EXPLANATION BY THE AUTHOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2840, 19 August 1908, Page 15

EXPLANATION BY THE AUTHOR.

The Rev. J. Gibson Srahh, whose recent book. '" The Christ of the Cross," has been alleged to be unorthodox, spoke at St. Andrew's Church, Wellington, on Sunday, the 9th instant, on "My Relations to the Doctrinal Standards of the Pxesby-

terion Church." He explained (the "Damifijon reports) that he was not one of these who thought that creeds should be rashly dispensed with. His own Church creed had checked so often the tendency to error in. his mind, that when at last he came to & question in xegard to which ]io could by no possibility bring himself to feel that the creed was really right, ho knew that it -was no light and easy task tlxat he had to face when he set out to prove that there was a more truly Scriptuaral way of expressing the truth than that, whioh die creed had adopted. It was not until he had gone through a long and laborious process of examination of authorities and the Scriptures, not until he had reached an assured conviction that where he differed from the creed, the Scriptures aleo differed from the creed 1 , that he began to feel himself under compulsion to write his book. One of the charges against him was that he did not write and publish his book 20 years ago, but 20 years ago he could have no more written his book than he could have cast a mountain unto the eea. It was his profound respect and reverence for the doctrinal standards of the Churoh that made him seek to be perfectly sure of his ground before seeking to show that in some respects lie was compelled; by Scripture, reason, and conscience to differ from, t-hem. He had published his book just as soon as he could" write it, and however long a time he might have spent in preparing himself for the task he felt impelled to undertake, he did not wait co long as to pass from under the control of the Geenral Assembly of the Presbyterian . Church. His ecclesiastical status at the present moment was entirely in t!he hands of that Assembly. In abswer to the question, " Wherein consists my real diverge.n>ee from the doctrinaJ standards of the Presbyterian CWroh?" Mr Smith said his position in brief was tihis : — . 1. That 1 stand frankly and fairly in opposition to much of the theology published in their book 3by Presbyterian theologians in tho Dast. and no one will have any difficulty in establishing from my book that there is such oppositior* for it is most freely acknowledged and manifested. 2. That there is some divergence between my position and that of the Westminster Confession taken apart from the Declaratory Act, but not nearly so much divergence here as in the case of the Presbvteriaa theologians. 3. That between my position and that of the Westminster Confession as modified by the Declaratory Act, there i 6 no opposition at all, for I accept every word! of the Declaratory Act with my whole heart and soul. 4. That when my position is compared with that of the Scriptures, then the Scriptures are found to supportj me through and through, and it is my opponents who will be found_ to have tihe weight of authority a-gainst

" With regard to the theologians," Mr Smith declared, after a to their beliefs, "my position is that many in the past and some in the pre&snt &ro against me (in rejecting the expiatory theory), but on the other ihand some in the paat and a great and growing number in the present are with me. while a number have thenposition obscured by* continuing to tuse old 1 words after having evacuated them of all their old meanin,?." With regard to the Westminster Confession, taken apart from the Declaratory Act. he stated that his whole criticism in the earlier part of his book was directed against the expiatory theory denned as satisfaction to " retributive" justice. "The moment any theoloffian consents to leave out the word retributive from his description of bhe justice that was satisfied on the Cross. I have no longer aJiv controversy witif him." And the remarkable fact was_ that the Westminster Confession nowttere defined the justioa that was satisfied on tho Cress as retributive justice. He had not the slightest doubt that if the Westminster divinee had been asked whether or not' they meant "arefcributiv? justice to a mail they would have naid that they did. The fact remained tlxat they did not put rhe narrowing, restricting adiective into their creed, and he could ascribe th^ir refraining to rlt> so only to their instinctive loyalty to Scripture expressions. He could pay that Christ die'J to satisfy Gcd'e justice (in tho wide seme of the term), and he could aKo *ar that Christ died to prepare the way for the ultimate manifestation of God's rotributive iusrieo in the Final .Tudenwnt towards tihov who should finally iv}pet His :nerev in the Cross. Tho doctrine which said that Jesus, in dying, endured the wrath of God, while foimd in both Catechisms, was not found in the Conf-eysion of Faith In respect of this point, he regarded the two Catechiems as havino- gone beyond the teachings of Scripture. But if he thought co, so alsd -•uipare-ntlv, did the Confession of Faith. The Declaratory Act had hie entire adherence.

EFFECT OF MISAPPREHT3N-STON.

In conclusion, Mr Smith said he was persuaded that a largA amount of the hostile criticism which his book had evoked came from a mkappreliensiou of the position which ho occupied. He denied none of the groat C'nristian truths, but affirmed them all with his whole heart and sotjl"Ha\e I then, being an evangelical Christian all my days, done a wrong thing m remain in sr in an evangelical Church as one of its ministers? Have I done a wrong thing in i-peking to let everyone clearly understaiKl the exact sense in which I uee the words that I do uge from the ptilpit by publishing my book? Have I been a traitor to the Ohuroh In saying to the Churoh in that book! 'This ia my understanding of the saving work of the Saviour? Tell me where I wrong, and, if convinced, I am willing to be set right} while, if unconvinced and unAbl£ to convince you, and no room can be found K>r me. I am willing to seek 6ome other medium for convoying' my view of tihe trufch than a medium of a Presbyterian pulpit.' Do I deserve to be held -up before the conimunitv as a traitor end & coward and a breaker of vows because % have done these things? Well, it mat be that there are some men who can find treachery and cowardice in such conduct, but I can only Say that, if there are. they live at the opposite end of the moral universe from that which I inhabit."

Mr Smith alj>o stated that ho had received letters from all parte of The Dominion, not a few of them from ministers of the Church, exprc-^ing gratitude for the help his book had given them.