and cedes to the breakings and tillings made by the plough. Let the Word act as the Lord will, in all its kinds, and the soul says, Amen ; but the ground that breaks the irons of the tilling-plough, is convinced to be rocky and barren. Every string of the harp beaten on by the hand of the musician, gives a resound like itself; a bell of silver hath another sort of excellent sound than a bell of brass or iron. The gracious heart answers to every letter and impression of the Word; to the promise, with faith; to the prec pt, with pliableness of obedience; to the threatening, with softness and godly trembling. For all, the Word and law and the several parts thereof, are written and engraven in the heart, and the gracious heart is a double or a second copy of the Old and New Testament. So Ahab, on the contrary, meets every word from Micaiah with hatred; and there is a resound and an echo of hatred and persecution, which in the Pharisees meets the words of rebuke in Christ's mouth; and bitterness in Herod resounds when John Baptist does rebuke his incest and adultery. Take it for a sad condition when there is a practical contrariety and hatred betwixt the heart and the Word of the Lord. A heart-loathing of the Word, and a rejecting thereof, is dreadful whereas the esteeming of the Word sweeter than the honey or the honeycomb, more than thousands of silver and gold, the man's treasure, his heritage, his soul's delight and love night and day, his work, meditation, study, wisdom, do proclaim much of the new creation; the Word being the seed of the new birth, and new creations must love the mother-seed, its own native beginning, as the streams are of the same nature and likeness with the fountain. Some believe, some mock the natural man cannot close with the Word.

:

Now Christ is given as a Leader and Commander to the people (Is. lv. 4). Charge Him not as a misleading and a rash guide, because He carries you through a wilderness where there is neither flood nor fountain on the earth, nor dew or rain from heaven. You are withered, and no influences come from Him; let faith complain of the barrenness of the earth, but justify the dryness of the clouds. It is the wisdom of God that teacheth the believer to weep because he wants rain and moistness, and is sinfully dry, and yet to submit to Him who denies rain and dew; for He gives not, here upon just grounds and holily; I want deservedly for my just demerit.

END OF THE FIRST PART.

THE FREE CHURCH ASSEMBLY.

In our last issue we expressed regret that we could not find space for our usual notice of the proceedings of this Assembly. The important nature of some parts of these proceedings will, we trust, be sufficient excuse for referring to them briefly now, even though the interest awakened by them at the time may have to a large extent subsided.

Under the presidency of the venerable Dr. Andrew Bonar, the Assembly held its meeting this year in Glasgow-this being the second time that city has been so honoured. The former occasion was a few months after the Disruption, and during the thirty-five years that have since elapsed the progress made by the Free Church both numerically and financially has been great. But if there has been advancement in these respects, there is reason to fear there has been marked retrogression in other and more important respects, so that the Free Church of 1878 is a very different body from the Free Church of 1843. Then, she appeared as if on the point of identifying herself with the Church of the Second Reformation, and following in the footsteps of the famous Glasgow Assembly of 1638, by judicially unfurling the banner for Christ's Crown and Covenant; now, we make bold to say, the idea of any such step being taken, or being possible, does not seriously enter the mind of a single individual, office-bearer or member, within her pale. Then, in 1843-she was a united Church, doctrinally sound in the faith, comparatively pure in her worship, and opposed alike to the Erastianism that enslaves the Church of Christ, and the Voluntaryism that robs and dishonours her divine King: now, she is distracted by internal division-voluntaryism is notoriously rampant within her, as the recent union negotiations and the present disestablishment movement shew-the worship of the sanctuary is being corrupted by human inventions—and the very foundations of the faith, the inspiration and authority of God's word, are being imperilled by a rationalistic criticism which is finding within her zealous advocates. Apart from the question of mere outward prosperity, as indicated by increasing numbers and growing wealth, a comparison of 1878 with 1843, must, we think, have filled the minds of those concerned for the highest well-being of their Church, as a witness for truth, with feelings of painful regret, and with sad forebodings for the future.

