ment, is the will of the Lord. And I cannot but think that Mr Smith has unconsciously indicated this feature of his theory, when he says, "that changed form and that fuller expression of its meaning will henceforth be the law to us;" indicating that its authority shall be conditional on the approbation of the recipient of the form, and not absolutely and unconditionally imperative because of the nomothetical prerogative of the divine law. A modern writer, who has supplied the article Law in Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, contends for this as the liberty and progress which the Church enjoys from the gospel. His words are

6

"It was necessary that the law of Moses should exercise nomothetical authority by Cursed is he who does not continue in the words of the law;' and so it is with a great portion of Christian religionists, who still require frightful curses and opposite benedictions, somewhat similar to those pronounced on the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, in order to keep them in the right direction. It is very surprising that the clear perception of the true source of law, which was fulfilled even by the abrogation, could have been so effectually obscured as is done by the doctrine current in the religious world concerning the abolition of its civil and ceremonial, and the establishment of its moral precepts. The whole aim and scope of the Mosaic legislation have been established as much as the aim of temporary police regulations enacted in order to meet the emergencies of a commonwealth during a period of rebellion, is established and fulfilled by him who restores perfect peace and tranquillity, although the natural consequence of this peace is that those regulations cease to be in force. On the other hand, although the Christian, who is under the guidance of a Spirit leading him into all truth, cannot be led by this Spirit to the commission of any crime contrary to the moral precepts of Moses, it cannot be said that by not committing murder and adultery he obeys the Mosaic law, any more than that he obeys the injunctions of the Code Napoleon in these particular instances."

Before passing from this part of the subject, I cannot but advert to the depreciatory strictures which Mr Smith has made on the First and Fourth Commandments as contained in the Decalogue, compared with the mode in which they reappear in the New Testament:

"The form of that, (the moral law,) as it is now revealed in Christ, is the form which is now obligatory upon us; but that, instead of relaxing its authority, has, I believe, greatly exalted it, both in that its claims now rest on God's redeeming love and sacrifice, and also in that its deep meaning, and spirituality, and holiness, are better understood than they were under the former economy. Thus, for example, the form of the First Commandment simply asserts the unity of the Godhead, and requires us to worship Him alone. But that law, when it reappears in the New Testament, changes its form very materially; for the unity of the Godhead becomes a trinity of persons in the one God, and the Christian is bound to worship alike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; nor can he keep the law aright without reference to that great mystery. Again, in the Fourth Commandment, I recognise three elements. There is, first, a moral element-that a portion of time should be expressly set apart for divine worship; and, second, a positive element, appointing a seventh day for that purpose; and, finally, a monumental element, for

a particular day of the seven was fixed on to commemorate the finished work of creation. Now, when this law reappears in the New Testament, the moral and the positive parts remain as before the duty is recognised of having a set time for worship, and the one day in seven is the same as heretofore. But the precise day is changed, because it was no longer to be a monument of creation, but a memorial of the resurrection of Jesus. It is, therefore, in this form and with this view, it remains an abiding duty and privilege to all Christian men. On the authority of the apostles, therefore, we keep the first day of the week, and we do so in memory of the risen Lord."'

Now, we advert to this passage, because it shows the dangerous results of Mr Smith's theory, which can be maintained only by magnifying one portion of the inspired Word of God at the expense of another; by conjuring up discrepancies which have their origin in ignorance or prejudice, and by neglecting that unity and harmony which pervade the holy Scriptures, and which necessarily distinguish them as being given by inspiration of God. The First Commandinent has evidently for its object to enjoin the exclusive worship of God, and to prohibit polytheism; but to argue that it ignores the doctrine of the Trinity, and is not adapted to the Christian dispensation, is an utter misapprehension of its import. A similar objection might be urged of an equally futile nature against the teaching of the New Testament. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." In each case, observe, the divine perfection is expressed, which forms the foundation for the commandment: in the one case the unity of the Godhead, and in the other the spirituality of the Godhead. But it is absurd to charge this as an imperfection in either case, and to maintain that the whole doctrine concerning the Godhead required to have been adduced, in order that the law should, to use the expression of Mr Smith, be "filled up." With regard to the Fourth Commandment, so far is it in the estimation of many individuals from reappearing in the New Testament in a form which, instead of relaxing its authority, has greatly exalted it, that the very opposite is the case; and we shall here quote the conclusions to which so eminent a student of Scripture as Dr Paley came upon the subject, as corroborative of our statements, (vol. iv. p. 301):

