THOUGHTS 
 
 THE ABERDEEN CASE 
 
 A PRE-DISRUPTION ELDER 
 
 
BX 9084 .M4 ipon 
 Member of fh ^^ 
 
 Advocates ' ^^""^^^ of 
 Thoughts on th^ ak 
 
 case ^^® Aberdeen 
 
 •AN '»«r»ojAs , 
 •XII "cnvo nvm A v/c»i 
 

 HIIIOKvi 
 
 THOUGHTS 
 
 ON 
 
 THE ABERDEEN CASE 
 
 BY 
 
 A PRE-DISRUPTION ELDER 
 
 EDINBURGH 
 JOHN MACLAREN & SON, PRINCES STREET 
 
 1880. 
 

 if REC. SEP Ibbi 
 
 \TIir!OLOGIG 
 
 THOUGHTS ON THE ABERDEEN- CASE 
 
 BY A PEE-DISEUPTION ELDER 
 
 There is reason to believe that the merits of this 
 Case are very imperfectly understood by many 
 persons whose opinions in regard to it are held 
 with much tenacity of feehng, and expressed with 
 a corresponding warmth of language. That this 
 should be the case is almost inevitable. The initial 
 obstacles in the way of reaching a sound, unpre- 
 judiced conclusion were numerous, and like diffi- 
 culties are becoming more numerous and perplexing, 
 as time passes and the contest thickens. Let us 
 try to exhibit some of these, without saying any- 
 thing that might be deemed personal, or likely to 
 give offence to reasonable minds. 
 
 1. The writings in which Professor W. Robertson 
 Smith's views first appeared were printed in the 
 new edition of the Encyclo])cedia Britannica, a veiy 
 large and expensive work, beyond the reach of most 
 readers, even of those whose tastes and literary 
 
4 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 habits might have led them to jDeruse the articles, 
 if pubhshed in a cheaper and more accessible form. 
 The space to which the author was necessarily 
 restricted, especially in the article "Bible," — a 
 topic of extraordinary comprehensiveness, as every 
 one will admit, — led him to write in a style, con- 
 densed, scientific, and full of learned allusions ; 
 because, having things to say which scholarly and 
 expert readers could alone understand and care 
 much about, he was compelled to leave untouched 
 many of the ordinary and routine subjects which 
 formed the staple of former editions, and which the 
 religious community might naturally expect to find 
 substantially repeated in the new. 
 
 Without homologating these as his own, the 
 learned author desired to refer to and expound some 
 of the more salient views of modern theologians and 
 critics, especially of the German schools ; but now, 
 when all this excitement has arisen, he has 
 expressed liis regret again and again, that, madver- 
 tently, he did not adequately define his own position 
 as a loyal believer in an inspired Bible, and did 
 not pay sufiicient regard to the religious instincts 
 and sensibilities of the sound, orthodox and well- 
 instructed people who constitute the membership of 
 the various Evangehcal Churches of his native land. 
 
 This feeling on the part of religious people is one 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 5 
 
 in which the present writer participated, and still 
 in some measure participates. It made him 
 approach the perusal of Professor Smith's article 
 " Bible," with prejudice ; and he does not wonder 
 that many — whose prejudices have been fanned 
 into more intense feelings — have never shaken 
 off their original impression. 
 
 The truth is, that the article which has caused so 
 much alarm and anxiety in the minds of con- 
 scientious Christian men and women might, so far 
 as they are concerned, have lain virtually silent 
 and unknown to this day, amid the ponderous 
 columns of the Encydopmlia, awaiting the approval 
 or condemnation of professors and other learned 
 theologians, for whom it was specially and most 
 reasonably intended. We shall not inquire how it 
 suddenly started into popular notice, because that 
 inquuy might lead to warm and unpleasant 
 rejomders. It is enough to remind our readers that 
 heresy-hunters have swarmed in aU generations, 
 and that rival Churches naturally dislike the 
 notion that their own denomination should stand 
 alone in being credited vdth heretical infirmities. 
 
 2. It wiU be obvious, from what we have already 
 said, that when the existence of writings such as we 
 have described — learned, concise, full of literary 
 allusions nearly uninteUigible to ordinary readers. 
 
6 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 and devoid of all pious and improving comments, — 
 came to be known, it was natural and unavoidable, 
 that an alarm, almost amounting to panic, should 
 seize the miaginations of many earnest well-meaning 
 persons. The subjects handled in the article were 
 comparatively novel — even to professional readers — 
 and being clothed in language demandmg attention, 
 accuracy of thought, previous knowledge of recon- 
 dite discussions and learned references, is it at 
 all wonderful that much gross exaggeration should 
 take place, and that even persons of receptive and 
 reasonable minds should be hurried into a summary 
 condemnation of the author's views, without having 
 any surer ground to stand upon than the general on 
 dit of others little better informed than themselves ? 
 The matter came before the College Committee, 
 and, even in that exceptionally intelligent and well- 
 informed body, it was soon apparent that the time 
 had not yet arrived when the questions raised could 
 receive that calm, thorough, scientific, and weighty 
 consideration which their importance demanded. 
 Most of the members of that Committee expressed 
 those views which their previous training and 
 their ecclesiastical antecedents and tendencies led 
 onlookers almost instinctively to expect ; a few 
 members urged that time should be given, and 
 toleration shown, to the young and able Professor 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 7 
 
 who had unwittingly kindled so great a flame ; 
 and others were strong and determined in their 
 alarmed denunciation of his rashness. Each of 
 these sections of the Committee had its warm 
 partisans throughout the Church ; and long before 
 the General Assembly of 1877, it was too evident 
 that the ferfervidum ingenium Scotorum was 
 roused. Even at tliis early stage of the case, 
 therefore, the original difficulties in the way of a 
 sound, calm, unimpassioned decision were greatly 
 enhanced. Already the tocsin had been sounded in 
 quarters of the country where defective knowledge 
 of current events is not uncommon, where pre- 
 judices of various kinds prevail, and where the idea 
 easily arises that the Church is in danger and the 
 Bible at a discount. A similar alarm has been 
 awakened again and again smce the Free Church of 
 Scotland came forth from the flesh-pots of Egypt 
 and purchased her mdependence, at a great price, in 
 the memorable year of the Disruption. 
 