As is well known, the matter before the assembly which eclipsed all others in importance-important though a number of these were -was the now notorious case of Professor Smith of Aberdeen. The case came up by various dissents and appeals from the lower courts, the leading appellant being the venerable Principal of Aberdeen College, Dr. Brown, who may be said to have been valiantly fighting the battle of orthodoxy almost single-handed, so far as the Professoriate of the Church is concerned. We are glad to see that he has at length been joined by an able ally in his brother Principal in Glasgow, Dr. Douglas-who in a trenchant pamphlet just issued, has shewn, in reply to Professor Smith's published answers to the Libel,

why he still believes that Moses wrote Deuteronomy.*

We have thus

the spectacle of the Principals of Aberdeen and Glasgow Colleges on the one side, against Professor Smith's view, and on the other side the Principal of the Edinburgh College, pleading, if not distinctly in favour of these views, at least for their being tolerated within the Church; and how the unhappy struggle will terminate, remains to be seen. May truth be vindicated and established, and men's faith in the inspired Word confirmed!

In the course of the lengthened debate to which the case gave rise, some of the vital questions involved were very fully and ably discussed, especially by those opposed to the new views-for the other party rather shirked the merits of the case in their pleadings and speeches. Professor Smith himself took a prominent part in the discussions, in self-defence. His speeches, though marred occasionally by offensive personal references, were very clever, and met with much warmly expressed sympathy. By his student admirers and others, he was evidently looked upon as a martyr-hero, who was being subjected to the most unworthy and cruel treatment. Indeed, one of the most ominous things connected with the case is the sympathy which the students of the Church have all along manifested not merely toward himself personally but with his views; but we need not wonder at this when we see all the younger Professors, with Principal Rainy at their head, taking his side and arguing so stoutly in his defence.

Under the first part of the major charge of publishing and promulgating opinions, which contradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of Holy Scripture, three particular counts were taken up and discussed, and on judgment being given in connection with these the rest were fallen from. The first count, which had reference to the time of the institution of the Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical system, was unanimously found irrelevant on the motion of Sir. Henry Moncrieff, who based his motion on the ground that the Libel repreeented Professor Smith as having said what the extracts given from his writings did not sufficiently shew he had said. It may be here remarked that the questions of relevancy and proof were mixed up in all the pleadings and discussions, it being impossible, evidently, from the nature of the case, to keep them separate. The second count, which was regarded as the crucial one in the case, dealt with the historical character and Mosaic authorship of the book of Deuteronomy, both of which Professor Smith was charged with denying. The relevancy of this count was moved by Sir H. Moncrieff in a long and very powerful speech, in which he argued in the most conclusive manner, that Deuteronomy was professedly a historical book, that Moses must have been the writer of it, and that the denial of these positions, and the adoption of Professor Smith's theories on the points, are inconsistent with adherence to the doctrine of the inspiration, infallible truth and divine authority of Scripture, as that doctrine is set

*

Why I still believe that Moses wrote Deuteronomy. By George C. M. Douglas, D.D. Edinburgh: Maclaren & Macniven.

forth in the Confession of Faith. Sir. Henry was ably supported in his contention by such men as Mr. Smith of Tarland-who, in his pamphlets on the subject, has shewn himself well qualified to discuss the questions at issue in the case-Dr. Begg, Dr. H. Bonar and othersall of whom exposed and denounced the new theory as to the authorship of Deuteronomy, as irreconcilably at variance with the Church's received doctrine of inspiration.