"The opinion that Christ and His apostles meant to retain the duties of the Jewish Sabbath, shifting only the day from the seventh to the first, seems to prevail without sufficient proof; nor does any evidence remain in Scripture (of what, however, is not improbable) that the first day of the week was thus distinguished in commemoration of our Lord's resurrection. The conclusion from the whole inquiry is this-The assembling upon the first day of the week for the purpose of public worship and religious instruction is a law of Christianity of Divine appointment the resting on that day from our employments longer than we are detained from them by attendance upon the assemblies, is to Christians an ordinance of human institution, binding, nevertheless, upon the conscience of every individual of a country in which a weekly Sabbath is instituted for the sake of the beneficent purposes which the public and regular observance of it promotes, and recommended, perhaps, in some degree to the divine approbation by the resemblance it bears to what God was pleased to make a solemn part of the law which he de

livered to the people of Israel, and by its subserviency to many of the same uses."

The committee of Presbytery, having heard the statement of Mr Smith, upon which we have commented, were unanimously of opinion that a committee be appointed to confer with Mr Smith on the document now read and the sermons to which it relates, and to report to the in hunc effectum meeting on the 10th current. The report of the committee was laid on the table on that day, and the meeting adjourned to the 22d May, to allow opportunity to print the report, the discourses of Mr Smith, and his first statement. The report is found in the printed proceedings; but the only portions of it to which we shall refer in the present instance are the following:

:

"The committee are unanimously of opinion that the teaching (of the sermons) is at variance on two important points with that of Scripture itself, as well as with the view set forth in the Confession. First, in regard to the moral law; this Scripture and the Confession alike represent as essentially embodied in the Decalogue, and as the same in spirit and extent of obligation for those who lived in Old Testament as for those who live now in New Testament times. The teaching of the Confession on this point admits of no doubt, and that of the New Testament Scripture seems equally explicit. Not a word is said there of the law's inherent imperfections, of its outwardness, of its being good only so far as it went; but a good deal is said of the guilt and folly of those who looked merely to the outward letter, and did not seek to penetrate into the spirit of its requirements."

This statement has been animadverted upon at the bar to-day as being unauthorised; but it must be recollected that this is a report drawn up by Professor Fairbairn, and which received the full accord of the Presbytery. The second portion of the report to which we wish to direct attention is stated thus::"The teaching in these passages (Rom. vii. 7-12, xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14, &c.) as to the perfection of the moral law embodied in the Decalogue, and the everlasting obligation of its principles and precepts, are so clear and decisive, that no room could possibly be left for any advance under the gospel, except in regard to a further unfolding by teaching or example of its motives or obligations, or to the promise of larger grace to aid in discharging them." Let me now, Moderator, bring into juxtaposition with this branch of the report the reply which Mr Smith made to it in his second statement; and in so doing I beg to request the particular attention of the General Assembly to this question Does the reply accord with, or does it not rather controvert in the strongest manner, the second and third reasons which the dissentients have assigned for dropping the case ?—

"Because the erroneous opinions, which in the judgment of the Presbytery, the sermons were fitted to teach has been explicitly disavowed, and the opposite truths confessed in language which is in entire harmony with the standards of the Church;" "Because, after his distinct repudiation of said errors, to exact any formal retractation of the statements of the sermons seems to the complainers at once unnecessary, unreasonable, and harsh."

We appeal to Mr Smith's reply as the refutation of these reasons, and as demonstrating in the most unequivocal and explicit manner that he did not disavow the erroneous opinions which the sermons were fitted

to teach, nor confess the opposite truths in language which is in entire harmony with the standards of the Church. The passages in proof of this you will find in the papers—

"Now, Sir, allow me to say that on this head "-viz., the perfection of the moral law embodied in the Decalogue, and the everlasting obligation of its principles and precepts-"I have no complaint to make of being misunderstood. Calmly but firmly, and with all respect for the brethren of your committee, I take the liberty of differing from them. here. I hold that there is a greater fulness of moral law revealed by Christ and His apostles than was revealed by Moses and the prophets. It is not contradictory, but it is more complete. In substance they both agree, but in perfection they are contrasted."

