEECH BY PROFESSOR ROBEETSON SMITE. 
 
 PKOFESSOR SMITH SPEAKS UNDER PROTEST. 
 
 I HAVE already expressed, in what seemed to me to be the most regular 
 and orderly fashion, by a letter addressed to the clerk of Commission, 
 to be communicated to the Commission upon the subject, my reasons 
 for believing that the proceedings in virtue of vi^hich I stand here to- 
 day are irregular proceedings, and proceedings which the Church will 
 not, in the long run, be able to stand to. I have already explained 
 Ihat I stand here under protest. I consider that it is an injury to my- 
 self personally, and, what is a far greater matter, an injury to the 
 Church, that any question affecting personal interests should be brought 
 up in the way in which this question has been. Nor do I think, even 
 upon the analogy argued by Sir Henry Moncreiff,— which, I observed 
 was an analogy of parties summoned to a court undoubtedly judicial, 
 — even on that analogy, which largely begs the question, because it com- 
 mits us to hold the Commission to be actually a judicial body, with 
 power of summons — even on that analogy, I am not able to see that the 
 position which the House has now called upon me to take up is one 
 that can be defended. In the civil courts, when parties are called to 
 answer for their own interests, it is certainly contrary to what I know 
 of law (which, I admit, is not much), and it is also contrary to what I 
 can learn from the experience of those who know more of law, to sup- 
 pose that in such a case citation of a party for his own interest means 
 that the party so called is to speak and exhaust his case before the 
 questions have been opened up by the main agents in the suit (hear, 
 hear). According to Sir Henry Moncreiff's remarks, and according, 
 a,pparently, to the view of the committee, as explained by Mr Macphail, 
 I am regarded as being in this case interested only in a secondary 
 degree. I am not the party at the bar in the sense of being the per- 
 son directly attacked, and yet I am asked to make my defence from the 
 bar exactly in the same way as if I had a formal indictment before 
 me, with full notice not merely in general of the kind of accusation to 
 be brought against me, but of the whole matter, the whole papers in 
 the case, and everything upon which the argument could proceed. 
 Under these circumstances. Moderator, I wish to say that I speak only 
 imder protest, and I do so simply for this reason, that I think it better 
 that, so far as I am able, even in my unprepared state, I should say 
 something upon this report and this proposal, than that I should allow 
 
the Commission to go on without using every opportunity, however 
 irregular, which is given to me, to endeavour to avert what I believe 
 would be not merely an injustice to an individual — for on that point I 
 am unwilling to dwell at any length — but also an injury and an injus- 
 tice to the whole Church. (Applause.) 
 
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENCE. 
 
 Before I begin, I wish the House to understand exactly how I am 
 circumstanced. The report of the committee, which I am now called 
 on to speak to, was put into my hands for the first time as I entered this 
 room at eleven o'clock this morning. It has already been intimated, 
 in the Avay of dissent, that a proposal was made in the committee to 
 give me the opportunity there of knowing what was charged against 
 me, but this opportunity was refused. What I have before me is simply 
 a somewhat long and elaborate report of the committee, which was put 
 into my hands as I entered the House this morning. In fairness, I 
 ought to say that I saw the dissents last night. That is the extent of 
 my preparation on the subject. Since I entered, the House has been 
 engaged in a somewhat vigorous discussion, and it has not been possible 
 for me to be so abstracted as to consider the report; nor was it possible 
 for me to leave the building after what Sir Henry Moncreiff had said, 
 when I did not know at what stage it might be necessary for me to 
 appear to watch over my own interests. In addition to the report of 
 the committee — the report having been previously kept exceedingly 
 private — I have now heard notice of a motion to which also, I under- 
 stand, I am expected to rejily. Dr Wilson's motion is one of consider- 
 able length, and as I have not been able wholly to follow it, I w-ish to 
 understand before I proceed further, whether it would be considered a 
 reasonable thing that I might now be furnished with a copy. (Laugh- 
 ter.) 
 
 Dr Wilson — I don't see any possible objection to that. 
 
 Professor Smith — I did not suppose that Dr Wilson Avould have 
 any objection. (Laughter.) The motion was then handed to the Pro- 
 fessor, who, continuing, said — I have now before me two documents, one 
 affecting a very large range of theological questions so far as this Com- 
 mission has any control over them (which I venture to think, according 
 to the constitution of the Church, is not very far) ; the other 
 affecting one of my most sacred privileges as an office-bearer of this 
 Church, namely the right to exercise my office ; for, although it 
 is not proposed to take away my status or salary, yet it is proposed to 
 take away the one thing which, to any conscientious office-bearer, makes 
 office valuable, — the opportunity of exercising that office in the service 
 of Christ. (Applause.) The first of these documents I received at 
 eleven o'clock ; the second has just been put into my hands ; and this 
 is supposed to be consistent with the orderliness which becomes the 
 Church of Christ ; it is sujjposed to be consistent with the feelings of 
 justice and Christian charity that belong to the Christian Church. 
 (Applause.) Under these circumstances I must rec^uest the indulgence 
 of the Commission if they will allow me to read Dr ^^'ilson's motion 
 again, as the only means, Avithout an interruption of the business of the 
 House, of knowing what I am to speak to. 
 
THE PROPOSAL TO APPROVE THE REPORT GENERALLY. 
 
 Professor Smith then read the motion,* after which he said : Here the 
 lirst point in which I am interested is that Dr Wilson proposes that the 
 leport of the committee be generally approved of That expression is, 
 however, exceedingly vague. The report of the committee appears to be 
 written in paragraphs ; it appears to be carefully articulated, so that 
 it would be quite within the power of the Commission — su^jposing that 
 they really were sufficiently advised in this case to go into the report 
 at all — it would be quite possible for the Commission to articulate their 
 approval, and state what paragraphs were approved of, and what not 
 approved of, so that a tangible result might be obtained. But, so far as 
 I have observed, Dr Wilson has not proposed to do that ; and although 
 the individual sections of this report are of great importance to me as 
 well as others, all that is asked is that it should be generally approved 
 of What, I ask, is involved in such a general approval ? It would 
 have been a very great assistance to me if I had had Dr Wilson's own 
 explanation of that before being called upon to speak, but that is not 
 to be ; therefore I think the only guide that I now have to the nature of 
 the general approval proposed, is contained in the following clause of 
 the motion, where the Commission are asked to declare that certain 
 writings of mine " have created serious alarm and uneasiness in the 
 Church, as being fitted to produce upon readers the impression that 
 Scripture does not present a reliable statement of truth, and that God 
 is not the author of it." That, I take it, is the very least to which the 
 Commission are asked to commit themselves by approving of this 
 motion, for I find something almost identical with that in the early 
 pages of the report : — " The committee do not impute to Professor R. 
 Smith the intention of assailing the integrity and authority of Scrip- 
 ture in the writings they have examined, but the statements made 
 by him in many particulars are such as are fitted, and can hardly fail, to 
 produce upon the minds of readers the impression that Scripture does not 
 present a reliable statement of truth, and that God is not the author of it." 
 Very well, we may take it that so much of the report being repeated in 
 the motion, the Commission are asked to commit themselves to this, that 
 in the writings which I have published since last General xVssembly there 
 
 * " The Commission receive the report of the committee, and approve of it generally ; 
 and considering that the Commission is instructed to advert to the interests of the Church 
 on every occasion, that the Church do not suffer or sustain any prejudice which they can 
 prevent ; considering also that the various writings of Professor Robertson Smith, ad- 
 verted to in the report, which have created serious alarm and uneasiness in the Church, 
 as being fitted to produce upon readers the impression that the Bible does not present a 
 reliable statement of the truth of God, and that God is not the author of it, have been 
 published since last Assembly, and were not in view of the Assembly ; considering that 
 these writings were prepared for publication at a time when their author had accepted 
 ser\'ice of a libel found relevant, charging him with cognate ^dews ; and considering, 
 further, that the Church must sustain serious injury if she can be regarded as giving any 
 sanction to, or as concurring in, the views expressed in these writings, declare that the 
 Commission, as representing the Free Church, and as charged with conserving its in- 
 terests, cannot but protest against the Church being implicated in the promulgation of 
 them, and resolve to transmit the report of their committee to the General Assembly, 
 that they may take such action in the matter as to them may seem meet. Further, in 
 view of the whole circumstances of the case, instruct Professor Smith to abstain from 
 teaching liis classes during the ensuing session, leaving the whole question of his status 
 and position in the Free Church to the determination of the ensuing Assembly. The 
 Commission also instruct the College Committee to make provision for the teaching of 
 those classes during the ensuing session." 
 
are statements made in many particulars which are such as "are fitted, 
 and can hardly fail, to produce upon the minds of readers the impression 
 that Scripture does not present a reliable statement of truth, and that 
 God is not the author of it." As I read this, the report is worded in 
 what would be called a moderate manner ; but the moderation consists 
 not in moderation of idea, but in obscurity of expression. (Laughter 
 and applause.) 
 
 THE REPORT SAYS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE. 
 
 It will no doubt be said, in order to make it easier for members to 
 adopt this motion, that the report sedulously abstains from saying that 
 I desire to present Scripture as other than a reliable statement of truth. 
 It will also be pointed out, probably, that the report nowhere goes so 
 far as to say that there is any expression in my writings which is incon- 
 sistent with the supposition that Scripture is a reliable statement of 
 truth ; that it nowhere goes so far as to say that the views laid down 
 in my statements are inconsistent with the divine authorship of the 
 Bible ; but that it says, they are " fitted to produce upon the minds of 
 readers the impression " — not the knowledge, or the conviction — but 
 " the impression that Scripture does not present a reliable statement of 
 truth, and that God is not the author of it." I have no doubt that this 
 will be represented as a moderate way of putting the case, and one which 
 the Commission should have no hesitation in accepting, even although 
 it could go no further. Now, the " moderation " here is not the essence 
 of the thing. It is a thing that looks like moderation, but in reality it 
 is only obscurity. I will explain what I mean. The statements which are 
 criticised by this committee are statements published by one who is a mem- 
 ber and office-bearer of this Church. According, therefore, to the ordinary 
 laws of Christian charity, it is reasonable that any statement of his 
 should be looked upon with the eye of charity. And, according to the 
 law of unity in the Church, it is not desirable, — nay, it is against the 
 law of Christ, — that any member of the Church, much less a court of the 
 Church, should go and talk unfovourably of these writings, and about 
 impressions which they are calculated to produce, unless they are pre- 
 pared to substantiate the matter, and point out that this is, and must 
 be, the meaning of the writings. 
 
 For, observe, there are two things, either of which if I have done, I 
 have done a very wrong thing, a grievous wrong not only to the Church, 
 but to the cause of truth. If, in my place as an office-bearer of this 
 Church, I had stated that Scripture contains things which are incon- 
 sistent with its being the word of God, then, of course, I should im- 
 mediately be open to discipline, for I should have broken my trust ; or, 
 on the other hand, if, without doing this, I had used insinuations directly 
 aimed at producing an unfavourable opinion of Scripture, then also I 
 should come under the reprobation of the Church. But if it is not con- 
 tended that I have done either of these things, if it is admitted that I 
 have at many times and in many places defended the divine author- 
 ity of Scripture ; that, whatever errors there may be in my views, I 
 have always put them forward as being in the present state of things 
 the best line of defence for the Scriptures, then in that case I maintain 
 that it is a breach of Christian charity, and a breach far more grave 
 than an accusation in direct terms, to go and circulate all over the Church 
 
the impression that things are being put forth by an office-bear f i 
 Church, a vague impression that something is being done within the 
 Church to undermine her doctrine. The effect can only be to produce 
 among the people the idea either that the statements in this report are 
 slanderous statements, or that the Church has reached such a stage of 
 decrepitude and weakness, both intellectually and morally, that, instead 
 of being able to meet error, and grapple Avith it, and seize it by the 
 throat, she is only able to meet it by getting up a popular agitation. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 I maintain, therefore, at the outset, that the report of this committee 
 says either too much or too little. It says too much if my views are 
 not inconsistent with the divinity of Scripture, and it says too little if 
 they are, 
 
 IT BEGINS WITH GENERAL INSINUATIONS. 
 
