had commissioned to instruct young men for its ministry. There was an outcry from pulpit and press. The fountain of ministerial supply was being poisoned. It was a case calling for prompt action. This was in the summer of 1876. Urged by public opinion, the board of college visitors, or college committee of the assembly, undertook to make an examination into the truth of the allegations of general report. The pressure on the committee from without was great; but in the circle of the college influence there was a different feeling prevailing, a feeling which had its effect on the committee, whose decision was a compromise. It found dangerous tendencies in the writings of the young professor, but no "ground sufficient to support a process of heresy." That such a conclusion of a six months' investigation would be a disappointment to the Church could have been foretold by any one knowing its temper. If there was surprise at the thought that German opinion could find a lodgment in the Church, there must have been astonishment and dismay at the discovery that a responsible committee of the assembly had calmly proposed toleration for it. The assembly of the spring of 1877 reassured those who had begun to tremble for the soundness of the Church in promptly rejecting the report of the college committee, and suspending Professor Smith from his professorial functions until his case could be examined and passed upon by his presbytery, the Presbytery of Aberdeen,

The process entered upon by the presbytery was a long, tedious, and difficult one. The libel had first to be drawn by a committee and reported to presbytery; then to be sent to the legal adviser of the Church for revision, whose suggestions. and proposed alterations must be discussed and acted upon; next, the relevancy of the amended libel was to be considered, and, finally, its charges must be established. The libel in this case was a very long document, differing greatly in form from the process which was used by the Presbyterians in this country in the trial of Professor Swing. The major proposition, containing three counts, was in the form of a preamble, declaring that whereas such and such opinions are opposed to the Confession of Faith and to the Scriptures, (the particular opinions being designated in specifications numbered from primo to octavo,) therefore (introducing the minor proposition) you, etc.,

are guilty, etc., the publications being mentioned in which the offenses were committed, and the quotations given on which the charges rest. Then follows the conclusion, to the effect that, the accused being guilty, sentence should be pronounced "for the glory of God, for the edification of the Church, and the deterring of others holding the same sacred office from committing the like offense in all time." It is to be feared. that this stage of the case will never be reached.

It is not surprising that the libel, in hands unused to such work, was unskillfully drawn; nor that the process of trying its relevancy was one which some members of the court did not understand, and which led to some confusion. Some supposed that, instead of deciding whether the libel was logically consistent, whether it charged actual offenses, they were voting "guilty" or "not guilty." The process was of such a nature as to draw out the defense of the accused, and there is good excuse, we should think, for the confusion which existed.

The three charges of the libel were: 1. The publishing of opinions which contradict or are opposed to the inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority of the Scriptures; 2. The publishing of opinions which are in themselves of a dangerous and unsettling tendency in their bearings on inspiration, etc.; 3. The publishing of opinions which, by their neutrality of statement and rashness of critical construction, tend to disparage the divine authority and inspired character of the Bible. The first charge was found relevant, but the eight specifications under it were decided to be irrelevant. The second charge was voted relevant, (21 to 20,) but on appeal to synod this decision was reversed. The third charge was declared to be irrelevant by a vote of 27 to 29. This was tantamount to an acquittal of the accused. There was nothing left before the presbytery to proceed to trial upon. The case came before the assembly in excellent shape for Professor Smith, where we may follow it at once, without reference to the intermediate action of synod or commission. The assembly, too, appeared to be in a mood. more friendly to Professor Smith. The fact that committee, (college,) and presbytery, and synod had found no ground of condemnation could not fail to have some influence on its temper. There was a strong current of sympathy running through the assembly in favor of the accused. When he or Dr. Dods

appeared they were greeted by the students and spectators with cheers, while the appellants were received frequently with hisses. There is no doubt that Professor Smith's bearing and brilliancy in the debates which followed won him many admirers, if not friends. He presented his defense not only with ability, but with a spirit of candor. His readiness of speech, his brilliant sallies, his wealth of resources in debate, his supreme confidence of being able to meet any questions that might be raised by his opponents, were apparently appreciated, and were effective in his behalf. His rather neat retort to Dr. Begg, who had said that some were trembling for the safety of the Church, was greatly relished, for the doctor, albeit of the soundest orthodoxy, is not considered the loveliest character in the Church. "I would warn him," said Professor Smith, "of the fate of Eli, who, trembling for the safety of the ark, fell and perished."

The vital question before the assembly-we may pass over the other points-was Professor Smith's view of Deuteronomy, stated in the second particular as follows :

That the book of inspired Scripture called Deuteronomy, which is professedly an historical record, does not possess that character; but was made to assume it by a writer of a much later age, who therein, in the name of God, presented in dramatic form instruc tions and laws as proceeding from the mouth of Moses, though these never were, and never could have been, uttered by him.

