the public, and as, so far, a defiance of his ecclesiastical superiors. But I don't believe Mr Smith meant anything of that kind. My conviction is, that in taking this very irregular step his real object was that which he himself puts forward in his preface-namely, to put the Church "in possession of the whole matter, on which her Courts have still to decide.". It is fair the Assembly should know that, so far from wishing to conceal what he had done in this respect from the Church Courts, Mr Smith had tried, through both the Synod and Presbytery, to get the volume brought before this Assembly. And here, let me say in passing, that whatever the Church may think it necessary to do in the way of censurng the publication of the volume will, I hope, be done by this Assembly -and not left as a peg on which to hang a new and vexatious case in the Presbytery of Glasgow. But I feel, Moderator, that I have already trespassed too long on the patience of the Assembly, and must now conclude. Mr Smith has great gifts for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. No man of Christian intelligence and candour can read that whole serics of discourses now alluded to without having this conviction deeply impressed on his mind. My firm belief is, that this case-trying and painful as it must needs have been—if rightly dealt with by the Assembly, if dealt with in the exercise of that combined faithfulness and tenderness with which discipline in such a case ought ever to be exercised-will be, in God's gracious hand, a means of real and Lasting good, both to the Church and to Mr Smith himself. But, if on the other hand, by refusing to sustain the appeal, and to reverse the sentence which we have brought up for review, the Assembly shall commit itself to a course of undue and uncalled-for severity, I can look only for consequences deeply injurious alike to Mr Smith and to this Church. To dismiss our appeal, and to sustain the sentence of the Presbytery complained of, can have no other issue but a libel,—or, what is still worse, deposition for contumacy. The very nature of the ground on which Mr Smith has taken his stand makes the retractation the sentence of the Presbytery demands a thing he cannot agree to. To force him, in these circumstances, into what must be construed and treated as an act of ecclesiastical disobedience, would be to outrage the feeling of a large part of the Church, and of the whole onlooking public outside of it. If, on the other hand,-shrinking from so summary and so odious a method of teminating this case, the Presbytery should go on, as they must then do, to bring against Mr Smith a formal charge of heresy, they have and can have no choice but to do it by libel. Dr Gibson, at the bar, has plainly hinted that this must follow. And how, in the face of the explanations Mr Smith has given to the Presbytery, such a libel is to be even drawn up, much more how it is to be proved, I cannot well conceive. These explanations they cannot possibly ignore. And how can they, with any show of reason or justice, lay it down as one of the two minor propositions of their libel, that Mr Smith is chargeable with the heresy of denying the independent authority of Old Testament Scripture, and that equally with the New Testament it constitutes an essential part of God's own inspired revelation of His holy will, in the face of his own express declaration that the Old Testament does not derive its authority from the New, that they have both the same kind of authority, and that both taken together are "the complete revelation of the divine will," and "the only rule of faith and manners?" And, again, how can they.

with any show of reason or justice, lay it down, as the other of the two minor propositions of their libel, that Mr Smith is chargeable with the Leresy of denying that the Ten Commandments, as given from Sinai, contains a revelation of the law of God binding on Christians, and that is comprehensive of all moral duty, in the face of his own express declaration that he holds "most firmly the immutability of all divine moral law, that the Decalogue contains a divinely authenticated summary of that law which is everlastingly binding." How can the Presbytery, in such circumstances, frame such a libel? And if they do frame it, and go to proof upon it, what can come of it but discredit and confusion to the Presbytery itself? Sir, I should tremble at the very thought of this venerable House coming to a decision that must of necessity place, not the Presbytery of Glasgow merely, but the Assembly itself, in the long run, in so utterly false and untenable a position. For of this there cannot be a doubt, that to get up, in the circumstances I have described, even the appearance of making good such a libel, would compel any court that took the task in hand to have recourse to such torturing of a man's words, and to such forcing of other meanings than his own upon them, as might perhaps be harmonised with the usage of a Papal inquisition, but which I hope never to see attempted in a Protestant and Presbyterian Church. Let me entreat the Assembly, however, to keep the fact fully before it, that to dismiss our appeal and to affirm the sentence of the Presbytery of which we complain would be to embark on a course that must inevitably force the Church on one or other of the two equally fatal issues which I have now described. That the Assembly will pronounce a decision pregnant with such ominous results I do not for a moment believe. And relying as I do, with the utmost confidence, upon the wisdom and the justice and the generous consideration of this House, I leave the case, without one feeling of anxiety or apprehension, in your hands; and praying that the God of all grace and wisdom may now guide His servants in this Assembly to do that which is right. (Loud applause.)