 Now, it is very remarkable in this report that instead of beginning 
 with details, it begins with general statements, general accusations 
 and insinuations as to the impressions likely to be produced by these 
 writings. There is nothing at all surprising to me in seeing such in- 
 sinuations put forth against my writings. They have been put forth 
 again and again ; they have been put forth against my previous writ- 
 ings, for which I was tried, and for which I was acquitted — (cries of 
 " No, no ") — for which I was tried, and for which I was acquitted — 
 (cries of " No, no," noise, and interruption) — for which I was tried, 
 and for which I was acquitted — (cries of "Never," "Certainly not," 
 applause, hisses, and interruption). 
 
 The Moderator — Allow me to suggest to you. Professor Smith, that 
 the reiteration of that proves nothing. You have stated your own view, 
 and with that you should be content. 
 
 Mr Robertson, Arbroath— I speak to order. Is it right that Pro- 
 fessor Smith should be interrupted while speaking from the bar 1 
 
 Professor Smith — Allow me one word. The reason why I repeated 
 my statement was that it was met with such noise and negation that it 
 was not possible for me to continue the further remarks which I desired 
 to make after reiterating my statement. Therefore, in order to take up 
 the thread of the narrative, I will once more repeat that an accusation 
 similar to that made in the report — (renewed interruption). 
 
 The Moderator — Professor Smith will consult his own interest 
 better if he does not proceed in that line. (Applause.) 
 
 Professor LiNDSAY — I speak to order. (Interruption, and cries of 
 " Chair.") 
 
 The Moderator — I must refuse to hear any argument that is in- 
 tended to controvert my statements that Professor Smith's reiteration 
 proves nothing, and that he would consult his own interest by passing 
 on. (Applause.) 
 
 Professor Lindsay — I am not going to enter on any argument. 
 (Cries of " Chair, chair.") Is it not the province of the Moderator to 
 protect a member at the bar 1 (Hisses, cheers, and interruption.) 
 
 The Moderator — I must refuse to hear any one who does not come 
 and take his place on the platform. Tlie very result which I antici- 
 pated has been produced by the departure from this rule. 
 
 Professor Lindsay passed on to the platform amid cheers and hisses. 
 
Mr Joseph Wood moved that Professor Lindsay be not heard, and 
 Mr KiDSTON and another gentleman at once seconded the motion. The 
 motion was not put, but the hissing, cries of " Chair," and counter- 
 demonstrations continuing, Professor Lindsay, after a short pause, 
 retired to his seat amid hisses and applause. 
 
 Professor Smith, continuing, said — Now, Moderator, with your pro- 
 tection, which I would like to call for, that I may be heard in what I 
 wish to remark, I will retrace the argument with which I commenced, 
 and in which I was interrupted. I was about to say that such remarks 
 as are made about the general tendency of my writings are not new, and 
 are similar to those for which I was formerly tried, and upon which I was 
 acquitted — (" No, no," and " Order") — I say " on which I was acquitted '' 
 for these reasons — because the libel formulated against me was in greater 
 part withdrawn, and the jxart which was left never went on to probation; 
 and, therefore, never went on to judgment — (" Hear, hear," and applause) 
 — and, in the judgment of every court, a man is acquitted if he is not 
 condemned. (Applause.) Such statements were made frequently with 
 regard to my previous writings, but they were not formerly made in so 
 elaborate a manner as now. Previously they were made partly by speeches 
 which never were supported by a motion or a vote in any orderly court 
 of the Church, and partly they were maintained by pamphlets and 
 letters to newspapers, which were largely circulated over the Church. 
 Now, it does seem to me curious that the line of attack which was for- 
 merly used by anonymous pamphleteers to aid tlie agitation of the 
 Church should now have been brought down into the committees and 
 the Commission of the Church. I cannot but think that such a line of 
 attack is not for the dignity or the honour of this Church, and that in 
 being called to reply to such a line of attack, I am not treated with 
 that fairness with which every one who has an honest and conscientious 
 opinion to maintain ought to be treated by his Christian brethren. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 I. THE CHARGE OF IRREVERENCE. 
 
 But perhaps the best way of disj^osing of these general insinuations, sup- 
 posing them to have any value, is to treat them in connection with the 
 particulars on Avhich they are based. It is true that Dr Wilson's motion 
 is so framed, I might say adroitly so framed, that it does not commit 
 those who may vote for it to all the particulars. But such a general 
 statement has no value except in so far as it can be supported in detail ; 
 if, therefore, I can succeed in showing that the details of the report are 
 not such as they ought to be, I think it will be difficult for any man in 
 conscience to vote for the general outcome of them. Now, the parti- 
 culars are classed under four heads, and the first of these refers to 
 passages in which the books of Scripture are said to be spoken of in an 
 irreverent manner. I do not myself see how that bears upon what 
 follows. A person may speak in an irreverent manner of Scripture — 
 it is done every day — without denying that it is Scripture. (Applause.) 
 But I should like to know where I have spoken irreverently of Scrip- 
 ture, because that is a charge, of which were I guilty, I should be tilled 
 with shame and confusion. I have spoken of Scripture in the language 
 of scholarship— that is, when talking of certain classes of facts and cer- 
 tain things which I believed to be true, I have set these statements of 
 
facts down in plain language. But plain language is not irreverent lan- 
 guage. Every Scotchman, at least, knows that, for it has been charac- 
 teristic of Scotchmen as a nation that, because holy things were very 
 real and practical to them in daily life, they have been accustomed, all 
 through their history since the Reformation, to speak of them with that 
 plainness and bluntness with which all men are accustomed to speak of 
 things that are real, and not simply things they are accustomed to hear 
 in church with their hats off. (Laughter and applause.) Now, the 
 article I am at present dealing with is an article upon the history of the 
 Hebrew language. This Church appointed me to the chair in Aberdeen 
 to teach the Hebrew language, and in the present state of philological 
 research no one will pretend that it is possible to learn and teach a lan- 
 guage thoroughly without adverting to the fact that language has a his- 
 tory — (hear, hear) — that the words, the idioms, the constructions used 
 in one century are not those used in another ; that the literary pro- 
 ductions of one age have a certain type, and the literary productions of 
 a later age another and a different type. Is it irreverent to suppose 
 that this law holds good also of the language in which Scripture was 
 written 1 (Hear, hear. ) Is it to be supposed that when God chose the 
 nation of Israel to be the mouthpiece of His revelation, when He chose 
 from that nation a number of prophets and holy men, in order to com- 
 municate His will to the people, He so interfered with that people's 
 ordinary way of speaking, with the idioms tliey were accustomed to use, 
 Avith the book education they had received, with the literary capacities 
 which He in His grace had given them by birth and education — that 
 He so interfered with all this that there is nothing to be said of their 
 relative literary characters, or any of those other points which occur in 
 a literary survey 1 
 
 1. THE LITERARY STYLE OF BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 Turning to the references, — in page 599, vol. xi., of the Encyclopcedia 
 Britannica, I have stated that " as the language decayed, the graces of 
 the older prose style were lost. The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 the colourless narrative of the Chronicles, and even the Book of Esther, 
 are singularly destitute of literary merit." It is, I think, generally 
 admitted that the Hebrews, after their return from the Babylonian 
 captivity, did not continue to speak the old Hebrew with the same 
 purity. According to one class of writers, they had ceased to speak 
 Hebrew altogether; it became to them merely a literary language. 
 According to the now more current opinion, they lost their Hebrew by 
 a gradual process ; but that the language did decay and ultimately die 
 out, is a known fact, and I maintain that, under these circumstances, it 
 is only reasonable and natural to expect that, as the language died out, 
 as it lost that freshness and richness which are only got by constant 
 use in daily life, the literary style would also decay. It is undoubtedly 
 true that God might, had He wished, have bestowed upon the author of 
 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and upon the author of the Book of Esther, 
 the supernatural and miraculous gift of such beautiful and splendid 
 Hebrew diction as belongs to Isaiah ; but I hold that He did not work 
 such a miracle. It is a fact that He did not Avork such a miracle ; and 
 I cannot see why Dr Wilson and his committee should take it upon 
 them to say, not that God did work such a miracle — which is 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 not true — but that it is irreverent in any one to say He did not. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 2. ANONYMOUS BROADSIDES. 
 
 Now, to come to the second quotation — "There are other short 
 prophecies of the Babylonian age, as Isaiah xiii., xiv., which seem to 
 have been first published as anonymous broadsides— a characteristic 
 change from the method of the former prophets, who wrote only what 
 they had first spoken to the people." Is it, then, irreverent to say that 
 the prophets of the Babylonian age published their prophecies as 
 anonymous broadsides 1 Observe my argument. The old prophets 
 were preachers ; they lived in the midst of the nation ; they were able 
 to rise up in the market-place, or in the court of the temple, or at the 
 door of the temple, — all of which we find in historical instances, — and 
 there they preached the Word of God to the people by word of mouthy 
 and then afterwards they wrote so much of these prophecies as God 
 directed them. In the case of Jeremiah, this was not done until after 
 many years of preaching. [Jer. xxxvi. 2.] On the other hand, when 
 the people came to Babylon, God still sent them preachers ; but how 
 could these prophets get up in the market-place under the eyes of the 
 Babylonian police, and there preach a sermon that Babylon was to be 
 destroyed 1 We know what would have happened. Well, the prophets 
 did then what would be done by ministers of Christ now, if the pulpits 
 of the Church were shut against them. They did not print their 
 sermons, of course, because they could not ; but, instead of waiting till 
 they had a large book, they put a single individual short prophecy upon 
 parchment, upon a broadside, — that is, upon a single open sheet of 
 parchment — and sent it through among the people, in order that in 
 that way they might have the Word of God. That statement may be 
 right or not, but it is not irreverent. (Applause.) 
 
 3. POPULAR LITERATURE IN ISRAEL. 
 
 The third charge of irreverence I confess myself entirely unable to 
 understand. I am utterly unable to see that there is anything irre- 
 verent in speaking of an age of popular literature in Israel, because I 
 have explained most distinctly how it was that the popular literature of 
 Israel was a sacred literature. The committee have not quoted this 
 explanation, so I will take the liberty of stating what I have said. I 
 have said that the writings of this period, " reflecting with admirable 
 veracity the actual life of the nation, are full of the relation between 
 Israel and Jehovah, because that relation Avas constantly present to the 
 people as a very real fact without which the history could not be told." 
 The popular literature in Israel had two sides : there was a secular side 
 to it which, as my article explains, God, in His providence, has not pre- 
 served to us ; there was another side, namely, the plain, popular telling of 
 a story — none the less true because popular — everyone, surely, can un- 
 derstand that — and this became precious to God's people, and necessary 
 to be preserved in distinctly religious writings for later days. And why? 
 Because it was necessary to show that God had so dealt in His mira- 
 culous love for this nation of Israel that His relations to them inter- 
 penetrated every part of the history, so that that history could not be 
 told even in plain popular story without being full of God, the Redeemer 
 and the King. (Applause.) 
 
11 
 
 4. PROPHECY AFTER THE EXILE. 
 
 " The brief revival of spoken prophecy after the exile lacks the old 
 fire." Is this irreverent ] I ask. It is exactly what I said before ; — that 
 in literary features, not in religious worth, the style of Haggai, Zechariah, 
 and Malachi was not so rich and full of fire as the style of Isaiah. It 
 may be irreverent to say so ; but every one, even Dr Wilson himself, 
 knows that it is true. 
 