 It ought to be borne in mind that, wliile tilings 
 were manifestly becoming confused at this com- 
 paratively early date — the Assembly of 1877 — 
 Professor Smith, with a natural regard to the 
 interests of truth and of liis own position, took the 
 important step of demanding a libel, as the consti- 
 tutional mode of bringing indefinite accusations and 
 
8 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 rumours, stript of exaggeration, to a clear and 
 definite issue. ^ 
 
 The General Assembly of 1877 accordingly 
 instructed the Presbytery of Aberdeen to hbel 
 Professor Smith. This was done probably with 
 the best advice available under the cu'cumstances. 
 A large majority of the Presbytery, whose intimate 
 knowledge of Professor Smith's antecedents, his 
 high character, his rare attainments, his success as a 
 teacher, gave weight to theu^ decision, did not find 
 the hbel relevant, and have since stood by him 
 through all the subsequent proceedings. 
 
 The case came up by appeal to the next General 
 Assembly, which met at Glasgow in May 1878.^ 
 
 In that Assembly there was a great amount of 
 discussion, both at the bar and in the House, and 
 several votes were taken, the result beingf that the 
 ground was considerably cleared, and only a portion 
 of the hbel, as originally framed, remamed for further 
 adjudication. 
 
 Here let us clearly understand the main points in 
 
 ^ It is M^orthy of being noted that an eminent minister of the Church, 
 still spared to us, although au octogenarian, expressed his deliberate and 
 well-considered opinion, that no living theologian would be found capable 
 of framing a relevant libel in the case ; an opinion, as we think, in the fair 
 way of being confirmed in the end. 
 
 ^ Let me here remark, once for all, that absolute accuracy regarding 
 minute details is not attempted in this brief sketch of the case. I aim 
 at giving the broad and characteristic features, without rashlj'^ committing 
 myself to unimportant statements whose accuracy might be impugned. 
 
by a Pre-Disriiptio7i Elder. 9 
 
 regard to Deuteronomy which Professor Smith 
 raaintains, points which have brought down upon 
 him so much condemnation and so much suspicion 
 of general unsoundness. He has professed all along 
 an unshaken faith in the Divine inspiration of the 
 Bible in general, and of Deuteronomy in particular ; 
 but being, as Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- 
 ment Exegesis, called upon, and in duty bound, to 
 make himself master of everythmg that bears on 
 these topics, including the criticism of several 
 learned men regarding the authorsliip of Deutero- 
 nomy, at variance with and hostile to the com- 
 monly-accepted view that tlie Book is strictly 
 liistorical, and almost exclusively the work of Moses, 
 he came to see that the said allegations contain an 
 element of truth, and do not admit of being 
 honestly and safely ignored. We say safely, 
 because \\.Q) facts can be set aside and ignored, if we 
 mean to defend the word of God against competent 
 scholars who hiow that such facts exist, and that 
 these must modify our preconceived opinions. A 
 familiarity with the original language of the Penta- 
 teuch, and a careful survey of Jemsh history and 
 institutions, have led men of acute critical mind to 
 the conclusion that the Book of Deuteronomy, as 
 we now possess it, must have been edited, and so far 
 modified, at a date considerably later than the death 
 A 2 
 
lo Thoughts on the Abei^deen Case 
 
 of Moses — a conclusion arrived at not only by 
 avowed rationalists and sceptics, but by men of a 
 very different stamp, men sound in the common faith, 
 and loyal to the entire circle of Christian doctrine. 
 This bemg the case, Professor Smith undertook, 
 as an honest and conscientious man, to grapple with 
 these difficulties to the best of his ability. His ex- 
 planations may seem far-fetched ; they may be viewed 
 as madequate ; they may be accounted rash ; but 
 offered as they are, in the cause of truth, by a man 
 of evangehcal sentiments and faithful to the West- 
 minster Confession, they surely deserve a more toler- 
 ant reception than that which they have obtained. 
 
 The Confession of Faith, be it remembered, is 
 silent as to the authorship and historical character 
 of Deuteronomy. Moses may have written most of 
 it, and it may be substantially a historical Book ; 
 but for a decision, even an opinion, on these points, 
 we apply in vain to the Confession — a work labori- 
 ously and prayerfully drawn up by such men, 
 among others, as Alexander Henderson, Samuel 
 Eutherford, Robert BailHe, and George Gillespie, 
 men too learned, too mse, too cautious to commit 
 themselves, or us their successors, to an authoritative 
 deliverance on any such questions. 
 
 The charge of "publishing or promulgating opinions 
 which contradict or are opposed to the doctrme of the 
 
by a Pre-Disniption Elder. 1 1 
 
 immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and Divine 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures or of any part or 
 parts thereof," was supported by a series of six sub- 
 ordraate charges and derived its colour from them. 
 The discussion came eventually to be on the second 
 of these which ran as follows : — 
 
 " Secundo. Albeit the opinion that the book of inspired 
 Scripture called Deuteronomy, which is professedly a his- 
 torical 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, instructions 
 and laws as proceeding from the mouth of Moses, though these 
 never were, and never could have been, uttered by him." 
 
 We have probably said enough to enable our 
 readers to understand the course taken by Sir 
 Henry Moncreiff and by Principal Rainy in their 
 respective motions in the Assembly of 1878. The 
 former moved as follows : " The General Assembly 
 sustain the dissent and complaint against the judg- 
 ment of the Presbytery, in relation to the second 
 particular as applying to the first charge, and 
 reverse the judgment of the Presbytery so far as to 
 find that part of the hbel relevant, to the effect that 
 the statements quoted in the minor proposition, as 
 those of Professor Smith regarding the Book of 
 Deuteronomy, amount to what is expressed in the 
 said part, and are opposed in their legitimate results 
 to the supposition of the Book being a thoroughly 
 
12 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 inspired historical record according to the teaching 
 of the Westminster Confession, ivliile his declara- 
 tions on the subject of inspiration are the reverse of 
 satisfactory/, and do not indicate his acceptance of the 
 Book in that character.'' 
 