The MODERATOR then said-I may intimate at this stage that I have received a communication from some members of the House stating that it is impossible for them to find accommodation in consequence of the presence in the body of the House of those who are not members, and that they will be constrained consequently, unless relief is found, to withdraw under protest that they are not permitted to judge in this case. (Hear, hear.) I venture to suggest to those in the body of the House who are not members that they should withdraw. (Applause.) Sir HENRY MONCREIFF having asked if there were any questions to be put to the parties at the bar,

Mr CAMERON, Renton, said that Dr Buchanan in his speech had referred to a statement made by Mr Smith, in consequence of which he had withdrawn his motion. He (Mr Cameron) should like to know what the statement was, as Dr Buchanan had not repeated it.

Dr CANDLISH remarked that it was not on the record, and could not be dealt with.

Dr BUCHANAN said it was impossible for him, at this distance of time, to recollect what the exact words were, but they were such as to make Mr Smith's statement less strong than he (Dr Buchanan) had thought. Mr BALFOUR, Holyrood, said a statement had been made that the

K

decision of the Presbytery had startled Professor Douglas, and he accounted for it by the fact that the Presbytery were engaged in the discussion of the case at midnight. Now, that might have been a reason for their being dreaming and sleeping, but on the record that did not appear, but it did appear on the record that these statements were made, which was the cause of the withdrawal of the motion.

Professor DOUGLAS replied that he did not say that he was startled. He had said that he was absent from the meeting in consequence of illness, and that he had never been able to learn precisely what the statements were; but knowing that the Court had sat for some twelve hours, they might have got involved in some confusion at the late hour, and for that reason he had asked that Mr Smith's statement on 19th November should be engrossed in the minutes, though it had been said to-day that the placing of this on the minutes was a step that ought not to have been taken.

Parties were then removed.

I

Professor RAINY said—I rise with a great sense of responsibility on this occasion. Speaking after, I think, fully eight hours' pleading at the bar, I do feel perplexed and overwhelmed somewhat with the nature of the task which devolves on me; and I must at once say, and it will relieve the House to know, that I must deal with it by resolutely simplifying it, and by refusing to go through the case in the manner in which in other circumstances a judicial case of this kind should be gone through, in a speech delivered by a member as one of the judges in the case. could not do that without, among other disadvantages, usurping a proportion of the time of the Assembly which would be very unreasonable, and could only prejudice the right decision of the case by the House. One thing which relieves me is, that while the case is a case of perplexity, and that we must all feel, having regard to the fact that it has divided the Presbytery below, and that on either side there are names of so much weight, not merely those who have spoken at the bar to-day, but other ministers on either side who have the unqualified regard of the Church— I say, while we must feel the case has elements of perplexity, it is a great relief to feel there is no perplexity whatever about the doctrine which this Church holds, and the doctrinal principles on which this case has to be decided. Rumours are apt to float in connexion with cases of this kind, as if there were some screw loose in the minds of more than those that are in the case itself. I have had pretty good opportunity of falling in with ministers of this Church of various classes and different degrees of standing; and while I have met with some diversity of view as to the precise impression to be formed of Mr Smith's position in the case, and of the result of the case as bearing upon him, I have met with no difference of opinion whatever, no shadow of a difference of opinion, about the doctrinal principles that ought to be applied as the foundation of any decision that is arrived at. (Applause.) I am not now, after the pleadings at the bar, going to resume or set before the House any outline of the case. I wish merely to take it along with me, as I proceed, that the case has one marked turning-point. Mr Smith brought his sermons, by a statement, before the Presbytery. The Presbytery appointed a committee that reported. Mr Smith made a second statement, and the Presbytery's committee made another report, and then the turning-point took place. The Presbytery appears to have come to the