 II. GOD THE AUTHOR OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 I next come to the second head — " Passages in which the books of 
 Scripture are spoken of in such a way as to render it very difficult for 
 readers to regard God as the author of them," — difficult, not impossible, 
 you observe. 
 
 1. THE CHRONICLER. 
 
 Here the first passage quoted runs as follows : — " The Chronicler no 
 longer thoroughly understood the old Hebrew sources from which he 
 worked, while for the latest part of his history he used a Jewish 
 Aramaic document, part of Avhich he incorporated in the Book of Ezra. 
 Now, in order to understand this quotation, it must be remembered 
 that in my article — Avhich, I daresay, has not been in the hands of every 
 member of Commission who is asked to pronounce upon it (hear, hear, 
 and laughter) — this remark occurs in a connection which gives it a very 
 different colour from that which it presents in this report, or in the 
 popular and impassioned circulars by which this report was preceded. 
 Speaking of Hebrew in that article, I say that, after the captivity, as the 
 spoken language of only a small body of men, it gradually yielded to 
 the spoken language of the people round about them. It obviously had 
 to do so, and I was anxious to show, as far as I could, when and how 
 the old Hebrew died out. Among other things, I point out that, 
 towards the end of the Old Testament books, Hebrew seems to be 
 written by some of the writers rather as a dead language than as a 
 living one, just as, for example, Luther wrote many of his works, and 
 Calvin almost all his works, in a dead language, and, without any dis- 
 paragement to either, you could tell they were writing a dead language 
 by the way they wrote Latin. Now, in the same way, it seems to me 
 it is possible to see that the Chronicler was writing in a language of 
 which he was not the absolute master that Isaiah was. The point to 
 which I here allude is one which was discussed very fully under the last 
 libel, and on which, by an overwhelming majority, I was acquitted. 
 (" No.") The Chroiiicler, I have shown, for instance, seems not to have 
 understood the expression " ships of Tarshish," and there are one or 
 two other similar faulty expressions in the Chronicles ; but these do not 
 affect the general utility of the work, because in nearly every case, in- 
 cluding the error as to the ships of Tarshish, you can correct it at once 
 by looking up the older record. But, to say this, we are told, is to 
 raise a doubt as to whether God actually spoke through the 
 Chronicler. Very well; the Chronicler did not always understand the 
 very words of the old Hebrew which he quoted, but there are other 
 inspired writers who make quotations from the Old Testament, of whom 
 the same can be said. The Apostles, for example, are accustomed 
 
12 
 
 to make quotations from the Old Testament, and we know that they 
 often used the translation of the Septuagint in cases where it had mis- 
 interpreted the Hebrew text. We are therefore entitled to say that the 
 apostles, like the Chronicler, were not perfect Hebrew scholars ; but with 
 this statement every one has been so long familiar that no one will 
 venture to disi)ute or raise a quarrel with any jDerson because he says 
 the quotations in the New Testament are not always perfect translations 
 of the Old Testament passages which they cite. (Applause.) Now, 
 why should we not be allowed to say of the old Chronicler what is 
 freely said about Paul 1 There is no reason, except that men have got 
 alarmed, and, being alarmed, are determined to run amuck at every- 
 thing, and in so doing do not care, if only they get their way, whether 
 they run the Church into doctrinal positions which would hold it up to 
 be the laughing-stock of all Christendom. (Applause.) 
 
 2. Song of Solomon. 
 
 Now, as to the Song of Solomon. I was tried upon that point in con- 
 nection with my old article Canticles, and I was acquitted upon it. 
 (Murmurs of "No" from the left side of the House.; That is an 
 interruption with which I am met whenever I state the actual fact — 
 (laughter and applause) — and I appeal to the Moderator for protection. 
 (A voice — " That is not the fact.") If there is to be any further dispute 
 about that point, I will ask leave to have the records of my last trial 
 produced and read to this court. (A laugh and applause.) But every 
 one knows that the interruption is factious, and that it is impossible 
 really to deny that the court acquitted me when that charge was 
 departed from. (Applause.) Now, what I said about the Song of 
 Solomon was that it had suffered from interpolation. That I stated 
 before in my old article. It is rather a delicate point, but I venture 
 to say that the acknowledgment of some passages as interpolations 
 removes from the Book of Canticles certain passages which, I believe, 
 have long exercised the minds and tried the faith of many modest and 
 humble Christians. (Applause.) The existence of the interpolations 
 is proved by the use of the versions ; and, as the point has again 
 been raised, and as it is perhaps not presumptuous in me to suppose 
 that some members of the Commission may not have had their 
 attention very particularly called to the present state of the criti- 
 cism of the Old Testament text, I ask your permission to make some 
 remarks on the subject. In the seventeenth century orthodox 
 divines were disposed to regard with great suspicion any attempt 
 to amend the Hebrew text of the Old Testament or the Greek of the 
 New. Since that time we have become perfectly familiar with 
 the idea that the text of the Greek New Testament — that is, the 
 " Eeceived Text " — is not in many particulars the exact expression of 
 the original sacred writings. We are familiar with the idea that the 
 text has in several places to be corrected, and that in certain cases 
 interpolations have to be omitted. No one expects that, when the 
 revised English Bible comes out, it will contain every verse which is 
 contained in the present English New Testament. No one expects that ; 
 and no one will be alarmed at the fact, because we know very well that 
 the present English version was a translation from a printed text, the 
 text of the famous French printer Robert Stephen, which originated 
 
13 
 
 very much by accident, and that we have means now of using better 
 manuscripts and better copies, and getting the texts more exactly 
 as they were written by the sacred authors. Now, that is admitted 
 about the New Testament ; and it is admitted there are two 
 ways of making those corrections. Every critical editor of the 
 New Testament uses partly manuscripts and partly versions, that is, 
 early translations, which, of course, if they are handled with skill, have 
 very much the same value as the manuscripts from which the early 
 translator made his translation. For example, if we have a translation 
 of the Old Testament, such as the Septuagint, which was written in 
 great part, perhaps, two hundred years before Christ, and in part, per- 
 haps, one hundred years before Christ, while the earliest manuscript of 
 the Hebrew Bible now existing belongs to the tenth century after 
 Christ, it is plain that such a version as the Septuagint carries us with 
 a single leap over a span of twelve hundred years in the history ; and 
 that fact is of the highest value for us now. It is the original Septua- 
 gint which is to us the principal means for going over and correcting 
 the received text of the Old Testament. This task of collation and cor- 
 rection is, of course, a very delicate one, and one in which people may 
 make mistakes. It is probably a task which Dr Wilson and his friends 
 have undertaken with more mature consideration than I have ; but still 
 I ask as my right — although Dr AVilson's study of the Septuagint may 
 have led him to think there are not interjiolations in the Canticles — 
 to be allowed to say that my study of that version, particularly with the 
 aid of the Syrohexaplar, which is one of our chief helps for the 
 Septuagint, has led me to think that there are — (laughter) — and that 
 the question is one which can be settled between us only by a kind 
 of literary argument in which I am ready to engage with Dr Wilson 
 or any other scholar of the Church. (Laughter.) I have stated, as 
 quoted in the report, that the Song of Solomon was presumably 
 not written down till a comparatively late date, and from imperfect 
 recollection, — a statement which was practically made in the old 
 article. And the point is simply this : — We have not got the whole 
 Song of Solomon, and we have got something more. Something has 
 been lost, and something has been added. But if we have got all that 
 God thought it necessary that we should have, the character of the book 
 is not greatly affected. There are plenty of other things which we have 
 not got. Where are all the histories of the prophets quoted in Chron- 
 icles — have not they been lost 1 Where are the " Book of Jashar " and 
 the " Book of the Wars of Jehovah 1 " To come down to a case which 
 every one knows — Is it not admitted by the most orthodox scholars 
 that the last verses of the Gospel of Mark are a fragment of some other 
 evangelical narrative 1 Are they less valuable because they are a frag- 
 ment ? Are we not glad God has given us a fragment where He did 
 not choose to give us the whole '? 
 
 3. THE BOOK OF EZRA. 
 
 Now, to come to the third quotation under the second head, about 
 the present shape of the Book of Ezra. This is a very complicated 
 question, and one into the details of which I Avould hardly like to enter 
 at this late hour. 1 wish, however, to point out that the quotation in 
 the report stops short, so that nothing has been quoted which would 
 
14 
 
 enable the Commission to put a better construction on my article than 
 the committee desire. An attack has been made upon me for speaking 
 of Scripture as if it were not the Word of God, but the committee has 
 failed to quote the sentence where I begin by quoting a plain passage 
 of Scripture as follows : — "What had actually been effected during these 
 years for the restoration of the temple is a question of some difficulty. 
 It seems safest to start from the explicit contemporary evidence of Hag. 
 ii. 18 (c/. ii. 15 and Zech. viii. 9), which gives the ninth month of the 
 second year of Darius— after Haggai had begun to preach — as the date 
 when the temple was founded by Zerubbabel and Joshua " {Enc. Brit., 
 xi. 371ft). In other words, here is a plain passage of Scripture, and 
 here is another which is not plain ; and I propose to explain the passage 
 which is not plain by that which is. (Applause.) So far as I remember 
 there is not a single recent writer, not even Keil, who does not hold 
 the view that the things in Ezra iv. referred to in the passage quoted 
 by the committee which seem at first sight to refer to the building of 
 the temple refer only to the building of the walls. There is a little 
 disorder in the text. There is a little transposition of some of the 
 sources, as there often is in manuscrii^ts. Will any one pin his faith in 
 scripture and the divine authorship of Scripture upon the assertion 
 that the Biblical manuscripts could not possibly have passed through 
 some of those vicissitudes which other manuscripts have passed through 
 — especially when God in His providence has left us in the clearest 
 way the material with which to correct any disorder'? (Applause.) 
 
 III. SCRIPTURE AN AUTHENTIC RECORD OF FACTS. 
 
 I now pass on to consider the third head of the report — " Passages 
 which naturally suggest that Scripture does not give an authentic nar- 
 rative of facts or actual occurrences ;" " naturally suggest," let it be 
 observed ; Dr Wilson and the committee are afraid to trust themselves 
 far. 
 
 1. EARLIEST LAWS AND LYRICS ; THE BOOK OF JASHAR. 
 
 In the first quoted passage I have stated that " the earliest products 
 of Hebrew authorship seem to have been lyrics and laws, which would 
 circulate, in the first instance, from mouth to mouth, without the use 
 of written copies." Now, I do not say the " products of Hebrew 
 authorship " were not written, but I do say that in the state of things 
 which subsisted in the Hebrew nation in the earliest times, and Avhich 
 still subsists in most primitive Asiatic nations, the main circulation 
 would be by word of mouth, and, if time were given me, I am prepared 
 to prove it by a hundred proofs from the historical books. In regard 
 to the passage quoted, I observe the committee have remarked that 
 " the Book of Jashar is here said to be prior to our present historical 
 books, and yet in a succeeding sentence it is stated to be not earlier 
 than the age of Solomon, the natural inference being that the present 
 historical books of the Old Testament were not written till that age or 
 afterwards." Now suppose, let us say, that in some future time all the 
 Blue-books of the General Assemblies of the Free Church had been 
 burned, but that we had a history of the Assembly — a history, to make 
 the analogy exact, which had been written, not at one time, but at 
 various dates, in which Blue-books were occasionally referred to, and 
 
