Its view

the whole field of Biblical criticism; it is one which leaves the case of Dr. Robertson Smith entirely outside the Westminster Confession. The words of the Confession are these :

of Holy Scripture.

'Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these .

All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.'

'The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal to them.'

There is not one word to say who is the author of any particular book-whether one or many-at what age any book is written—whether it is historical or parabolical-with what object it was written. It is the same with the Thirty-nine Articles. When the question arose first in England with ⚫ Essays 'and Reviews' and the Bishop of Natal, there was much astonishment to find that the authorised standards of the Church of England had nothing to say about the points in dispute. The mass of the clergy and less educated laity almost stamped and gnashed their teeth to find it so. Eleven thousand clergy protested against the decision, and a distinguished body of laymen, including the very highest in the political world, thanked those who voted against the decision. But they beat the air in vain, for the Church and the law were alike impervious to their cries. Not one word could they produce of a decision or a shadow of a decision on any disputed point of criticism, and in point of fact it was decreed by the Supreme Court of Appeal that there was none.

So it is in the case of Dr. Robertson Smith. Let any agree or disagree with his book. But there is not one syllable in it that conflicts with the Westminster Confession. And therefore, as far as the statements of the Church of Scotland and of the Free Church are concerned, he is absolutely free to say what he has said, and if the Free Church Assembly has deposed him from his chair, it might just as well have deposed him for having travelled in Arabia, or for being a good mathematician. And his remedy is in his own hands. He is accused of having broken his contract. He has not broken his contract, and he

knows that he has not broken his contract. It is the Free Church Assembly which has broken the contract. Whether he desires to enforce the contract which has been thus broken is not evident. But if he does the Court of Session could certainly interfere. It would interfere if he had been deposed for the reasons which I have named-his having travelled in Arabia, and his being a mathematician; and this charge is not more irrelevant than those. I quote a passage from a Free Church lawyer, written some time ago, which is decisive on the subject :

'The favor libertatis, which is an attribute of law, would plead in this case very strongly. A man who could enter the Church under the statutory Creed might be repelled by any doctrinal utterance which the Church had added to it; and, according to some of the cases decided, such an injury, especially if it lead in result to distinct loss of status or money, is a sufficient ground for the civil courts being set in motion in the matter at the instance of the party aggrieved.

'Besides, not only does the addition to a Church's Creed shut out members from it, but it imperils the safety of those who are already inside. At present the Westminster Confession, as established by law, seems to be a protection against the accusation of heresy to all who do not contravene it. The erecting of another permanent Confession alongside of it, or subsidiary to it, would enlarge the area of opinions condemned by authority and liable to censure. The more the matter is considered, it seems plain that the Church can no more add to the Confession of its Faith than it can subtract from it.' 6

'What would be the answer of Crispus and Gaius and the other elders of the "Church of God which is at Corinth" before Gallio? Unless they had wholly lost the spirit of their Apostle, who said, "I stand at Cæsar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged," but who thought himself happy to stand there in presence of King Agrippa, because he knew the king "to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews," they would have accepted the challenge with the utmost alacrity. And their defence as Jews would be not only that they worshipped the God of their fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets, but that they alone clave to the promise to which their twelve tribes, instantly serving God night and day for so many ages, had hoped to come, and that it was their opponents who had apostatised from the central hope, for the cherishing of which the nation existed and the synagogue was built. The proconsul could hardly refuse to decide a simple question of property. Yet the question of property (or use) in this case could not well be settled without deciding first

The Law of Creeds in Scotland, by Alexander Taylor Innes, pp. 189-190.

the whole great question of Church identity, which Paul argues in many a fiery page.' '

It is possible that the Scottish people do not care sufficiently for such matters to insist on justice being done. It is possible that the injured parties may be so afraid of the effect on their Church or their party that they will not invoke the civil court. But if they do, there is no doubt that the Assembly must bow to the law, and the law must decide in favour of the Westminster Confession, which has pronounced no opinion as to the question at issue, and which therefore acquits Dr. Robertson Smith.

Westminster, July 13, 1881.

7 The Law of Creeds in Scotland, by Alexander Taylor Innes, p. 331.

INDEX.