conclusion that there was in Mr Smith's mind as explained an incoherence and inconsistency of statement that must probably be due to the attempt on his part to represent favourably certain expressions and views that the Presbytery were persuaded he had unadvisedly and improperly put forth, and to make them out to be capable of a meaning in which they might be defended. The Presbytery thought that to disentangle the case, it was right to separate these elements; and, accordingly, having made up their minds about the sermons and their teachings, disapproved of, and censured them, and then they turned to take up the state of Mr Smith's mind. Now, the first thing that comes before us in this case is the sermons,--and in the committee's report two points are fixed on with regard to the moral law, its perpetuity, and with regard to the relations of the Old Testament to the New Testament Scriptures. With respect to these two points the Presbytery found that Mr Smith's teaching, taken in its natural sense, and according to the impression it was fitted to make on those who heard the sermons, must be taken to have been, as to the first, that the moral law was abrogated or annulled and superseded; and that in this sense-that the New Testament version of it, so to say, was that to which we were to look as the form of it now binding upon us. Farther, that the Old Testament was itself annulled or superseded, or abrogated in this sense, or on this ground, that, however valuable its contents had been and continued to be, the New Testament takes its place now, and so fully reveals God's will and guides us in all relating to faith, worship, and duty, that we are to regard it as the normative authority, so to speak, of our faith and duty. Now, without dwelling on any of the passages in the sermons—without referring to those that I had marked for the purpose, for they have been so often referred to- I shall only say as to this, that I think on this part of the case there will be no doubt and no hesitation as to the propriety of the Presbytery's finding-that Mr Smith, whatever was on his mind, uttered himself on this subject in a manner fitted to make impressions and to convey ideas that could only carry men's minds in the direction I have now indicated. I think we shall be agreed that if there are in these sermons elements, expressions which indicate that some things were in his mind not consistent with that, they were not put in such a way as to relieve the Presbytery of the responsibility of disapproving and censuring the teachings of those sermons. And here I feel constrained, with some degree of pain on public grounds, and on some grounds personal to myself, to express my very strong feeling regarding the extremely unadvised tone and style that characterised these sermons. Apart just now from the question of what Mr Smith's design was-apart from the question of what the laity who heard it might think, who were accustomed to Mr Smith's style, who were not aware of the precise theological place and connexion of the topics handled-when I consider that a man of Mr Smith's intelligence and reading could not but be aware that on these important topics he deserted the mode of statement and style of treatment universal among sound divines, and when I consider that he certainly might have known that he was treading, in points of expression at all events, in the footsteps of a genealogy of errors-(hear, hear)-I am forced to say that, when I read these sermons, and when I have respect to the manner in which the sentiments contained in them are thrown out-in an easy, confident, and jaunty style, I do feel that here, as in some

other parts of the case, there is an element of irritation and provocation of which I have found some difficulty in relieving and discharging my mind, so as to confine myself strictly to the business which is now incumbent on us in looking simply at the merits of the evidence, and not allowing ourselves to be swayed by impulses of that kind. Sir, in the first place, as to the doctrines laid down in effect concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, I shall only read just one passage already referred to, viz., "It fulfils the ancient Scriptures, and in that very fact annuls them. We are no longer under the old economy, but under the economy which came by Jesus Christ. That New Testament contains in itself, and without mixture or addition from any other works whatever, a complete revelation of God's will for our salvation-the whole truth we are to believe the whole law we are to obey the whole rites of divine worship -the entire covenant of our redemption." I am not saying that there is not the element of explanation or the germs of such an element even in these sermons, but certainly there is nothing that is so put as to have the effect of clearly qualifying or controlling the impressions which statements of the kind are fitted to make. Here I may say what I ought to have said before, that I mean to take the two points of the case in their reverse order. I think that in logic, and especially in Mr Smith's own mind, the point with regard to the Old Testament and its relations to the New comes first. It was that which set Mr Smith's mind agoing in the whole case, and it is in that way I think we shall see through the case. It is to this point of the Old Testament then that I am speaking now. Turning from the teaching of the sermons to look at this part of the case as it comes before us now, the question with me is simply this, whether in the case as it stands before us we can go to libel; and whether, if we did go to libel, supposing that to be on other grounds possible, whether the libel could end in anything more or other, substantially, than what has been done already in censuring the doctrine of the sermons as doctrines which ought not to have been preached. And this question resolves itself into another. It resolves into the question as to the effect of that coneluding explanation which has been so often referred to, and which, in so far as it refers to the subject now in hand, is to this effect, "That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, and the rule of faith and manners; and further, that their organic relation is of such a nature that the Old Testament does not derive its authority from the New, but both have the same kind of authority, and both taken together are the complete revelation of the divine will." I think, Sir, with respect to these explanations, the practical question is whether we are forced by the case as it lies before us in this record to regard these explanations as in fact, although not in intention, delusive and deceptive, and that mainly on the ground that we have evidence otherwise that Mr Smith could not mean to say what he here seems to mean to say in this concluding explanation. seems to me to be the question. It is possible (and I think it is the case upon this point) it may be alleged, that if you take the whole case together, you cannot believe that this declaration means what it seems to mean on this head. Now, Sir, with respect to this, I shall simply state my impression of the case, for if I were to take any other course I must inevitably take up a great deal of time. In doing it as I am now going to do it, I shall expose myself, of course, to the imputation

That