15 
 
 tliat a subsequent author should have noticed that there were early 
 collections of Blue-books or contemporary collections of other books 
 prior to the still extant historical narratives. Would any one consider 
 himself entitled to argue, as the committee have taken upon them to 
 argue, that that author held the last of the Blue-books to have been 
 printed before the first of the histories of the Assemblies was written 1 
 (Laughter and applause.) If gentlemen who acted on the committee 
 had really been anxious to judge me as they would be judged, as every 
 one wishes to be judged in the court of man and in the sight of God, 
 they would have taken my words in their natural sense ; and their 
 natural sense is that the Book of the Wars of Jehovah was earlier than 
 the Book of Numbers which quotes it, and that the Book of Jashar was 
 earlier than the Books of Joshua and Samuel which quote it. And 
 that is true ; at least it is true unless we are to have a new miracle — 
 a quotation from a book before it was written. (Hear, hear, and 
 laughter.) But, I suppose the gravamen of the charge here is in the 
 statement that the Book of Jashar Avas not earlier than the time of 
 Solomon. I know a great deal has been said about the fragment of it 
 referring to the building of the temple, which I state to have been 
 recovered from the Septuagint of 1 Kings viii. I can only remind the 
 House that to restore the Septuagint text depends upon certain delicate 
 operations which require a peculiar training ; I do not, therefore, say 
 that every one, even every one who knows some Greek, will, on looking 
 into the Book of Kings in his copy of the Septuagint, be able to find 
 the passage at first sight. But on careful examination and enquiry, a 
 passage will be found, given as a quotation from the Book of Jashar, 
 which says that Solomon, when he opened the temple, rose and said, 
 " The Lord created the sun in the heavens, but He saith that He will 
 dwell in thick darkness ; build a house for Me, a house of habitation, 
 that I may dwell therein for ever." Can any one doubt the genuine- 
 ness of this fragment, doubt that it is an authentic and precious record 
 of Solomon's very words, for the preservation of which we should be' 
 thankful, instead of finding heresy or danger in the very mention of it 1 
 But according to the committee it is dangerous to the reputation of the 
 Book of Joshua, as an authentic narrative of facts, to suppose that the 
 Book of Jashar, which it quotes, was not written till the time of 
 Solomon. Well, the Book of Jashar was certainly not written before 
 the death of Saul, for it is from it that the first chapter of 2d Samuel 
 quotes David's elegy on Saul and Jonathan. Between Joshua and the 
 death of Saul there are some four hundred years. To the dedication 
 of Solomon's temple are fifty years more. Do these fifty years added 
 to four hundred make all the diff"erence between the interval, which 
 still allows of authentic history and the lapse of time which makes 
 history no longer trustworthy 1 
 
 2. THE LAWS WRITTEN BY MOSES. 
 
 I now come to the second passage cited against me under this head, 
 in which I have said that " It may fairly be made a c^uestion Avhether 
 Moses left in writing any other laws than the Commandments on the 
 tables of stone. Even Ex. xxiv. 4 and xxxiv. 27 may in the 
 original context have referred to the ten words alone." Now here the 
 whole point lies in the word " writing." Again and again I have 
 
16 
 
 recognised a large part of the Pentateuclial law as being essentially 
 Mosaic legislation. All that I have asked is, " How much was put in 
 writing? Moreover, I do not ask what else Moses wrote, but only 
 what laws he -wTote, how much of his legislation he put in writing. 
 The answer to this question must be sought by examining the texts in 
 the Pentateuch itself which refer to Moses as having written certain 
 laws. There exists a dispute as to the scope of these texts, which I 
 have not attempted to determine, but have endeavoured to indicate the 
 limits within which, as it appears to me, the dispute properly turns. 
 The question is essentially an exegetical, and not a dogmatic or even 
 a critical one. And what I say in the passage now quoted against me 
 is exactly what was already said in the passages from my former de- 
 fences referred to in Dr Lindsay's dissent. Additional Ansioer, p. 26. 
 "According to Ex. xxiv. 4, this book" — the book written by Moses at 
 Sinai — " contained ' all the words of Jehovah.' This might perhaps be 
 taken to mean only the words of xx. 12-17 spoken directly by God to 
 the people. But it is generally held to embrace all the laws in Exod. 
 xx.-xxiii." — Answer to the Amended Libel, p. 6. Moses " wrote ' the 
 words of this law.' But how much does that imply 1 The answer 
 may be found in Deut. xxvii. 8, where the command is given to write 
 the same thing, ' all the words of this law,' upon the plastered stones 
 on Mount Ebal. It is not reasonable to think that all the historical 
 matter of the Pentateuch or even of the book of Deuteronomy was 
 written upon these stones. What stood upon them was doubtless, as 
 Calvin expresses it, only " the sum and sanctions of the law.' " Am I 
 to be proscribed because I have said it is a fair question whether we 
 shall apply to certain passages in the Pentateuch exactly the same 
 exegesis as John Calvin applied to one of them ] (Applause.) I think 
 it a very fair thing that we should consider any suggestion made by so 
 great a theologian as John Calvin. 
 
 But, it is alleged, my statement " appears irreconcilable with many 
 express statements made in the Pentateuch and with the words of our 
 Lord Himself." How can it do so 1 The words of our Lord could not 
 settle any detailed question about the Pentateuch, because He never had 
 that question before Him in any answer or word He used. (Cries of 
 '_'0h, oh," hear, hear, and applause.) Our Lord spoke distinctly and 
 intelligibly and with infallible truth on the points that He spoke to : 
 but I am not able to see that there is any ground in theology for 
 holding that His words had any bearing on points He did not speak to. 
 He did not speak to this point, and upon this point therefore it is not 
 necessary to go further. I must say I regret that Dr Rainy, who has 
 long been looked up to as the leader of this House, and who has to a 
 certain extent committed himself to the line in which it is now moving, 
 has not thought it part of his duty, as a person in responsibility, to be 
 present in the committee and to be present to-day, because it is well- 
 known that at the very beginning of the first accusation, Avhen Dr 
 Begg— who, I have no doubt, Avill repeat the same accusation to-day— pufc 
 his whole case upon this one thing, the testimony of our Lord, Dr Rainy 
 got up and disclaimed this view ; and we have from beginning to end 
 always found the majority of this Church refusing to be dragged into 
 such a dangerous and, I will say, irreverent use of the words of our 
 Lord— (applause and " oh ")— that He should be called in and His holy 
 
17 
 
 name degraded by being made the instrument of a theological agitation. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 3. JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 I come now to the Journal of Philology. I was not aware that my 
 paper in it was to be called in question ; but so far as I have been able to 
 follow the imperfect accounts of certain matters which transpired in 
 public prints, I understand that the same potent voice which raised this 
 question first in the Presbytery of Edinburgh, and which has been since 
 followed in the matter, also raised the question in the same Presbytery 
 about the article in the Joimicd of Philology. This member of the 
 Edinburgh Presbytery speaking of an article published in a journal 
 edited by the secretary of the Old Testament Revision Committee, 
 and by an English clergyman, a professor of Cambridge, and known to 
 be connected with the orthodox party, said that this article was not only 
 ignorant — on which, of course, I am quite willing the speaker should 
 have his view — but was so grossly outrageous to public decency that he 
 could not quote it without closed cloors, because it was calculated to under- 
 mine the morals of the country. That statement was made by a mem- 
 ber of Edinburgh Presbytery, and for that statement he has not yet been 
 called to account by his Presbytery. There were members of his Pres- 
 bytery upon this committee. They brought up the Journal of Philology, 
 and they have found in it one contribution to their report — the state- 
 ment that there was a development of the law of forbidden degrees in 
 marriage, as there was a development in some of the other Mosaic laws. 
 This is exactly the point which came to the front in the old libel and 
 which became the basis of my whole contention. I said — If you can- 
 not admit that it is legitimate for an office-bearer in the Free Church 
 to hold that under divine sanction there was a gradual development of 
 the Mosaic legislation and an adaptation of it to the growth of society 
 and changing circumstances of the nation, then I must leave the 
 Church ; but if you admit that there may have been growth and develop- 
 ment, then I contend I am within the Church ; and the Church de- 
 cided I was to remain holding this view. Now, the repetition of one 
 detail of that general contention is all that has been got out 
 of the article which created such a tumult. I am entitled to 
 refer to this as an example of the means that have been used 
 to throw blame and discredit upon an office-bearer of this 
 Church, and which, instead of being resisted in the Presbytery, 
 have formed an important part of the agitation culminating in this new 
 agitatory document. (Applause and hisses.) 
 
 4. HEBREW HISTORY SINCE DAVID. 
 
 Now, we come to what I have said about writing in tlie time of 
 David and others. I am found fault with for saying that between the 
 age of David and the age of Amos and Hosea there was a flourishing 
 historical and legal literature, embodying many remains transmitted 
 whether orally or by writing from a much earlier date. Surely there is 
 nothing wrong in that. If some of the gentlemen who feel so hot upon 
 this subject would take the trouble to read through two or three of 
 the translated Arabic histories they would understand how writing has 
 always been gone about in the East, and how authentic history has been 
 
18 
 
 secured. It is by this means. The new writer has before him the 
 old material, and in all important matters, instead of epitomising the 
 old material, he copies it — not the whole work, but so much as is 
 pertinent to his purpose. In consequence of this literary method, an 
 Eastern history written hundreds of years after the events Avhich it 
 records may have, in the hands of a judicious critic, the same value for 
 all practical purposes as a contemporary narrative. Let me illustrate 
 this by an example from profane history. The earliest extant historical 
 and traditional collections for the life of Mohammed were written some 
 two centuries later than the events they record. Yet in these writings 
 older books now lost have been so conscientiously copied, and genuine 
 reminiscences of the prophet's contemporaries have been handed down 
 so exactly in the words of the first narrator, that many of Mohammed's 
 sayings and doings stand before us as exactly and vividly as if we had 
 been eye witnesses of the events. I believe it was in this way that our 
 present historical books came together. Every impartial reader who 
 allows the narrative to produce its own impression on his mind — and I, 
 for one, am not inclined to supplement the history of the Bible, as I 
 read it in the Bible, by rabbinical traditions — every such reader must 
 observe that we have one continuous story from Genesis to the end of 
 2 Kings (Ruth, of course, occupying a separate place in the Hebrew 
 Canon). The narrative, therefore, in its present form, as it came from 
 the hand of the last editor, is not older than the exile. But its historical 
 value is vindicated by the observation that the work is really due to a 
 succession of writers acting upon the same method which has secured 
 for us an authentic record of the profane history of the East. The 
 successive writers, one coming after the other, although they might 
 have something to add, actually quoted in their own words the older 
 historians ; and in no other possible way can so accurate and so con- 
 temporary a record for remote antiquity be obtained as that gives. 
 Now, of course, the question here is whether Scripture is an authentic 
 narrative of fact. It will be observed that under this head the com- 
 mittee themselves have not suggested that if the narrative of fiicts 
 is authentic, there is anything in this view opposed to inspiration. 
 It has not been classed under the head of passages which deny Scrip- 
 ture to be the Word of God ; and if, as I have shown, this view of the 
 history, instead of taking from its authenticity, adds to its authenticity 
 and value, he would be a bold man who would assert, on grounds of a 
 priori reasoning, from the methods of Western literature, or the little 
 prejudices of little minds who have not studied Eastern history, that 
 the spirit of God could not have used such a means to propagate the 
 history of His truth. Besides, the statement of the report is grossly 
 unfair, in assuming, as it does, that I do not think there was any 
 writer before David, when I have pointed out so expressly that the 
 older parts of Samuel are practically contemporary with the events they 
 record and are written in a masterly style which shows that the art of 
 composition in prose was already thoroughly understood and therefore 
 cannot have been a new thing in Israel. 
 