 Number one had been found irrelevant by the 
 Assembly, and number tivo thus came before the 
 Court for decision. The subject of inspiration 
 had not been directly introduced into the libel, 
 and yet it will be observed that the foregoing- 
 motion derived a large part of its significancy from 
 the addition of the words printed in italics. It 
 was felt at the tune, by Professor Smith's friends, 
 that the passage, thus introduced into the motion, 
 placed him at a disadvantage in prospect of a 
 vote ; the addition was specially animadverted on 
 in Principal Hainy's speech, and became the occasion, 
 afterwards, of a series of weighty reasons of dissent. 
 
 Principal Painy, in a powerful speech, animated 
 by that rare faculty, which he possesses in an 
 eminent degree, of regarding both sides of a question, 
 and of realising fairly the standpoint of liis oppo- 
 nents, moved "that the Assembly dismiss the 
 dissent and complamt, and sustain the judgment of 
 the Presbytery." A vote was taken. 301 voted 
 for Sir Henry Moncreiif's motion ; 278 for Principal 
 Painy's, making a majority of 23 for the former. 
 
by a Prc-DisriLption Elder. 1 3 
 
 It is worth while, as rendering the result of this 
 vote quite clear, to introduce here the reasons of 
 dissent already alluded to. 
 
 "Because the judgment is incompetent as a judicial 
 sentence, in respect that it proceeds on the sense ascribed 
 to a declaration of Professor Smith, in his defence, on which 
 he had no notice to plead, either from the bar or the house, 
 on which he did not plead, and on which it does not appear 
 that he has been dealt with, for explanation or otherwise, in 
 any court ; and in respect that the judgment was argued for 
 from the same materials, and that Professor Smith was not 
 heard thereon. 
 
 " Because Professor Smith, in the extracts charged under 
 this particular of charge first, does not deny the inspiration 
 and authority of the Holy Scriptures, and, in particular, of 
 the Book of Deuteronomy, but maintains the same. 
 
 "Because the theory that Deuteronomy presents in a 
 peculiar literary form, but under the guidance of inspira- 
 tion, the legislation of an age later than that of Moses, 
 whatever objections may apply to it, and whatever dangers 
 may be apprehended in connection with it, does not in 
 itself conflict directly with any views of inspiration, even 
 the most strict. 
 
 "Because in order to estabhsh consequences as arising 
 from the said theory tending to show that it is opposed 
 to the Confession in its results, it is necessary to make 
 assumptions which are not borne out by the Confession on 
 the one hand, or which are repudiated by Professor Smith 
 on the other ; and both modes of procedure are illegitimate. 
 
 "Because the statement of Professor Smith already 
 referred to, in the first reason, whatever the effect of it may 
 
14 Thojights on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 be, could, in any view, communicate to his theory of 
 Deuteronomy no new responsibiUty in reference to the 
 Church's doctrine of the Bible, and ought to have been dealt 
 with on its own merits. 
 
 "Because it is of great moment to the successful main- 
 tenance and defence of the truth, that when opinions are 
 published which are apprehended to have in them any 
 elements of danger, the mode of dealing with them should 
 be such as does not strain the discipline of the Church nor 
 abridge the liberty of its office-bearers. 
 
 " Because the present state of critical studies, especially 
 with reference to the Pentateuch, renders it necessary that 
 a large discretion should be allowed to the office-bearers of 
 the Church, in any honest efforts to do justice to indications 
 of criticism, so long as faith in the peculiar origin, office, and 
 authority of the Scriptures is maintained." 
 
 Number three came up for consideration in tlie 
 evening, after the discussion, already mentioned, re- 
 garding number tioo. The 25leadings at the bar being 
 finished, Professor Smith had an opportunity of ad- 
 dressing the Assembly before they proceeded to 
 judgment. His address was remarkably luminous 
 and high-toned, and obviously made a very favourable 
 impression on the House. He had been accused in 
 the libel of holding views regarding the Book of 
 Chronicles inconsistent wdth due reverence for the 
 Word of God ; and many, who had previously formed 
 susj)icions in accordance with such allegations, 
 seemed iktsv to have their eyes ojiened and their 
 
by a Pi'e- Disruption Elder. 1 5 
 
 niinds sensibly relieved, as the Professor expounded 
 his real views and sentmients with clearness and 
 ingenuous candour. He had been accused of holding 
 that the Chronicler wrote under the influence of 
 party spirit and for party purposes, whereas all his 
 assertion amounted to this : that the Chronicler, 
 being probably a temple- singer, took a special 
 interest in the aftairs of temple-singers. He had 
 never categorically affirmed that there existed any 
 error in the Chronicles. The state of the case is 
 this : — The Book of Chronicles contains a history, 
 which, by the admission of every one, is a late 
 history. In that history, the author, by Divine 
 permission, used earher materials, and he (Professor 
 Smith) believed that the author, living at a much 
 later date, was permitted, for a good purpose in the 
 hands of God, to give this later view of the history 
 of Israel, side by side with the earher and contem- 
 porary histories. Without inquiring into problems 
 too high for us to solve, and asking what special 
 purpose in the Divine wisdom was served by the 
 insertion of such a book in the canon, he might at 
 least say, that it was not without reason and purpose 
 that we have the history in this latter form. In 
 opposition to rationalistic and sceptical writers, who 
 disparaged the Book of Chronicles, he had stated 
 throughout his article, first, that the Chronicler had 
 
1 6 TJioughts on the Aberdeeti Case 
 
 authentic materials before liim, and that, therefore, 
 his book was of vakie as a testimony to authentic 
 history ; and, second, that he looked at the question 
 of the purpose of God, in giving us this later book, 
 as lettmg us know how the ancient history appeared 
 to a later writer. He quoted from the article in 
 question, and went on to ask, how any one acquainted 
 with the present state of scholarship and discussion, 
 writing in a book addressed to the general pubHc, 
 and anxious to recommend the Book of Chronicles 
 to people of all theological opinions, would be likely 
 to succeed in his purpose, if he had to start from the 
 theory of inspiration which holds that it is absolutely 
 impossible that in the slightest and most trivial 
 verbal matter, there could be an error in the text 
 of the Word of God. The Confession holds no such 
 view. It holds no theory of inspiration at all. 
 