A counter motion was brought forward by Principal Rainy, who moved that the judgment of the Presbytery be sustained, finding the count irrelevant. As was to be expected, Dr Rainy's speech was an able and plausible one, the burden of his contention being, that Professor Smith's theory had not been shown to be opposed to the Confession of Faith, and was not so opposed, and that toleration should be granted in the Church for such views as Professor Smith had propounded, although he (the speaker) was not prepared to homologate them. He maintained "that it would be an evil day for the Free Church when the liberty of men in regard to these critical questions was limited by any demand but this-show us that the view you maintain exists in your mind in harmony with the belief in the authority of Scripture, and in harmony with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith. But surely it is hardly enough, in order to secure toleration for any views which are generally regarded as at variance with the received doctrine of the Church, that the propounder of these views simply declares that they exist in his own mind in harmony with a continued adherence to the Church's standards. Does not this open a very wide door for all sorts of vagaries, by virtually substituting a man's own private interpretation of the Confession for the Church's interpretation? Is it not necessary that the broacher of new opinions should satisfy the Church by clear scriptural argument that there is a harmony between these opinions and her interpretation of her standards? For it is one thing for a man to say he can harmonise this with that in his own mind, and another thing to show to the satisfaction of others that the alleged harmony is real and not imaginary. Dr. Rainy's vehement pleading was followed up by a number of speeches in the same line, one or two of them being mere declamatory appeals to feeling, with hardly a word of argument on the subject. On the vote being taken, Sir Henry's motion, adverse to Professor Smith, was carried by the narrow majority of 23. It was something new to see Sir Henry Moncrieff and Principal Rainy going into different lobbies, each with a large following at his back; and to find himself the leader of a minority in such an important division, must have been anything but pleasant to the man who has so long been accustomed to lead "overwhelming majorities."

On the third count, which dealt more immediately with the subject of inspiration, the decision against its relevancy, by a majority of 143, was a suprising and to not a few a disappointing one. It seemed as

if a strong reaction had set in, in favour of the Professor, after the previous division, and when the result of the vote was announced it was received we are told, "with the utmost enthusiasm, hats and handkerchiefs being waved in all parts of the house." The last charge

-of pub

taken up was what is known as the charge of " tendency lishing opinions of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in their bearing on fundamental doctrines-and the resolution come to after considerable discussion was, to find this charge relevant in an amended form, and to alter the rest of the libel so as to make it consistent with this finding. And the issue of the whole matter was, that the libel, as amended, was remitted to the Presbytery of Aberdeen, that they may proceed with the case according to the laws of the Church and in conformity with the Assembly's judgment.

So the case is not yet settled, and how it may end it would be unwise probably to attempt to forecast. Unquestionably there is strong opposition to the new views being manifested in influential quarters, and it is worthy of note that hardly any one ventured to express sympathy with them in the course of the debate, even among those who spoke and voted for the motions favourable to the Professor. At the same time it is all too evident that there is a strong current setting in, in the direction of granting freedom to the Professor to promulgate his views, while there is reason to fear that the idea of losing such a scholarly man will lead many whose convictions as to the dangerous nature of the views in question are not very strong, to go along with those who are in favour of toleration on other and more serious grounds. No one who has given attention to the case from the beginning can have any doubt that there is rising up within the Free Church a new school of " hypothetical criticism,' " with the younger Professors at its head and Principal Rainy as its apologist and champion; and that the tendency of this "critical movement is not to confirm belief in the inspired authority and infallible truth of the Scriptures, but to unsettle such belief-not to conserve and defend the foundations of our faith, but to undermine and destroy them. There is reason to believe that we are only entering upon what will prove to be a life and death struggle around the very citadel of our common faith, and every one who would be found valiant for the truth has need to be looking to his armour.

The case of Dr. Dods came before the Assembly by appeals against the judgment of the Synod, which had been to the effect, that, while the views set forth in Dr Dod's sermon on Inspiration were unsatisfactory, and worthy of censure, no further steps should be taken in the matter as the sermon had been withdrawn. When the case was decided in the Presbytery, Dr. Dods agreed to withdraw his sermon, only on condition that it be put on record that he withdrew it on the distinct understanding that a majority of the Presbytery had found that the views expressed in his publication were to be tolerated within the Church, and were not condemned by the Confession; and this was agreed to, and the Synod's judgment allowed this to stand The chief appellant in the case was Mr Bremner of Glasgow, whe delivered a most admirable speech, showing the inadequacy of the decisions, both of the Presbytery and Synod, and pleading powerfully for such a judgment froin the Assembly as would tend to vindicate impugned truth, and show that the Church is alive to the dangerous character of the views in question. We hardly think Mr. Bremner