 5. THE BOOK OF RUTH, 
 
 Under this head the fifth extract states that " the freshest and best 
 products of this period are the post-exile Psalms, the hymns of the 
 
19 
 
 second temple, which occupy a large part of the Psalter, and, though 
 generally inferior to the older lyrics in the highest poetical qualities, 
 are often full of the charm of genuine feeling and sweet utterance, and 
 sometimes rise to a sublime energy of devotion and faith. With the 
 Psalms the graceful prose idyll of Ruth has a natural affinity." Now, 
 let me ask, why should I not call Ruth a graceful prose idyll ? Does 
 any one deny that the Book of Ruth is graceful, or that it is in prose, 
 or that, though in prose, it is instinct with poetic feeling? Ancient 
 poetry was not accustomed to deal with fictitious events. (Hear, hear.) 
 It was sufficiently real to try to give a poetic expression to real events; 
 and I think that true poetry sometimes does so still. (Applause.) 
 Is Tennyson's lyric upon the Charge of the Six Hundred not an 
 authentic piece of history, because it is also a poem 1 At one time, 
 it appears, I am blamed because I say that some parts of these ancient 
 writings were not so rich in literary qualities as others, and, at another 
 time, when I do call attention and pay a tribute of admiration to the 
 literary elegancies of one of those writings, I am called to account for 
 it. (Laughter.) Perhaps Dr Wilson will endeavour to prove that 
 Ruth was not written in the post-exile period 1 It is very easy to 
 make a large general statement and a large general accusation, as the 
 committee have done, to cover this question, but no one can join in 
 accusations of this sort who has really with the sweat of his brow tried 
 to put himself face to face with the actual complicated details of 
 Scripture. (Applause.) It is not practical study of Scripture, it is not 
 knowledge of or regard for Scripture that makes men so ready to bring 
 accusations of this sort, but it is a dogmatic prejudice which, if it is 
 ever allowed in this Church to come between us and Scripture — if by 
 it we are to be reduced to the position of nourishing our life from the 
 expressions of the first chapter of the Confession Avhen we ought to be 
 nourishing it from the words of Christ's gospel and the words of Christ's 
 prophets — then I, for my part, care not how long I remain in the Free 
 Church. (Loud and prolonged applause.) 
 
 The Moderator — I must repeat — (loud cries of " Oh, oh "). 
 
 THE MIDRASH. 
 
 The next point which has been challenged is my reference to the 
 " Midrash, or sermonising treatment of the old history, which holds 
 so large a place in later Jewish literature." Well, I have only to say 
 that I am quite willing that any one should give me a better inter- 
 pretation of that word than the only one I know, namely, what would now 
 be called a popular pulpit lecture on Bible history. That, I believe, is a 
 legitimate method of teaching; it once was wont to be very largely 
 used in Scotland. (Laughter.) 
 
 JONAH. 
 
 As for the Book of Jonah, — on this point I have said nothing more 
 than before. I have not tied myself to a theory, nor do I wish to 
 tie myself or the Church to any theory of the Book of Jonah ; but this 
 I may say, that the theory of Jonah as a parable is a current theory. 
 It is held by many moderate scholars, and it Avould be well for this 
 • Church to try and see whether there is anything dangerous in knowing 
 that it is so. There are, as far as I am aware, two main objections taken 
 
20 
 
 to the supposition that the Book of Jonah may be parabolic. In the 
 first place, it is said that our Lord testified to Jonah as a real person 
 by the allusion to the fact that the men of Nineveh repented at his 
 preaching. I concede this, and I will also say that we know from other 
 sources that Jonah was a real historical person. He is mentioned in 
 the Book of Kings. I never said that Jonah was not a historical 
 person, but that it is a custom in the Haggada to attach parables to 
 historical names. I do not deny that Jonah was a prophet, and I do 
 not deny that he went to Nineveh ; but I affirm that the history of 
 Jonah, as we have it in its details, is treated by most critics now as 
 parabolical, and that for several reasons, of which I will only give one. 
 By taking the Book of Jonah as a parable, we are able to understand 
 what our Lord meant by " the sign of the prophet Jonah " in a way 
 that the ordinary view does not enable us to do. I am not, mark you, 
 going to make myself responsible for this ; but I say that it is an argu- 
 ment which has force to my mind, at least to the extent of making 
 me think that we ought not to tie ourselves down to the idea that w^e 
 must not even breathe above our lips the fact that anybody takes the 
 book of Jonah as a parable. Our Lord, in speaking of His resurrec- 
 tion, applied to it " the sign of the prophet Jonah." According to the 
 ordinary interpretation, there was no pertinence in this sign "beyond 
 the simple fact of the three days and the three nights. Now, there are 
 a great many cases in Old Testament Scripture in which the three days 
 and three nights are spoken of, as for example in the sixth chapter of 
 Hosea, where it is said, " After two days will He revive us ; in the 
 third day He will raise us up." But our Lord chose the instance in 
 the Book of Jonah, which suggests the inference that He saw in " the 
 sign of Jonah " something of special instructiveness. Those who take 
 Jonah as a parable explain that in this way. They say : The children 
 of Israel came back from Babylonish captivity ; they came back to re- 
 people Jerusalem, encouraged by many great and bright prophecies. 
 They were to be lords over many nations, and they were to be avenged 
 on their enemies. The people waited and watched, but these things 
 did not come ; and, as they read the prophets, they were very apt 
 [as appears most clearly from the Book of Malachi] to reproach the 
 Lord, and to say that His promise had not been fulfilled. These 
 people, however, forgot another thing, that it was a condition, or part, 
 of Israel's glorification that she should be a missionary nation to spread 
 God's truth to the ends of the earth. It appears to many that the 
 Book of Jonah was an answer in a parabolical form to these mur- 
 murers, who, while they thought nothing of their missionary duty, 
 thought much of avenging themselves. Jonah, appointed the messenger 
 of God, was the parable or type of the rebellious nation Israel. He 
 was called to proclaim God's truth, but this he did not do, fleeing 
 rather from the presence of God. Thus he was overtaken by the judg- 
 ment of God, and was swallowed by the great fish. Throughout the 
 whole of the Old Testament the figure of the leviathan or great fish 
 is the usual figure for the world-power oppressing the Church [Isa, 
 li. 9, xxvii. 1 : Ps. Ixxiv. 13, 14.] Israel was swallowed up by the 
 world-power, and remained in misery because it had refused its mis- 
 sionary vocation ; and the rising of Jonah on the third day was the 
 rising of the nation to its missionary functions. Now, when did Israel, 
 
21 
 
 -which had not received and had not obeyed God's promises and pro- 
 phecies, when did it rise to that vocation ? Not the Israel of the flesh, 
 hut the Head — the ideal Israel — the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, — He it 
 was who, having risen victorious from the grave on the third day, be- 
 came Himself the Head of that missionary Church which is now fulfil- 
 ling the duty laid upon the Church by the prophecies of Isaiah, and 
 which now is going forward, as we believe, to receive the victory and 
 the reward when that task has been accomplished. Surely in such an 
 interpretation, whether it be right or whether it be wi'ong, there is 
 nothing impious. There is much rather of a deep and instructive line 
 of thought in it, enabling us to see precisely how the type of Jonah, 
 and none other, occurred to our Lord as a fitting sign to foreshadow 
 the change which would be introduced into the position of the Church 
 after His resurrection from the dead. 
 
 G. EBER. 
 
 Now we come to the paragraph about Eber. In the passage quoted I 
 have stated that in certain of the genealogical tables the genealogies 
 are not to be understood in the sense Avhich is sometimes put upon 
 them, but that some things which the ordinary expositor has taken to 
 be the history or genealogy of individuals are more probably a record 
 either of the distribution of tribes or of ethnographical affinities. This, 
 I think, at once disposes of the assertion that I have thrown " doubt 
 on the genealogy of Abraham, and therefore on the genealogy of our 
 Lord, and on the certainty of Divine revelation and the accuracy of 
 Abrahamic history." I have done no such thing ; and I am surprised 
 that any one could suppose it. I have said that the words do not mean 
 what Dr Wilson thinks they mean, and that they mean something else ; 
 am I to be said to cast doubt on the accuracy of a statement because I 
 give it another interpretation than is given it by other persons ? 
 Certainly not. I go further ; I will say that the statements are 
 accurate, but that they would not be accurate but self-contradictory if 
 they were not taken in the interpretation which I have put on them. 
 Taking the tenth chapter of Genesis, we there find a statement made 
 in the 22nd verse with regard to the children of Shem, which furnishes 
 a good illustration of what I mean. There we read that the "children" 
 of Shem were Elam (the ordinary Bible word for Persia), Asshur (or 
 Assyria), Arphaxad (equivalent to Arrhapachitis [on the upper waters 
 of the Zab]), Lud (or Lydia), and Aram (or Syria) ; so that it might 
 just as well have been said in the English translation of that verse, that 
 the children of Shem were Persia, Assyria, and so on. These are facts 
 which no one will be mad enough to dispute. Now, regarding these 
 genealogies, two interpretations are possible : either that the names 
 which appear as names of countries were originally names of individuals, 
 and that the countries afterwards took each the name of the individual 
 who first settled there ; or, upon the other view, that the author did not 
 commit himself to any statement about individuals, and in stating that 
 these were the children of Shem and so on, he meant simply to say that 
 the children of Shem occupied these districts. It is not a question of 
 the credibility of the author, but of what the author meant to convey 
 by his writing. I feel a difficulty in going into this question, because, 
 if I do so, I shall be compelled to seek analogies from the genealogies 
 
22 
 
 of other Eastern nations. Were I to do this, I should be at the disad- 
 vantage of making statements to members who would not agree with 
 me if I told them that the same was a practice in Arabic geneal- 
 ogies ; yet I must say so, and if gentlemen will not agree with me, I 
 cannot help it, (Applause). When we have all these things before 
 us, it becomes very difficult to hold that these were all actual men as 
 well as places. But the conclusive point is this : — if we find the same 
 man repeated in two or three genealogies as the son of different parents, 
 or the father of different children, we may be pretty sure that common 
 sense dictates that we are not to take the statements in their literal 
 sense. Now, in Gen. x., Eber is the descendant of Arphaxad, and 
 Aram or Syria is Arphaxad's brother, and the ancestor not of the 
 Hebrews but of Uz and others. But in Deut. xxvi. 5, the Hebrew in 
 his confession before the altar is directed to say that his ancestor was 
 a nomad Aramean ; and again, in Gen. xxii. 21, Uz and Aram are both 
 descendants of Eber through ISTahor, and Uz is Aram's uncle instead of 
 his son. If we find then that Eber, Uz, or Aram, had one father in 
 one part of the Pentateuch, and another father in another part of the 
 Pentateuch, we are not to suppose that an actual historical man had two 
 fathers — (laughter) — but that the authors of Scripture, who were wise 
 as well as inspired authors, meant something which was sense, and was 
 consistent with the actual facts of the case. (Laughter and applause.) 
 It comes to this, that in order to prevent me from taking a certain 
 interpretation, members are to exclude this consideration altogether ; 
 and because they are not familiar with Oriental habits of thought, and 
 because, probably, they do not even know that in the Oriental languages 
 there is but one form (the so called nisheli) by which sonship and tribal 
 connection and birth in a certain place are expressed, they will rather 
 accept the position that there is a deliberate contradiction in terms 
 between parts of Scripture than allow me to search for an intelligible 
 explanation. (Applause.) 
 
 7. JEREMIAH L. 
 
 With reference to what is said in the next part of the report as to the 
 " anonymous writer " in the book of Jeremiah, all I need do is to point 
 out that an exact parallel to this prophecy, in the sense in which I speak 
 of it, is to be found in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Every- 
 one now knows that the Apostle Paul did not write this epistle. (" No, 
 no," applause, and interruption.) In the earlier manuscripts it is ad- 
 dressed only " to the Hebrews," and the name of Paul has been intro- 
 duced into our authorised version only from a late and bad copy. I 
 have used exactly the same criticism in the passage quoted with regard 
 to Jeremiah. In the oldest Septuagint text the name of Jeremiah does 
 not occur in the title of the chapter which I call anonymous, but 
 that does not prove that the prophecy is not an inspired prophecy. 
 I have been allowed to say that Paul did not write the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews ; I said that in the same volume in which I said this other 
 thing, and no one has challenged me. In taking up the position that 
 some superscriptions and subscriptions in the Old Testament, as in the 
 New, are not always part of the original texts, I have ventured to 
 make an assertion which may be right or may be wrong ; but it is not 
 
23 
 
 the truth of Scripture, but only a question as to what is the text of 
 Scripture that is involved in it. (Applause.) 
 
