The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-06-23

was not the author of the Pentateuch,
but that the book Of Deuteronomy was
written long after the time of Moses, and
is only a historical romance, intended
merely in dramatic way to set before
the Hebrews what in the view of the
writer, Moses might have said in making
parting address to them He does not
think there was any purpose to deceive.
but regards the book, in accordance with
the uncritical spirit of the age, as the
production of pious (and even inspired)
Jew, who undertook in this method
"to expound and develop Mosaic prin-
ciples in relation to new needs" The
Book of Deuteronomy on this theory is
just such work as the Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs composed in the
early part of the first century, and in
which the writer, devout Jewish Chris
tan, puts certain Messianic discourses in
the mouths of the sons of Jacob as having
actually been spoken by them
In the same article (article Bible
Encyclop. Brit Prof Smith leaves it I'M
decided whether Leviticus and Numbers
are not even later than Deuteronomy,
evidently inclining to that opinion, while
Zech. ix-xiv and Isaiah xl-lxvi are by
unknown authors of the period of the
exile. He raises doubt after doubt on
other points without answering them,
and when he comes to the books of the
New Testament, after great vacillation, he
concludes that con the whole on
most cardinal points, the external evil
dence for the New Testament books is as
strong as can fairly be looked for, though
not, of course, strong enough to convince
a man who is sure pa'jori that this or
that book is unhistorical and must be of
late date
The Free Church seems to have been
straining over this case for long period.
At the late session of the Assembly it
was felt on all sides that something must
be done. The German criticism is max
ing itself felt now very sensibly in the
ranks of Young Scotland, and the stu
dents and the galleries were all with
Professor Smith The Assembly waver-
ed ; finally, by majority of seven, Prof.
Smith triumphed, and was retained as a
teacher in the theological seminary. He
was censured as blameworthy for the
unguarded and incomplete statements OF
his articles, and the hope was expressed
that the defects referred to will be
guarded against and avoided in time to
come" and finally, the Assembly de-
clares that, in declining to decide on these
critical views by way of discipline, the
Church expresses no opinion in favor of
their truth or probability, but leaves the
ultimate decision to future inquiry, in
the spirit of patience, humility, and
brotherly charity, admonishing professors
to remember that they are not set for
the propagation of their own opinions
but for the maintenance of the doctrine
and truth committed to the Church"
This was Dr. Beiths motion, and it
prevailed by vote of 299 to 292, and
thereupon Prof Smith was brought to
the bar, and admonished that he was
not to do SO any more, to which Prof
Smith replied:
Moderator hope that am not out of place
when say that while thank God for the issue
OF this evening-an issue which l trust will be
for his glory and for the maintenance of his
truth have never been more sensible than
on the present occasion Of the blame that rests
upon me for statements which have proved SO
incomplete that even at the end Of three wears
the opinion of this house has been so divided
upon them. feel that, in the providence of
God, this is very weighty lesson 10 one placed
as ] am in the position Of teacher, and / hope
that by his grace shall not fail to learn by il"
1t appears to us that there is disingen-
uousness on both sides. Prof. Smith
could have retracted his article if he had
wished to do SO or not retracting it. the
fact remains that he believes Deuter
onomy to be a historical fiction written