 Of course, in this reference to Professor Smith's 
 admirable speech, it is impossible to give more than a 
 very condensed view of what he said ; and the reader 
 will find it, and all other parts of the debate, in the 
 printed Blue-book of Proceedings for 1878. One 
 sentence, quoted by Professor Smith from his printed 
 answer, deserves to be seriously pondered by aU 
 those who have hitherto attributed unsatisfactory 
 views on inspiration to this gentleman : — " In all the 
 Confessions, the Bible is recognised as the inspired 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 1 7 
 
 Word of God, not on the ground of any theory as to 
 the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the writers 
 in actu scrihendi, but (1) because in the Scriptures, 
 the revelation of God and His will, first preached 
 through the prophets, is now reduced to writing ; 
 and (2) because the witness of the Spirit by and 
 with the Word in our heart assures us that in these 
 Scriptures God still speaks to us." That tliis is a 
 reasonable and sound view of what is meant by 
 inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, we hope to show 
 at a subsequent stage of this discussion. 
 
 When the vote was taken on tertio, the result was 
 found to be as follows : — 144 voted for the motion 
 of Dr. Thomas Smith ; 284 for that of Mr. Isdale 
 Dr. Smith's motion was : — 
 
 "That the Assembly sustain the dissent and complaint, 
 and reverse the judgment of the Presbytery to the extent 
 of finding that the statement of Professor Smith, that an 
 inspired writer allowed himself the same freedoms as were 
 taken by ancient historians, is, in the sense in which it 
 appears to the General Assembly to be used by him, so 
 unguarded and extreme, as to be incompatible with the 
 inspiration and infallible truth of the Sacred Scriptures." 
 
 Mr. Isdale's motion was : — 
 
 " That the Assembly dismiss the dissent and complaint, 
 and affirm the judgment of the Presbytery." 
 
 His short but pregnant speech appears to be 
 so well-fitted for throwing light on the whole of 
 
 A3 
 
1 8 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 this controversy, that we shall offer no apology for 
 quoting it. 
 
 " luto the Holy Scriptures there enter two elements, the 
 Divine and the human ; but the nexus between the two no 
 one here, I suppose, would pretend accurately to define. 
 The Confession does not define that nexus, and if Professor 
 Smith is to be condemned under this count, we must frame 
 a theory of inspiration much more stringent than what is 
 laid down in the Confession of Faith. Now, we have had 
 evidence this day, from Professor Smith's own statement, 
 that he admits, as fully and unequivocally as any of us, the 
 Divine element. Some may think that he gave a little too 
 much latitude to the human, and I may be of that opinion 
 myself, but I am bound to say that the opinion of Professor 
 Smith, with reference to this matter, is more consistent with 
 the facts of the case than that mechanical kind of theory of 
 inspiration, which is ever cropping up, and has been cropping 
 up this evening again, and which, as has been remarked, 
 would make the inspired writers not so much the peyimen, as 
 the ^C7i in the hand of the Divine Spirit. Let it also be 
 borne in mind by tlie Assembly, that if Professor Smith does 
 give a little freer play to the human element in the pro- 
 duction of the sacred writings, than some of us may have 
 been accustomed to, he stands in the same position, in 
 this respect, as some of the soundest and most honoured 
 names in the Christian Church. The libel is founded, not 
 upon any work of Professor Smith specifically dealing with 
 the subject of inspiration, but on certain criticisms on the 
 Book of Chronicles — criticisms which, I venture to say, are 
 comparatively harmless. There is another consideration to 
 which I hope the Assembly will give all proper weight. 
 We are not dealing at present with a question of dogmatic 
 
by a Pre-Disriiption Elder. 19 
 
 theology upon which the opinion of the Church may be 
 pretty well matured. The science of Biblical criticism is 
 comparatively new. The Church of Christ is in a some- 
 what transition state in relation to that subject, and I take 
 it upon me to say, that it would be a most unwise thing for 
 our Church, or any other Church, to take up a position in 
 regard to this question of Biblical criticism from which they 
 might afterwards have to resile. It would be a most 
 unguarded thing for us to lay down beforehand certain lines 
 within which we are always to be confined, and beyond which 
 we dare not advance on pain of deposition. I think it 
 would strengthen rather than endanger the faith of our 
 Christian people, by showing that we can allow frank and 
 honest criticism of the books of Scripture without being 
 greatly afraid of the result." 
 
 Before going to the vote, Dr. William Wilson, 
 Clerk of Assembly, whose opinions are always heard 
 with respect, stated — 
 
 " That he must support Mr. Isdale's motion — although he 
 had voted with Sir H. Moncreiff in the forenoon — because 
 the first motion appeared to him to limit the freedom which 
 certainly all the authors of the Sacred Scriptures had in the 
 exercise of their mind, under the superintendence of the 
 Holy Spirit, following the bent of their faculties, and using 
 the educational means which were within their reach. He 
 knew no doctrine of inspiration which interfered with the 
 fact that authors of Scripture did use, in the composition of 
 these books, their natural faculties with as much freedom as 
 any of the ancient or modern historians did, the superin- 
 tendence of the Spirit securing that there was no error, and 
 that God meant what He communicated through these men 
 to be read as communicated from Himself." 
 