 IV. PREDICTIVE PROPHECY. — 1. ISA. XIII., XIV. 
 
 Coming, lastly, to the passages which are said to " discredit prophecy 
 in its predictive aspect," I really cannot go into this question at any 
 length, for it was all gone into before. I said before that there were 
 certain prophecies which could not be dated at the time popularly sup- 
 posed, but never did I say that they were not spoken until the events 
 predicted had taken place. They were true predictions, but I formed 
 my opinion by the best light I could get, and not by tradition, and by 
 that light I was constrained to say that, in the case of Isaiah xiii. and 
 xiv., the title of the prophecy in our ordinary text has no more claim to 
 be regarded as part of the original book and of the Word of God than 
 the titles given to certain Psalms, which no one will say are a part of 
 the Word of God. 
 
 2. DANIEL. 
 
 In regard to the Book of Daniel, the predictive character of which I 
 am said to have destroyed by saying that it was "probably written as late 
 as about 160 B.C.," I confess that the question arising in connection with 
 these writings is one of exceeding difficulty. Every one who has been face 
 to face with the real difficulties of the Old Testament has been forced to 
 look at that book, and I desire to speak of it with all caution. T have 
 not gone further than to express my opinion that I do not think it pro- 
 bable that it was written down entirely before the date mentioned in 
 the passage quoted from my article. I only say it is probable it was not 
 written until that date ; I will not go further, because the problem is 
 involved in obscurity. The book comes before us in a very remarkable 
 shape. It is written in two languages ; up to a certain point it is 
 Hebrew, then it suddenly goes off into Aramaic or Chaldee, and then 
 it goes back again to Hebrew. This circumstance is calculated to sug- 
 gest that there is something peculiar in the history of the book. It is 
 as if a book came to us written partly in English and partly in Gaelic, 
 without any visible ground for the change of language. Besides this', 
 there are other considerations, pointing to a late date and a peculiar 
 history which I need not set forth now. But am I wrong in sayinc 
 that an opinion is probable which has now received such universal ad- 
 hesion that even a spiritually-minded and conservative scholar like De- 
 litzsch has admitted that there are parts in the book which must have 
 been written as late as the time of the Maccabees 1 Such thino-s 
 must be taken into account. (Hear, hear.) We must face these pro- 
 blems, and the many arguments that are abroad must be weighed. It will 
 not help the cause of God to shut our eyes and run blindly against the 
 wall. (Applause.) We are to use caution, but we are also to use 
 courage, and we can use courage if we believe that God's Word is pure 
 and seven times tried. ^ (Applause.) It is said that if the Book belono-g 
 to a late date, its predictive element is destroyed. I have been accus- 
 tomed to think that the things of Christ and of His kingdom, the 
 
 victory of His kingdom over Antichrist, and the resurrection of the 
 
 dead, and the glorification of the saints — all of which are in Daniel > 
 
 were weightier things than the history of Antiochus Epiphanes. That 
 
24 
 
 seems not to be the view of those who wrote this report. I do not 
 know how they would deal with the words of our Lord when He speaks 
 of " the abomination of desolation " as something still in the future. It 
 appears to me that they hold that if the Book of Daniel was written, 
 as they make it appear, in the year 160, or, as the modern critics put 
 it, between 169 and 167, then the whole predictive value of the book 
 is lost, for according to them, that predictive value lies in the details 
 which it gives of the wars of Antiochus and Ptolemy. These, however, 
 I think, are not the parts of the text which are most valuable for the 
 Christian Church in the way of edification. In the time of Jerome, it 
 was a controversy between the heathens and the Christians whether the 
 predictions in Daniel referred to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes only, 
 or whether they applied to Christ and the victory of His Church. At 
 that time the fathers of the Church held that the Book of Daniel was 
 prophetic, because, like all the prophecies, it prophesied of Christ, and 
 the opposite view was taken by the heathen philosopher Porphyry ; but 
 we now find men appointed members of a committee in the Free 
 Church, who take the side of Porphyry, and who say that if the Book 
 of Daniel is a book of prophecy, it is so not because it speaks of Christ, 
 bvit because it speaks of events which were past one hundred and sixty 
 years before Christ. (Applause.) 
 
 3. THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. 
 
 The committee report in the last place, that in attributing the rise of 
 written prophecy to the eighth century before Christ, I appear to be at 
 variance with the plain teaching of our Lord, who says — " Had ye believed 
 Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me." Let us accept 
 the whole traditional view. Let us satisfy Dr Wilson's heart, and say 
 that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch. Very well ; that was at all 
 events the Pentateuch, and the Pentateuch has always been called the 
 law, and neither our Lord nor the Jews nor any theologian in any age, 
 has ever called it part of the prophetical books. Our Lord always 
 speaks of the Law and the Prophets as two distinct things. I do the 
 same and, doing so, state the undoubted fact that the earliest of the 
 prophetic books were written in the eighth century. I cannot better 
 leave my defence in the hands of the Commission than by pointing out 
 that this committee has been capable of founding a charge against me, 
 whether from ignorance or from captiousness I am unable to say, which 
 has no other basis than disregard of the fact that the Hebrew Bible is 
 divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. (Professor 
 Smith, having spoken for about two hours, resumed his seat amid pro- 
 longed applause). 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Xo I.— REPORT OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 The Committee have acted under the following deliverance of the Commis- 
 sion of the General Assembly : — 
 
 "That the Commission, having respect to the letter of Professor Smith 
 transmitted by the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to the representa- 
 tions made to them by so many Presbyteries as to the writings of 
 Professor Smith, to which attention has been called since last General 
 Assembly, and considering the widesjjread uneasiness and alarm as to 
 the character of these writings, resolve to appoint a Committee 
 maturely to examine them and the letter of Professor Smith, and to 
 consider their bearing upon the accepted belief and teaching of the 
 Church ; to report their opinion and advice to an in hunc effectum 
 meeting of Commission, which is hereby appointed to be held on 27th 
 October next, at eleven o'clock, that they may be prepai'ed to take 
 such action in this matter as may appear requisite ; and the Commis- 
 sion hereby cite Professor Smith to appear for his interest at this 
 in hunc effectum meeting, and instruct the clerks to see that a citation 
 is served upon 'him in due form." 
 The writings of Professor Eobertson Smith which the Committee have 
 examined, and to which reference is made in the following Report, 
 wei-e : — 
 
 1. Article on "Haggai" in the Encyclopcedia Brifannica, vol. xi. 
 
 2. Article on ' ' Hebrew Language and Literature " in Encyclopcedia 
 
 Brifannica, vol. xi. 
 
 3. Article on " Animal Worship and Animal Tribes among the Arabs 
 
 and in the Old Testament," /oM?-?iai of Pliilolog;/, vol. ix. 75-100. 
 
 4. Letter by Professor Smith to the Clerk of the Presbytery of Aberdeen. 
 In discharging the duties entrusted to them by the Commission of the 
 
 General Assembly, the Committee deem it of the utmost importance to call 
 attention to the fact that there are questions specially raised in the writings 
 of Professor R. Smith, which are quite new in cases occurring in the history of 
 the Church of Scotland. So far as the Committee are aware, in any processes for 
 heresy, the infallible truth of Holy Scripture has been assumed, and the matter 
 to be determined was whether the teaching of the accused individual was in 
 harmony with the truth as exhibited in Scripture and formulated in the Con- 
 fession of Faith. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contained 
 in the books which are specified in chapter i. section ii. of the Confession of 
 Faith, have always been regarded as the supreme standard of truth and duty, 
 and the Confession of Faith only as subordinate to these. The first and funda- 
 mental testimony of every office bearer ordained is, that he believes the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, and the only 
 rule of faith and manners ; and Commissioners to the General Assembly are 
 annually pledged to determine in all matters that shall come before them 
 according to the Word of God. Regarding Holy Scripture the Confession of 
 Faith declares that God is " the author thereof ; " that it is to be received 
 "because it is the word of God ; " and that "the supreme Judge by which all 
 controversies in religion are to be determined can be no other but the Holy 
 Spirit speaking in the Scripture." 
 
26 
 
 But the questions raised by these writings of Professor K. Smith are ques- 
 tions which affect that authority of the Supreme Standard of the Church, 
 which is asserted in and assumed throughout the Confession of Faith. The 
 Committee do not impute to Professor R. Smith the intention of assailing the 
 integrity and authority of Scripture in the writings they have examined, but 
 the statements made by him in many particulars are such as are htted, and 
 can hardly fail, to produce upon the minds of readers, the impression that 
 Scripture does not present a reliable statement of truth, and that God is not 
 the author of it ; and it greatly concerns the character and credit of the Free 
 Church to make it clear, in opposition to any such impression, that she holds 
 firmly, and will maintain, the infallible truth and authority of Scripture as the 
 word of God. 
 
 The particulars referred to may be classed under four heads : — 
 
 I. Pa^isayes in which the Books of Scripture are sjjoken of in an irreverent 
 manner. 
 
 (1.) "As the language decayed, the graces of the older prose style were lost. 
 The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, the colourless narrative of the Chronicles, 
 and even the Book of Esther, are singularly destitute of literary merit." — 
 Ehic. Brit., vol. xi. p. 599b. 
 
 (2. ) " There are other short prophecies of the Babylonian age, as Isa. xiii. 
 xiv., which seem to have been first published as anonymous broadsides — a 
 characteristic change from the method of the former prophets, who wrote only 
 what they had first spoken to the people." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 599a. 
 
 (3.) "In this earliest period — the age of popular literature, as we may call 
 it, modelled upon the songs and histories that circulated orally through the 
 country — there is a remarkable preponderance of writings connected with the 
 northern kingdom, and these include the narratives that are fullest of human 
 interest, and the poetry richest in colour and imagination, such as the loves of 
 Jacob and Rachel, the history of Joseph, the life of Elijah, the pictures of 
 nature in the Cauticles."— A^wc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 598b. 
 
 (4. ) " The brief revival of spoken prophecy after the exile lacks the old fire, 
 and presents no notable literary feature, except the use of somewhat fantastic 
 symbolic imagery, the j^rototype of the later apocalyptic literature." — Enc. 
 Brit., vol. xi. p. 599 b. 
 
 II. Passage.^ in tchich the Books of Scripture are spoken of in such a ivay as to 
 render it very difficult for readers to regard God as the author of them. 
 
 (1.) "The Chronicler no longer thoroughly understood the old Hebrew 
 sources from which he worked, while, for the latest part of his history, he used 
 a Jewish Aramaic document, part of which he incorporated in the book of 
 Ezra,."— Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 597b. 
 
 (2.) Speaking of the Song of Solomon, he says :— " This lyric drama has 
 suiTered much from interpolation, and presumably was not written down till a 
 comparatively late date and from imperfect recollection, so that its original 
 shape is very much lost." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. jd. o9Sb. 
 
 (3.) Again he says : — " On the other hand, the Book of Ezra in its present 
 shape, as edited and partly composed by the much later author who wrote 
 Chronicles, conveys the impression that large gifts for the temple were offered 
 by the leading Jews on their first return (Ezra ii. 68, 69), that the foundation 
 of the house was laid by Joshua and Zerubbabel in the second year of the re- 
 turn (ch. iii.), and that the work was thereafter interrupted by the opposition 
 of the Jews' enemies till the reign of Darius. It appears probable, however, 
 that the Chronicler has somewhat dislocated the order of events, especially by 
 taking the official correspondence in ch. iv. to refer to the temple, whereas it 
 really refers to the building of the city walls. This oversight might readily 
 involve the antedating of the foundation ceremony described in iii. S-13, which 
 seems to be identical with that which Ilaggai speaks of, since the actors are 
 the same, and the chief feature in the description which does not belong to the 
 usual liturgical scenery of the Chronicler recalls Hag. ii. 3, Zech. iv. 7-10."— 
 Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 371a. 
 