This language, we submit, with all respect for the dissentients, is neither in harmony with Scripture nor the subordinate standards of the Church. What says Scripture?" The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." What says the Confession of Faith, (chap. xix. sec. 11)"This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written on two tables." The next passage in which Mr Smith declares that he neither did nor could concur in the views set forth by the committee of Presbytery in their report, is :——

"But on this head I am constrained to take even somewhat higher ground, for indeed this is the very heart and pith of the whole matter. Were the question at issue merely one regarding the form of truth, I should not care to hold long debates about it, important as in some circumstances it certainly might be. Were it, as has been said, a question of getting rid of the Decalogue with one hand, and restoring it with the other, I should feel all the contempt proper for the paltry shifts of a supersubtle ingenuity. But this is verily a 'matter which concerns the King.' I believe that it is bound up with the true idea of Christ's prophetic office, as declared pre-eminently in His personal ministry on earth, and therefore it is to my inind of such unspeakable value that it is worth, and far more than worth, any sacrifice I may have to make for it. For you will observe, Sir, that according to the theory laid down by your committee, and on which rests their condemnation of my discourses, all the laws of moral duty were really and fully revealed to ancient Israel, so that no proper addition could possibly be made to them. The people might obscure them by their tradition, and that might require to be removed, like the gathered rust and dust of unspiritual ages; or they might fail to see all the meaning and bearing of them, and hence it might be necessary, at some stages, to shed a stronger light upon these precepts; or they might be defective in the necessary impulse of constraining motive, and that would require to be strengthened. But the law itself, as to all moral duty, is held to be complete, incapable of increase, of deeper meaning, of greater fulness in any one field of human obligation. Here, then, I distinctly, yet most respectfully, join issue with those brethren. There is no doubt that we differ also on a most important point. For this view clearly reduces the prophetic work of Christ, and His personal ministry here on earth, so far, at least, as moral duty is concerned, to that of a mere interpreter, expositor, or commentator, such as the other prophets between Moses and Jesus. Now, we are told by the great legislator of Israel himself, that this was not the sole function which the Messiah was to fulfil.

He

says 'The Lord thy God will raise up unto you a Prophet, from the midst of my brethren, like unto me, unto him shall ye hearken.' But the long line of prophetic men who succeeded Moses, in the history of Israel, were not like unto him. They were not legislators, they were only expositors. They did not give law, they only interpreted and enforced it. If, therefore, Jesus did no more, He was like unto them, He was not like unto Moses; and therein His peculiar character, as the one successor of Moses, the heir of all, and more than all, his authority is brought into imminent jeopardy. For whatever general principles of all morality may be thought to be discoverable in the Old Testament, as read now by us, on whom the ends of the earth have come, the code introduced by Jesus, taken in its entireness, was so much larger, higher, and grander in its unfolding of the one Divine and Eternal law, as to be substantially a piece of new legislation, without which, some of the specific duties it enjoins could never have been known at all to be obligatory; while, perhaps, all moral duty without it would have failed to attain that profound spirituality which it is at least certain the New Testament demands."

We cordially concur in the statement that this is a matter "touching the King." For what touches more closely the honour and authority of a king, and his claim to the cordial love and obedience of his subjects, than the excellence pertaining to the law of his kingdom. The law given from Sinai, in circumstances of overwhelming solemnity, was given by the Divine King and Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, and to impress it with more sacred authority, it was engraven on tables of stone, and communicated with that special dignity which belongs to an autograph. To represent Jesus as "the successor of Moses, and the heir of all, and more than all, his authority," is to make the Son of God inferior to one of His own servants, and is at variance with the whole tenor of Scripture teaching with respect to the relation between Christ and every other servant of God, angelic and human. But the case at present in dependence lies between the Presbytery and the dissentients, and the immediate question therefore is, Did Mr Smith's statement authorise the dissentients to aver that he disavowed the erroneous opinions in the sermons, and confessed the opposite truths? In the second branch of their report, the committee and Presbytery charge Mr Smith with exhibiting in his discourses a view of the relation of Old Testament Scriptures to the New, which appears to conflict with Scripture and the Confession, "as if, instead of being component parts of one great whole, neither being alone complete, the one must of necessity give way to the other, and lose all strictly authoritative value and binding power when the closing revelations had come." What reply did Mr Smith give to this charge? Did he resile from it, and confess the opposite truth? So far from this, he reaffirmed his previous statement on the subject in express terms :

"Admitting, then, the delicacy and difficulty of this point, I might simply repeat the statement which I already made to the Presbytery in regard to it--the purport of which was to this effect, that the New Testament Scriptures are now the dominant regulative principles of that economy under which we live, and consequently supply us with a test— the only decisive and satisfactory test-by which to determine what of the Old Testament is yet binding upon us." Also-"Always, however, I