20 Thotip'hts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 The result of the vote being mtimated, Prmcipal 
 Bro■v^^l of Aberdeen, one of the minority of the 
 Presbytery, mduced his fellow-dissentients to with- 
 draw the remaining dissents and complaints, one of 
 which was against a judgment of the Presbytery 
 refusing to consider the libel as a whole. 
 
 When things had come to this stage, some of 
 Professor Smith's supporters were sanguine enough 
 to hope that one of the leading men on the other 
 side might, looking to the majus honimi ecclesice, 
 have proposed that the case should now take end, 
 and that the Professor, after solemn admonition 
 from the Moderator to be more cautious in future, 
 should be reinstated in the chair from which he had 
 been debarred for twelve months of painful anxiety 
 and suspense. This was not done. The main 
 difficulty arose, of course, from the circumstance that 
 secundo had been carried by a majority of the 
 House, small though that majority was. 
 
 After much able discussion, in the course of which 
 Principal Painy pointed out, in a very felicitous 
 and pomted manner, the danger and inconvenience 
 of proceeding upon the alternative charge of ten- 
 dency, — as some desired, — when a libel turned out 
 to be irrelevant, it was ultimately moved and agreed 
 to, that the Hbel should be amended in accordance 
 with the finding, as respects the second branch of 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 2 1 
 
 the major proposition, and the corresponding minor, 
 such alterations being made in other parts as might 
 be necessary, to give consistency to the entire 
 document. After considerable trouble this was 
 effected ; the Assembly approved of the amended 
 libel, and remitted to the Presbytery of Aberdeen 
 to proceed with the case accordmg to the laws of 
 the Church, and in conformity with the Assembly's 
 judgment. 
 
 Another year passed, and the case came up to the 
 General Assembly of 1879 hardly more advanced 
 than it had been twelve months before, and embar- 
 rassed with a new weight of personal feeHng and 
 soreness, generated by inaccuracies, by misunder- 
 standings, and by the heart-sickness of hope deferred. 
 Is this to be wondered at ? The Presbytery by a 
 large majority had all along supported the gentle- 
 man under libel ; they were cognisant of all that 
 had taken place in former Assembhes, and it was 
 hardly reasonable to expect them to prove the 
 amended libel, which, in their eyes, was nearly as 
 irrelevant as its predecessor. The minority also 
 were inflexible in their sentiments, and could do 
 nothing else but refer the whole case to the Superior 
 Court by means of dissents, complaints, and refer- 
 ences. 
 
 After much preluninary discussion and hearing of 
 
2 2 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 parties at the bar in regard to these dissents, com- 
 plaints, and references, this result emerged from the 
 confusion, which at one time was very perplexing, 
 that the libel was limited to the Deuteronomy- 
 count, the second particular of the first alternative 
 charge which had been carried against Professor 
 Smith the year before — we remember under what 
 exceptional circumstances. 
 
 The ex-Moderator, Dr. Andrew Bonar, proposed 
 the folio whig motion, which was seconded by Mr. 
 Bannerman, Dalkeith : — 
 
 " That the General Assembly instruct the Presbytery of 
 Aberdeen to meet and take immediate steps to have the 
 libel, as regards the second particular of the first alternative 
 charge, served in due form upon Professor Smith ; they also 
 instruct the Presbytery, in tlie event of their finding the 
 libel sustained, either by the admission of Professor Smith 
 or by adequate proof, to suspend him from his functions, 
 professorial, ministerial, and judicial, till the next meeting 
 of Assembly ; and the Assembly now appoint a Committee 
 to adjust the libel in this view, excluding from it all parts 
 that are not now applicable, and to report at a future diet 
 of this Assembly." 
 
 Principal Bainy proposed another motion, which 
 was seconded by Mr. Henderson of Devanha : — 
 
 " Having respect to the novelty and perplexity of this case 
 in certain of its aspects, the serious difference of opinion that 
 prevails throughout the Church regarding it, and the gravity 
 of the consequences which the disposal of it may involve 
 
by a Pi'e- Disruption Elder. 23 
 
 the General Assembly resolve, before proceeding further 
 with the libel, to appoint a Committee fairly representative 
 of the Church, with powers, if they see cause, to confer with 
 Professor Smith, directing them to consider the case in all 
 its bearings, with the view of ascertaining the best means of 
 arriving at a result honouring to the truth of God and fitted 
 to secure, as far as can be, all the weighty interests which 
 are at stake, and to report to next General Assembly." 
 
 Surely this latter motion, considering the whole 
 history of the case, and the growing support ac- 
 corded to Professor Smith in successive Assembhes, 
 considering also the recognised scriptural mode, so 
 clearly announced, of deahng with a brother under 
 any charge, might reasonably have been expected to 
 secure general acceptance. But no ; the result was 
 otherwise : 319 members voted for Dr. Bonar's 
 motion, 318 for Dr. Eainy's. 
 
 Dr. Kainy and others dissented for the following 
 reasons : — 
 
 " I dissent because the case was reduced to a single 
 charge ; and when the relevancy was found by so small a 
 majority (23 in a house of 579), and in so special a form, it 
 was the duty of the Assembly, in the interests alike of the 
 peace of the Church, the justice of the cause, and the influ- 
 ence of discipline on the maintenance of sound doctrine, to 
 take the course suggested in the rejected motion, as most 
 likely to conduce to unite the Church, and to exert a happy 
 influence on the w^hole case." 
 
 Three days after the decision of the Assembly Mr. 
 
24 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 David Maclagan, who had voted for Dr. Bonar's 
 motion, opened a door for much possible good by- 
 standing up in his place and expressing his belief 
 that many as well as himself would receive, in a 
 spirit of conciliation and fairness, any new light 
 which may arise, any statements which may be 
 made by Professor Smith or others, explanatory or 
 otherwise, at any subsequent stage in the anxious 
 and solemn matter before them. 
 