 III. Passages which naturally suggest that Scripture does not give an authentic 
 narrative of facts or actual occurrences. 
 
 (1.) " The earliest products of Hebrew authorship seem to have been lyrics 
 and laws, which would circulate, in the first instance, from mouth to mouth, 
 
27 
 
 ■without the use of written copies. We have notice of early written collections 
 of lyrics prior to our present historical books, — the Book of the wars of Jehovah 
 (Num. xxi. 14), and the Book of Jashar (Josh. x. 2 Sam. i.). We have no clue 
 to the age of the former book, but the lines quoted from it are evidently of 
 great antiquity. The Book of Jashar is not earlier than the time of Solomon, 
 for a fragment of it referring to the building of the temple has been recovered 
 from the Septuagint of 1 Kings viii." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 59Sa. 
 
 The Book of Jashar is here said to be prior to our present historical books, 
 and yet in a succeeding sentence it is stated to be not earlier than the age of 
 Solomon, the natural inference being that the present historical books of the 
 Old Testament were not written till that age, or afterwards. 
 
 (2.) Again : — " It may fairly be made a question whether Moses left in 
 writing any other laws than the Commandments on the tables of stone. Even 
 Ex. xxiv. 4, and xxxiv. 27, may in the original context have referred to the 
 ten words alone." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 598 a. This statement appears irre- 
 concilable with many express statements made in the Pentateuch, and with 
 the words of our Lord himself. 
 
 (3.) Again :^" The laws of incest, as given in Lev. xviii. xx., belong to a 
 part of the Levitical legislation which presents considerable difficulties to 
 critics ; but, at any rate, they are probably later than the code of Deuteronomy, 
 where the only prohibition of the kind is directed against marriage with one's 
 father's wife, xxiii. 1." — Journal of Philology, vol. ix. No. 17, p. 94. 
 
 (4. ) Again it is said : — "A scribe was attached to the royal court from the 
 reign of Darid downwards ; and the older parts of the book of Samuel, which 
 must have been written not long after the time of that king {see David), are 
 framed in a masterly style, which shows that the art of composition in prose 
 was already thoroughly understood. So, too, the best written and most 
 brilliant part of the narrative of the Pentateuch, the combined history of the 
 Jehovist and the non-Levitical Elohist, appears to be unquestionably earlier 
 than the rise of prophetic literature in the eighth century b. c. In this narrative 
 — itself the product of more than one writer — are included several collections 
 of old laws, so that we have between the time of David and the age of Amos 
 and Hosea a flourishing historical and legal literature, in which, and in lyric 
 collections like the Book of Jashar, were embodied many poems, legends, and 
 other remains, transmitted, whether orally or by writing, from a much earlier 
 date." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 598b. 
 
 This is held out as a proof that we have between the age of David and the 
 age of Amos and Hosea a flourishing ' ' historical and legal literature, " a view 
 which evidently suggests that the narrative was not written till after the time 
 of David, and that other parts of the Pentateuch must be ascribed to an age 
 subsequent to Hosea. 
 
 (5. ) " The freshest and best products of this period are the post-exile Psalms, 
 the hymns of the second temple, which occupy a large part of the Psalter, and, 
 though generally inferior to the older lyrics in the highest poetical qualities, 
 are often full of the charm of genuine feeling and sweet utterance, and some- 
 times rise to a sublime energy of devotion and faith. With these Psalms the 
 graceful prose idyll of Ruth has a natural afiinity. The other writings of the 
 last age are, on the whole, much inferior." . 
 
 " The Midrash, or sermonising treatment of the old history, which holds so 
 large a place in later Jewish literature, had come in before the time of the 
 Chronicler, who quotes a work of the kind by name — the Midrash of the 
 Book of Kings (2 Chron. xxiv. 27, cf. xiii. 22). Along with this came the be- 
 ginnings of Haggada, the formation of parables and tales attached to historical 
 names, of which the Book of Jonah is generally taken as an early example, 
 and which attains much greater dimensions in the apocryphal additions to the 
 Hagiographa. " — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 599b. 
 
 (6.) "Again, according to Gen. xi. (and Gen. x. 24), Eber is the great- 
 grandson of Shem through Arphaxad, and ancestor of Terah through Peleg, 
 Reu, Serug, and Nahor. These are not to be taken as the names of indivi- 
 dual men .... 
 
 ' ' When it is recognised that Eber in Genesis is not an actual personage, 
 but an ethnological or geographical abstraction, we are thrown back on etymo- 
 logical conjecture as to the origin of the name of Hebrews. 
 
 ^^ Note 1.— The Terahites, according to other testimonies, are Aramaeans 
 (G«n. xxii. 20, seq. ; Deut. xxvi. 5), but our Elohist, who can hardly have 
 
28 
 
 written before the Captivity, makes Aram a separate offshoot of Sham, having 
 nothing to do with Eber (Gen. x. 22, 23)." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 595a. 
 
 He here says, "These are not to be taken as the names of individual men ;" 
 and further on he asserts that "Eber in Genesis is not an actual personage, 
 but an ethnological or geographical abstraction," thus throwing doubt on the 
 genealogy of Abraham, and therefore on the genealogy of our Lord, and on 
 the certainty of Divine revelation, and the accuracy of the Abrahamic his- 
 tory. Besides, he makes Gen. x. 22, 23, the work of a man " who can hardly 
 have written before the Captivitj'." 
 
 (7.) " Jer. 1. 1, contains these words: — "The word that the Lord spake 
 against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the pro- 
 phet," and this prophecy (continued without interruption in ch. li.) closes 
 with a full account of the date of its composition by Jeremiah, and the 
 instructions which he gave to Seraiah concerning it (ch. li. 59-64). But 
 Professor Smith, quoting from this prophecy, ascribes it to an " anonymous 
 writer." 
 
 IV. Passages ichich discredit proj^liecy in its predictive aspect. 
 
 (1.) Parts of the Book of Isaiah, xiii. xiv., in which are found predictions 
 of events long subsequent, are represented as not having been composed till 
 the Babylonian age, and published as anonymous broadsides. 
 
 ' ' There are other short prophecies of the Babylonian age, as Isa. xiii. xiv. , 
 which seem to have been first published as anonymous broadsides — a charac- 
 teristic change from the method of the former prophets, who wrote only 
 what they had first spoken to the people." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 599 a. 
 
 (2.) The Book of Daniel, along with some Psalms, is said to have been 
 probably written as late as the national revival under the Maccabees, about 
 160 B.C., a statement which tends largely to destroy its predictive character. 
 
 " It is even probable that the Old Testament Canon contains elements as 
 late as the epoch of national revival under the Maccabees (Daniel, certain 
 Psalms), for Hebrew was the language of religion as well as of scholarship." 
 —Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 599 b. 
 
 (3. ) "A new epoch begins with the rise of written prophecy in the eighth 
 century." — Enc. Brit., vol. xi. p. 599 b. In thus attributing the rise of 
 written prophecy to the eighth century B.C., he appears to be at variance 
 with the plain teaching of our Lord, who says (John v. 46), ' ' Had ye believed 
 Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me." 
 
 The particulars here adduced are not meant to be exhaustive. They are 
 presented as specimens of the manner in which Professor R. Smith handles 
 the books of Scripture. The whole tendency of the writings examined by the 
 Committee is fitted to throw the Old Testament history into confusion, and 
 at least to weaken, if not to destroy, the very foundation on which New 
 Testament doctrine is built. 
 
 Moreover, the general method on which he proceeds conveys the impression 
 that the Bible may be accounted for by the same laws which have determined 
 the growth of any other literature, inasmuch as there is no adequate recogni- 
 tion of the Divine element in the j^roduction of the Book. 
 
 The Committee accordingly recommend the Commission to take steps for 
 making it evident that the Free Church cannot sanction the kind of teaching 
 animadverted upon in this Beport, which these ■RTitings would justify, and 
 for urging the General Assembly to declare to her people and to other Churches 
 that she cannot sanction the ideas suggested by it. 
 
 Letter of Professor B. Smith. 
 
 In considering the terms of this letter it is necessary to advert to the posi- 
 tion of Professor R. Smith when the writings now under consideration were 
 pre2)ared for publication, and to the judgment of last General Assembly on 
 his case. 
 
 The writings now under consideration were not in the view of last General 
 Assembly, although it could not have been difficult to make the Assembly 
 aware of tlie tenor of them previous to their pronouncing judgment on Pro- 
 fessor Smith's case. It is well known that in the Daily Beview, published 
 
29 
 
 on the day preceding said judgment, there were copious extracts from an 
 article by Professor Smith on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which appears in 
 the same volijme of the Encyclopcedia subsequent to the article on Hebrew 
 language and literature. But apart from this, the latter article was prepared 
 for publication, and finally revised at a time when the author had accepted 
 service of a libel containing a charge of holding and pronnilgating dangerous 
 views on a cognate subject to those contained in this article. This course of 
 conduct seems to require explanation as to how it can be reconciled with the 
 ordinary principles of Church order and discipline. 
 
 In reference to the judgment of last General Assembly in his case Professor 
 Smith says : — " Since I wrote the article on Hebrew Language and Literature 
 the Assembly has given a final decision on the question whether the critical 
 views for which I was libelled are inconsistent with office in the Free Church. 
 The Church declines to make these views matters of discipline, and leaves the 
 ultimate decision as to what truth they contain to future inquiry in the spirit 
 of patience, humility, and brotherly charity. This decision enabled myself, 
 and those who hold like views, to remain at our posts with a clear conscience, 
 and to return to work in the Church with fresh vigour. " 
 
 The Committee are of opinion that such a representation of what was ex- 
 pressed and implied in the judgment of last General Assembly is altogether 
 untenable. The General Assembly neither did nor could determine a general 
 principle as to what views were consistent with the tenure of office in the Free 
 Church. Their judgment in the case was a judicial act with reference to the 
 case before them, in which the relevancy of the libel inferring discipline in 
 connection with Professor Smith's views on Deuteronomy had been affirmed 
 by three successive General Assemblies, and could not be reversed. In pro- 
 nouncing judgment, the Assembly limited the finding to admonition, while 
 they restored Professor Smith to his Chair in the circumstances which had 
 then emerged. The Assembly did not propose to lay down any general rule 
 regarding the application of discipline to critical views. No single Assembly 
 could do so. Such a course would only be competent after an overture to 
 Presbyteries, and the approval of such overture by a majority of them. 
 
 Professor Lindsay dissented from the constitution of the sub-committee 
 appointed to prepare a draft of Report. 
 
 Professor Lindsay dissented from the resolution of the Committee to con- 
 sider the preamble before considering citations from Professor R. Smith's 
 writings. 
 
 Professor Lindsay dissented from the rejection of his motion that Professor 
 R. Smith should be invited to confer with the Committee. 
 
 Mr Cowan dissented from the Report for reasons which he read, and to this 
 dissent Mr Bell adhered. 
 
 Mr M'Crie dissented from the Report for reasons which he read, and to this 
 dissent Mr Bell adhered. 
 
 Professor Lindsay dissented from the Report for reasons which he read, and 
 to this dissent Mr Bell adhered. 
 
 The Committee having resolved not to print the reasons of the several dis- 
 sentients, Mr M'Phail dissented from this resolution, and to this dissent 
 Professor Lindsay adhered. 
 