The position of the defense was, that this was not opposed to the Confession, which, indeed, says nothing as to how the books of the Bible were collected, or handed down, or as to who wrote them. It does not even attribute the books of the Pentateuch to Moses, nor the Psalms to David. Therefore, it was argued, the charge assumes what the Confession does not declare, and ought to fall. Sir Henry Moncreiff, who was the chief speaker in opposition to the accused, while admitting that the Confession lays down no theory of inspiration, contended that there might be theories of inspiration which the Church could not safely sanction. The Confession declares that the Bible is infallibly true: there is testimony in Deuteronomy and in other parts of the Bible that the book is historical, and even that it is of Mosaic authorship--therefore Professor Smith, in denying that it is "historical," denies the doctrine of the

Confession. His theory amounted to Kuenen's assertion, that Deuteronomy was a "pious fraud." How is it conceivable that God could inspire a man to write the book seven centuries after Moses' death, and impute it to Moses? It was a "literary impossibility." Destroy its historical character, and you destroy its inspiration. Furthermore, if such criticism can be made of Deuteronomy, why may it not be made of other books of the Bible? Who could then say what is authoritative? It was curious that the Jews should have preserved a book which was not what it assumed to be, and that Christ and his apostles should have quoted passages from it as coming from Moses.

It was not denied on the part of Professor Smith that his views differed from those held by the Church. But the views of the Church were not the standard by which he was to be condemned, but the Confession. It was true that the Confession required that the "inspiration, infallible truth, and divine authority" of the Scriptures should be accepted, but the accused did accept them, and of Deuteronomy, too. "The charge against me," he contended, "must fall to the ground if I can show that the traditional views which I have surrendered are really encumbered with difficulties so grave that it cannot be safe for the Church to forbid her members to aim at the construction of some more consistent account of the biblical facts." He did not hold that a "pious fraud" had been committed, bnt that the confusion arose from the meagerness of the Hebrew language at the time Deuteronomy was written. "Had the Deuteronomist lived in the nineteenth century he would very likely have prefaced the book with a preamble to the effect that it was a development of what had gone before;" but the Professor confessed if he were asked to translate such a preamble as that into Hebrew he should find himself nonplused. The language had not then developed its abstract form of expression.

The arguments of Professor Smith, and speeches from such men as Dr. Rainy, Professor Salmond, and Dr. Candlish, to the effect that there had been no direct contradiction of the Confession, very nearly brought the assembly out from under the influence of Sir Henry Moncreiff. It was only by a majority of 23 votes in a total vote of 579, that the assembly passed a resolution declaring that, "according to the teaching of the

Westminster Confession, Deuteronomy is a thoroughly inspired record." It also amended the libel, and sent it back to the Aberdeen Presbytery for re-trial. The new trial, begun in September, will doubtless end as did the former; the final issue must be fought in the assembly.

*

The "progressionists" claim a substantial victory in the fact that the assembly has virtually declared that liberty of speculation on biblical subjects may be enjoyed so long as the letter of the Confession is not violated; and one of them, Professor Lindsay, attempts the rather difficult task of showing that the Church has declared that "critical freedom" and "dogmatical orthodoxy" are not " antagonistic," but may "co-exist." To most observers it seems rather that the Free Church is letting go its hold on "dogmatic orthodoxy," and beginning to drift on the same sea on which the Reformed Churches of the Continent wrecked their faith.†

ART. VII.-THE ZENDAVESTA.†

Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis. By MARTIN HAUG, Ph.D., late Professor of Sanscrit and Comparative Philology at the University of Munich. Second Edition. Edited by E. W. WEST, Ph.D. London: Trübner. 1878.

CERTAIN forms of Paganism which were once powerful and widely spread have passed away forever. "Cloud-compelling Zeus" no longer holds his throne on the snowy top of Olympus; and although the Parthenon still stands forth in the bright air of Attica a most majestic ruin, yet the name of the goddess whose image once guarded the stately fabric is a sound known in Athens itself only to a portion of the inhabitants. So have disappeared many other systems of belief: Druidism, the * " Contemporary Review," August, 1878.

Besides the publications already named, the following give information on matters treated in this article: Professor Smith's "Answer to Libel, and Additional Answer," etc., in pamphlets. Edinburgh: David Douglas. 1878. "Report of Proceedings of Aberdeen Presbytery, with Form of Libel, and Report of Proceedings of Free Church Assembly of 1878." Edinburgh: J. Maclaren. Speech on the Subordinate Standards," by Dr. Cairns. Edinburgh: Wm. Oliphant & Co.

We employ the usual designation. The Avesta would be more correct.