 In common with Mr. Maclagan, the present writer 
 is fully aware that much earnest prayer has been 
 made on both sides for Hght and guidance, and he 
 cannot but entertain the hope, that a pamphlet re- 
 cently published by Professor Smith on the present 
 aspect of his case may greatly tend towards bring- 
 ing about that mutual confidence and good feeling 
 which all desiderate and pray for. The pamphlet 
 was brought into existence on tliis mse : The libel 
 having been re-amended by the Assembly, Mr. 
 Smith reasonably felt that the answer which he had 
 formerly addressed to the Presbytery of Aberdeen 
 was no longer appropriate, and that as his prose- 
 cutors had re-stated their charge, he ought to be 
 allowed to re-state his answer to it. He therefore 
 prepared the document referred to, and laid it before 
 that Court on the 1st of July. It is unnecessary to 
 mention all that took place then and subsequently. 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 25 
 
 It is sufficient to say that the Presbytery did not 
 consider the hbel relevant, even in its re-amended 
 form, and that the Case will again come up to the 
 Assembly of 1880, possibly, or perhaps probably, for 
 final judgment. 
 
 Much may depend therefore on the unpression pro- 
 duced throughout the bounds of the Church by the 
 pamphlet in question, containing Professor Smith's 
 mature answer to the hbel, which is now restricted 
 to what may be called the Deuteronomy charge. 
 
 Like all his other writings, this answer^ indicates 
 great ability, an admirable faculty of clear expression, 
 with lipe scholarship and learning. The field ovei- 
 which it expatiates being more limited than formerly, 
 non-professional readers will find it more inteUigible ; 
 and we venture to hope that fair and reasonable 
 minds, on reading it, will begin to feel and admit 
 that the causes for anxiety and alarm are really less 
 formidable than they had imagined. To enter into 
 any detail regarduig the points discussed would be 
 quite incompatible with the limits of this paper, not 
 to mention the risk of marring the concentrated 
 effect of the author's carefully-conducted argument ; 
 we therefore content ourselves with recommending 
 the "Answer" as it stands, to the prayerful atten- 
 tion of our readers. 
 
 ^ Answer to the Amended Libel, with Appendix containing Plea in 
 Law. Edinburgh, David Douglas, 9 Castle Street, 1S79. 
 
26 Thoughts oil the Aberdeen Case 
 
 In what remains of our space we shall devote a 
 few sentences, in the first place, to the young Pro- 
 fessor himself, who has been the unwilhng cause 
 of all this commotion in the ecclesiastical courts, and 
 all this panic among the members and adherents 
 of our Church. In the second place, we shall con- 
 sider one or two phases of opinion which seem to 
 underlie and account for the very notable ant- 
 agonism in regard to the Aberdeen Case which 
 at present divides the Church, and which appears 
 in one party condemning the same person as keenly 
 as the other vindicates him. Lastly, we shall suggest 
 a few reasons for terminatmg this Case at next 
 Assembly, without pressing it to the bitter end 
 either of deposition or of continued withholding of 
 confidence. 
 
 1. William Robertson Smith is the son of an 
 able and accomplished minister of the Free Church, 
 who still labours effectively in his Master's service. 
 He enjoyed many educational advantages while an 
 inmate of his early home ; and in due time was sent 
 to Aberdeen University, where he became a dis- 
 tinguished student in every branch of the Arts 
 course, both literary and scientific. He then entered 
 the Divinity HaU of the Free Church in Edinburgh, 
 bringing with him a high reputation, which suffered 
 
by a Prc-Disriiption Elder. 2 7 
 
 no diminution, but the reverse, during each suc- 
 cessive year of his theological cuiTiculum. His 
 contemporaries — the best of all judges — regarded 
 liim as mdisputably their foremost man, and augured 
 for him a very distinguished career in his future 
 profession ; while more than one of the eminent men 
 who fill scientific chairs in the University would 
 gladly have monopoHsed him for theu' special depart- 
 ments. But early rehgious convictions and a growing 
 seriousness and sph"ituality of mind kept him loyal 
 to his purpose of becoming a preacher of the Gospel. 
 In 1870, while yet a student, and barely twenty- 
 four years of age, he was aj)pointed by the General 
 Assembly Professor of Hebrew and of Old Testa- 
 ment Exegesis in the Free Church College, Aber- 
 deen. With the ardour of youth, and true to his 
 bright antecedents, he straightway apphed himself 
 to the studies and a,cademic duties expected from 
 the occupant of a chair so important and onerous — 
 a chau" for which his previous trammg, his natural 
 abihties, and his tastes, obviously fitted hmi ui a 
 pre-eminent degree. Everything seemed to indicate 
 that the right man was in the right place. His 
 students were proud of him. They justly held hun 
 in the highest estimation, anunated and fired as 
 they were by the vitahty and earnestness which 
 pervaded his teaching. He preached with great 
 
28 Thotights on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 acceptance in the pulpits of Aberdeen, of Edinburgh, 
 and other places, both town and country ; he 
 heartily undertook evangehstic work in his Uni- 
 versity city, and won the confidence and esteem of 
 many who witnessed the zeal and Christian earnest- 
 ness with which these labours were performed. He 
 wrote largely on topics connected with Biblical 
 criticism, and was chosen by the proprietors of 
 the Encyclopcedia Britannica to furnish articles on 
 kindred subjects, cm courant of the time, for their 
 new forthcoming edition. We know the result ; 
 and the circumstances have been already explained 
 which led to the present melancholy confusion. 
 