 No. II. 
 REASONS OF DISSENT FROM REPORT OF COMMITTEE, 
 
 I BEG to dissent, in my own name and for those who may agree with me, from 
 the Report of the Committee which charges Professor Smith's writings with 
 speaking of the books of Scripture in an irreverent manner, with speaking of 
 the books of Scripture in such a way as to render it very difficult, if not im- 
 possible, for readers to regard God as the author of them, with naturally 
 suggesting that Scripture does not give an authentic narrative of facts, and 
 with discrediting prophecy in its predictive aspect : — 
 
30 
 
 1. Because in judging of the writings of Professor Smith the Committee 
 have wilfully set aside the ordinary methods of interpretation, and have 
 deduced from these writings views which the author would never have ad- 
 mitted to be in them. In any case of disputed interpretation, surely the 
 ordinary mode of getting at the true meaning is either to ask the author 
 to explain his meaning personally, or, failing this, to compare the statement 
 under consideration with other statements made by him, and thus give it the 
 meaning most consistent with the whole known opinions of the author. The 
 Committee have always refused either to appeal to Professor Smith personally, 
 or to take into consideration other statements of his, on the ground alleged 
 over and over again, that the Committee had nothing to do with Professor 
 Smith's own opinions or beliefs, but only with what they called the " natural " 
 meaning of the isolated sentences discussed. But if the ordinary methods of 
 interpretation be set aside, the "natural" meaning can only be the meaning 
 which the Committee, without warrant, read into sentences they cite. 
 
 2. Because the opinions quoted to be condemned have in almost every case 
 been already adjudicated upon by the Church, either by the final decision of 
 the General Assemblies of 1878 and 1880, or by the decisions of the Synod 
 and Presbytery of Aberdeen, which decisions, when the appeals against them 
 were fallen from, became final. 
 
 3. Because in all cases the opinions quoted do not, when fairly interpreted, 
 bear out the charges of irreverence and disparagement of Scripture founded 
 upon them. 
 
 And, in particular, I dissent from the use of the citations to prove the 
 charges, because — 
 
 1. It is surely not irreverent to say that when the Hebrew language ceased 
 to be a vernacular, its stj'le became impoverished, and the graces of the older 
 prose were lost. There is no irreverence in saying that the literary style of 
 some parts of the Bible is better than that of other parts. Paul himself says, 
 "I came not with excellency of speech," 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; and describes himself 
 as "rude in speech," 1 Cor. ii. 6. 
 
 2. It is surely not irreverent to say that during the Babylonish Captivity, 
 the prophets, who had not opportunities for preaching, seem to have begun to 
 circulate short individual prophecies in writing, and without appending their 
 names ; whereas the earlier prophets, after a long course of preaching, col- 
 lected the sum of their teaching in writing. But this is all that is meant by 
 speaking of prophecies as "anonymous broadsides ;" broadside being a short 
 book as opposed to a long one, and anonymous because not appearing with 
 the author's name, Hab. ii. 2. 
 
 3. The sentence quoted refers exclusively to the literary features of Haggai, 
 Zechariah, and Malachi, and is so limited by the context. The remark is a 
 remark upon style, and only amounts to this, that the literary style of these 
 prophets is not so good as that of earlier prophets, and surely such a statement 
 is quite within the limits of the most reverent criticism. 
 
 4. The statement about the Chronicler came up under the old libel in the 
 third particular, and was decided in Professor Smith's favour by the Assembly 
 of 1878. All that Professor Smith says is that the Chronicler, who spoke 
 Aramaic, was not a perfect Hebrew scholar. A Jewish Aramaic document 
 means a document written not in Hebrew but in Jewish Aramaic ; and the 
 whole reference is made in an argument to prove that that language had 
 already begun to supersede Hebrew. 
 
 5. The statement quoted about the Song of Salomon is only asserted by 
 Professor Smith to be a probability. It is a probable conjecture brought 
 forward to account for some difficulties. 
 
 {a.) It is very difficult to trace the connection between the several parts 
 of the book as it now stands. 
 
 (6. ) The book evidently belongs to the age of Solomon, and yet it con- 
 tains Greek and Persian words and phrases. 
 
 (c) The existence of interpolations is proved from the ancient versions. 
 From these considerations the result comes that prohably the Song of Solomon, 
 as we now have it in the Old Testament Canon, is not so much a complete 
 book as a collection of precious fragments. This, surely, is no denial of the 
 Divine authorship of the book as we now have it. The question of theological 
 importance is not whether W'e possess the original Canticles complete, but 
 whether Me have as much as Divine Providence judged necessary. Besides, 
 
31 
 
 every statement about the Song of Solomon in article " Hebrew Language and 
 Literature" had been already made in article "Canticles," which has already 
 been judged by the Church under tlie old libel. 
 
 6. The oversight is charged to the editor of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, 
 and what is said is that he so copied from the original sources, that the error 
 corrects itself. It is not held by any one that Scripture is so constructed that 
 everything in it is clear and free from occasion of misapprehension without 
 study and comparison of passages. All that is said is that the editor has 
 made an oversight in copying, but that we need not be led astray by this, for 
 other parts of the book enable us to correct the slight error. A statement 
 like this does not deny the Divine authorship of these books. 
 
 7. Professor Smith does not say that all lyrical collections were prior to all 
 the historical books, but only to those in which they are found quoted, and 
 this seems plain fact and not heresy. The only statement made is that the 
 Book of Jashar and the Book of the Wars are prior to the books that quote 
 them. Jashar is quoted in Joshua, but it contained a poem by David (2 Sam. 
 i. 18), and Professor Smith, founding on the Septuagint, says it also contained 
 a fragment referring to the building of the Temple. How can it be said 
 that the difference of age between David and Solomon is just the difference 
 between regarding Joshua as contemporary history or bad history ? 
 
 8. The statement made about Moses's writings has been very much misin- 
 terpreted. 
 
 (a. ) The whole statement is made concerning the laws and not the his- 
 torical narrative. Professor Smith makes no statement denying 
 that the greater portion of the narrative of the Pentateuch may be 
 from the pen of Moses. 
 
 (6.) The question is strictly limited by the context to mean, not 
 how many laws Moses gave, but how much he wrote, and how 
 much he left to be handed down in the first instance orally. Pro- 
 fessor Smith proves from Scripture that there was an oral trans- 
 mission and communication of law down to the time of David and 
 the prophets. The only thing that remains is to ask how much, 
 according to the testimony of Scripture itself, one can certainly 
 affirm to have been left by Moses in writing. 
 
 (c) Professor Smith does not say that Moses left no written laws but 
 
 the Ten Commandments ; he only says that it is a fair question 
 
 whether he left more. Now, on this head he says precisely what 
 
 he said in his " Additional Answer," p. 26, and in his " Answer to 
 
 the Amended Libel," p. 6, specially referred to in the decision of 
 
 last General Assembly. 
 
 -There is therefore no new matter in Professor Smith's remarks on this topic, 
 
 and indeed nothing which was not specially adjudicated upon by last General 
 
 Assembly. 
 
 9. The statement about the laws of incest quoted from the Journal of Phil- 
 ology amounts only to this : that a study of Scripture itself suggests the idea 
 that this law was at a late period inserted into the previously existinc' Levitical 
 Code. Now, the Church has already admitted, under the old Iibel° the pos- 
 sibility of successive redactions of the Mosaic Law, and the introduction from 
 time to time of new laws, under the direction of divinely inspired prophets, 
 when the circumstances of the people required them. 
 
 10. I dissent from the statements made about Professor Smith's historical 
 criticism, and also from the paragraph on p. 8 of the printed Report describing 
 Professor Smith's method, and beginning, " Moreover the (general method 
 
 ." for these reasons. 
 The whole inquiry concerns the present literary state of the historical books 
 of the Old Testament. It is granted by most commentators, that the historical 
 books did not attain their present state in which we have them till the time 
 of the Captivity, and that Ezra used the hand of an editor. The question re- 
 mains. How did the literature, and especially the historical literature, grow 
 to be what it is? 
 
 (a.) Professor Smith nowhere admits the merely natural growth of this 
 literature, and nowhere denies that the genesis of the Hterature was 
 divinely guided to produce an inspired record ; on the contrary, he 
 has again and again asserted this. 
 
32 
 
 (h.) He distinctly states in the article under consideration tliat the 
 later authors or editors incorporated en masse the earlier prose, 
 which ' ' reflects with admirable veracity the life of the nation, and 
 is full of the relation between Israel and Jehovah, because that re- 
 lation was constantly present as a very real fact, without which the 
 history could not be told." 
 Professor Smith does not attempt to say when written history began. No 
 one makes it begin as early as Adam, and yet we believe we have authentic 
 history without its being contemporary. Oral tradition must have preceded 
 written history, . ad that tradition need not have been inaccurate because it 
 waj oral, when we remember that in the East the disciple is taught to hand 
 down what is told him in the veri/ tvords of the narrator. Professor Smith 
 says, that up to the time of David there are parts, but only parts, of the 
 narrative which bear the marks of oral transmission. It is not denied that 
 there was a large amount of written narrative, and it is expressly said that 
 prose narrative was not in its infancy in the time of David. Thus it is not 
 said there was no prose writing before David's time. What is said is that after 
 him and before the eighth century was the bloom-time of prose literature. 
 
 11. Professor Smith now, as in the previous article " Bible," does no more 
 than say that the view that Jonah is a parable is one which is largely adopted ; 
 and this is a simple fact. No evidence has been produced to show that he 
 personally holds and is committed to that view. Least of all can it be said 
 that he is pledged to maintain it, even if it can be shown to be dangerous to 
 faith. Besides, Professor Smith's statements about Jonah formed part of the 
 old libel, and were included under the fourth particular, on which he was ac- 
 quitted in Presbytery and Synod, while the appeal to the Assembly was fallen 
 from. 
 
 Professor Smith nowhere impugns the historical accuracy of the Book of 
 Ruth, and if he places it here, as in the article "Bible," among the later 
 canonical books, he simply follows the Hebrew Canon, which classes it, not 
 among the earlier books, but in the Kettubim. This also was adjudicated 
 upon under the fourth particular in the old libel. 
 
 12. The question of importance to faith in connection with these genealogies 
 is that our Lord is a descendant of David, Abraham, and Adam, and these 
 genealogies trace the steps, but the descent is as true if it should be proved 
 that, as Dr Fairbairn held, many of the names in the list were names not of 
 persons but of class-families, i.e. of ethnological abstractions, or, as seemed 
 most likely to the late Professor Weir, were names of places which the families 
 inhabited, i.e. geographical abstractions. The genealogy remains, and the 
 descent is as cleai-ly stated. Professor Smith does not commit himself to one 
 particular opinion, as Dr Fairbairn and Dr Weir have done ; he suggests both 
 alternatives. 
 
 13. In the Septuagint version of Jeremiah 1. 1, the words " by Jeremiah " 
 are not found, and Professor Smith probably accepts that reading, which does 
 not name Jeremiah as the author. 
 
 14. Professor Smith does not commit himself to the Maccabean date of 
 Daniel, he merely suggests that that may be probable ; even if he had gone 
 further he woiild be doing no more than has been done by that devout com- 
 mentator Delitzsch, who, in the interest of prophecy, and not to disparage it, 
 makes the date of Daniel in its present form about 168 B.C. 
 
 15. Professor Smith, in speaking of the rise of written prophecy in the 
 eighth century, is clearly speaking of the prophetic books in the sense in which 
 the term was used by the Jews, and has since been used by most scholars and 
 commentators. The Pentateuch is never spoken of as a prophetic book, for 
 in the Old Testament Canon it is classed apart from them. It is the tora as 
 distinguished from nebiim. 
 
 T. M. Lindsay. 
 Benjamin Bell. 
 Charles G. M'Crie. 
 
 TI];NBUL1. and spears, thistle street, EDINHUltGII. 
 

 
 Date Due 
 
 
 
 kg 17 -4; 
 
 ) 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 f> 
 
 
 
 
DATE DUE 
 
PHOTOMOUNT 
 
 '.PAMPHLET B«NOER 
 
 Manufactured by 
 
 rfiAYLORD BROS. Inc 
 
 SyroGuia, M.Y. 
 
 Stockton. Collf . 
 
BW5546 .S65S656 
 
 Speech delivered at a special meeting of 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Librar