 Professor Smith has been accused of being dis- 
 respectful and irreverent towards some of his 
 opponents in the present controversy, whose position, 
 attainments, and years, entitle them to deference 
 and respect. But if there be any truth in this 
 somewhat irrelevant and trifling accusation, it must 
 still be remembered that everything chiefly valu- 
 able to such a man has been in jeopardy for several 
 years ; that his youth is passing away while his 
 life-work is in abeyance ; that conclusions, which 
 to him appear obvious, have been misapprehended, 
 misrepresented, even caricatured, by men whose 
 smaller attainments in scholarship and learning 
 vutually incapacitate them for controverting these 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 29 
 
 conclusions in an authoritative manner. It is not 
 easy for an accurate incisive thinker hke Professor 
 Smith — thoroughly equipped for meeting the adverse 
 criticism of rationahstic writers — to listen Math 
 patience to the reasonings of men of his own Church 
 and Creed, who do not appreciate the difficulties 
 that really exist, and who seem to fancy that safety 
 is secured by ignoring them altogether. At a time 
 like this, when every opinion in science, no less 
 than in theology, is on its trial, there can be 
 neither wisdom nor safety in silencing discussion 
 and forbidding thorough investigation ; and can 
 any reasonable man wonder, if a Professor still 
 young, such as we have described him, and con- 
 tending, so to speak, "pro aris et focis, should 
 occasionally express himself, in the heat of debate, 
 with considerable sharpness and severity ? 
 
 2. Let us now examine, as concisely as possible, 
 some of those fundamental disparities of opinion or 
 sentiment which may help to explain the very 
 antagonistic attitude of those who either condemn 
 or support Mr. Smith in his contention. I write, 
 not as a trained theologian, but as a humble office- 
 bearer of the Church, who looks upon the Bible as 
 thi'oughout the inspired Word of God, and upon the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith as the carefully 
 
30 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 prepared and mature expositor of the Bible in all 
 vital and important doctrines. 
 
 (1.) The Confession of Faith informs us that "it 
 pleased the Lord, at sundry times and in divers 
 manners, to reveal Himself and to declare that His 
 will {i.e. His will, the knowledge of which is necessary 
 to salvation) unto the Church ; and afterwards for the 
 better preserving and propagating of the truth, and 
 for the more sure estabhshment and comfort of the 
 Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the 
 mahce of Satan and of the world, to commit the same 
 wholly unto writing, which maketh the Holy Scrip- 
 ture to be most necessary ; those former ways of 
 God's reveahng His will unto His people being now 
 ceased." It goes on to enumerate all the Canonical 
 Books of both the Old and the New Testament, but 
 is silent, absolutely silent, as to the authorship of 
 these books, and it expresses no opinion as to the 
 mode in which the human writers were enabled by 
 the Holy Spirit to perform their task. 
 
 Every attentive and observant reader of the Bible 
 must perceive the charming variety of style wliich 
 characterises it, indicating, as we may reasonably 
 infer, that the human agents, while guided and pre- 
 served from error, in all they wi-ote, by the Divine 
 Spirit, were permitted to manifest spontaneously then- 
 own intellectual and moral peculiarities. If this were 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 3 1 
 
 not so, how many striking evidences would be lost to 
 us of the genuineness and authenticity of the several 
 books ! The idea generally held at one time, and still 
 by not a few, that every word in the sacred writings 
 is the result of immediate dictation, irrespective of 
 all individual characteristics of the luunan penman, 
 seems to be untenable, and would have the injmious 
 effect of practically denuding the words of God to 
 man of many of their most winning attractions. 
 
 (2.) There is a cognate question which we have no 
 wish to mix up with that of inspu-ation, but which 
 needs to be considered among the other discrepancies 
 of opinion that seem to underlie the present con- 
 troversy ; we allude to the true text of Scripture. 
 All scholars and theologians recognise the existence 
 of various readings, and, in particular passages, the 
 difficulty of estabhshing the true text. These are 
 neither numerous nor, generally speaking, unportant, 
 for there is a wonderful consensus as to the sacred text, 
 a co7isensus arrived at after careful and reverential 
 collation of ancient manuscripts. This comparison 
 of such documents necessarily impHes that some 
 differences of opinion, on this matter of the true 
 text, must be tolerated ; but if Scripture be honestly 
 and ingenuously compared with Scriptiure, no sub- 
 stantial doubt can exist in an unprejudiced mind, 
 as to any single doctrine of our common faith. Some 
 
32 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 people, however, are found who shrmk from admitting 
 the possibihty of various readings in a book, every 
 sentence, and word, and syllable of which is, as they 
 hold, the result of direct immediate Divine dicta- 
 tion. This might almost be anticipated, and is quite 
 m accordance Avith their theory of inspiration. We 
 doubt if it is a sound view and compatible with 
 stern reahties, or a view that can be wisely enforced 
 in a high-handed way, at this tune, when a tendency 
 to doubt is so manifestly in the moral atmosphere. 
 
 (3.) There seems to be some confusion of thought 
 prevailing at present on the subject of true faith in 
 the Word of God. We are apt to forget that no 
 one can thoroughly accept the Bible, in the char- 
 acter of God's Word, unless his soul has been 
 prepared for that reception of it by the Spirit of 
 God, the Divine Author of the Book. This is admir- 
 ably brought out in the following splendid passage 
 of our venerable Confession : — 
 
 "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the 
 Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, 
 and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, 
 the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope 
 of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full 
 discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the 
 many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire per- 
 fection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly 
 evidence itself to be the Word of God ; yd, notivithstanding, 
 
by a Pre-Disrtiption Eider. 33 
 
 our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and 
 Divine autliority thereof is from the inivard work of the Holy 
 Spirit, hearing witness hy and with the ivord in our hearts." 
 
 The clause in italics deserves to be seriously 
 pondered, for some, who evidently consider them- 
 selves specially called to defend the Bible, have 
 raised a panic by declaring that its authority is 
 endangered by the processes and results of modern 
 criticism. These alarmists may keep their minds at 
 rest. The Bible will again come forth, as it has 
 often done before, undamaged by this threatening 
 storm. No behever, m whom the Holy Spuit has 
 borne witness by and with the Word, will be shaken 
 from his faith ; and all others, if we only think of it, 
 can have no stable ground to rest upon, until the 
 same Divme work has been accomplished in them 
 also by the same quickening Spirit. The external 
 evidences that the Bible is the Avorcl of God — those 
 mentioned first in the paragraph quoted from the 
 Confession — have their own weight ; but the inter- 
 nal evidence alone supphes the behever with a 
 palladium of which no power can dispossess him, 
 and with a citadel in which he cannot be assailed. 
 Dr. Chalmers used to call this latter " the portable 
 evidence " — that evidence for his faith which a man 
 carries about with him in his own bosom. 
 
 Now this doctrine differs toto ccelo from that 
 
34 TJioughts oil the Aberdeen Case 
 
 which some defenders of orthodoxy hold up to con- 
 demnation at the present time. They misrepresent 
 it entirely. They accuse their opponents of assert- 
 ing that those portions alone of the Bible are to be 
 received which tally with a man's own experience 
 and convictions of truth. Of course such an aver- 
 ment is a phase of infidelity, and merits condem- 
 nation. But to confound it with the high and 
 spiritual view propounded by the Confession of 
 Faith is to misrepresent and even caricature those 
 who, regarding the Bible as throughout the Word of 
 the living God, hold that there are difficulties and 
 apparent inconsistencies in some portions of it 
 which may be safely and reverently subjected to 
 the methods of modern criticism, while their own 
 faith in the whole volume continues undisturbed. 
 
 (4.) Critical inquiries, such as those which have 
 involved Professor Smith in his present trouble, are 
 represented as rash, uncalled-for, dangerous, unpro- 
 fitable. They can lead, it is said, to no good result, 
 and only tend to unsettle the minds of humble 
 Christians who know the way of salvation and are 
 walking m it. Two answers may be given to these 
 allegations : — (i.) If there are difficulties and ap- 
 parent contradictions of statement known to scholars 
 familiar with the original tongues of Scripture, while 
 ordinary readers are in happy ignorance of their 
 
by a Pre- Disruption Elder. 35 
 
 existence, it is surely desirable — nay, necessary — to 
 have these inquired into, and if possible explained, 
 were it for no other reason than to shut the mouths 
 of gainsayers and sceptics. Such persons are swift 
 to discover and make the most of anything that 
 seems to oppose or invahdate the Word of God, and 
 it is not creditable, it is cowardly, for the friends of 
 the Bible to evade inquiry when such challenges 
 are thrown down ; (ii.) Truth — as truth — is always 
 valuable, whatever be the topic under consideration. 
 The discovery of it invariably confirms what we 
 already know, and it not seldom opens the way and 
 widens the horizon of vision towards new and still 
 greater attainments. This being the case as regards 
 the works of God, are we justified in overlooking it 
 when called, under the guidance and illumination of 
 His Spirit, to investigate His Word ? 
 
 An illustration occurs which may commend the 
 view we are trying to establish. Towards the close 
 of last century Su- William Herschel, the great 
 astronomer, discovered a new planet, now known 
 as J] r anus or the Georgiiim Sidus. It was soon 
 observed by hunself and others that the orbit of 
 this planet was subject to a certain amount of per- 
 turbation. To explain the cause of this became a 
 question of absorbing interest with astronomers. 
 Telescopes were perseveringly turned towards the 
 
36 TJioughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 barely- visible planet whenever hopeful opportunities 
 occurred for seeing it, and calculations of the most 
 elaborate kind were made. Years passed, but the 
 absolute faith of these philosophers in the eternal 
 laws of the universe continued unshaken, although 
 as yet no adequate discovery had rewarded their 
 perseverance. At length, after half a century of 
 unrequited labour, two astronomers — Adams in 
 England, and Leverrier on the Continent — simultane- 
 ously descried another planet, now called Neptune, 
 whose proximity to Uranus at one point of its orbit 
 indubitably furnished the long-desiderated answer 
 to their inquuy. All the time durmg wliich this fact 
 had escaped human observation and intelligence, 
 men went to their labour in the morning and lay 
 down on then' beds at night wholly unaffected by 
 the unknown secret, and yet by this discovery an 
 attainment was made in human knowledge which 
 not only confirmed previous inductions, but doubt- 
 less encouraged and braced the brotherhood of 
 astronomers for new and still wider investigations. 
 
 Many worthy persons, naturally enough, would 
 wonder at all the time spent and the trouble 
 taken by these astronomers in discovering a secret 
 which had no apparent bearing on the welfare and 
 happiness of the human race, and many have the 
 same opinion now regarding the processes and results 
 
by a Prc-Disi'iiption Elder. 37 
 
 of Biblical criticism. But as the experts in astro- 
 nomical science had sufficient faith in the univer- 
 sality of the law of gravitation to prosecute with 
 unabated energy thek self-imposed task, so, in like 
 manner, the experts in Biblical research repose 
 equal if not greater faith in the absolute consistency 
 and perfection of God's holy Word ; and we can see 
 no reason why they should be prevented from working 
 quietly and persistently at the problems which now 
 perplex them. There are difficulties — perturbations 
 let us call them — which common readers cannot see, 
 even when told that they exist. But only give the 
 critics time and freedom from disturbance, and a 
 master key may yet be discovered, ere long, capable 
 of unlocking to general satisfaction the arcana, not 
 only of Deuteronomy, but of other perplexing por- 
 tions of the sacred volume. 
 
 It is probable that neither Professor Smith, nor 
 any other of his believing fellow-workers in the 
 field of Biblical criticism, has, as yet, made a dis- 
 covery which admits of no challenge ; but instead 
 of being discouraged and threatened with ecclesi- 
 astical censm^es, we think that these gentlemen 
 deserve commendation for theu- dihgent performance 
 of duty, and for their aspirations, animated by faith 
 in the uniform truth and consistency of God's Word, 
 after fresh discoveries in Bibhcal criticism. 
 
38 Thoughts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 3. Let us now adduce a few reasons for dealing 
 with what still remains of the Aberdeen Case in a 
 spirit of tenderness, of conciliation, of generosity, of 
 self-denial on both sides of the House, in the coming 
 General Assembly of 1880. 
 
 Misunderstandings have manifestly existed from 
 the commencement, and imagined dangers have been 
 so exaggerated, that a panic has seized many 
 minds, which cu^cumstances have not tended to 
 aUay. 
 
 We have had too much ecclesiastical discussion, 
 and too little calm, brotherly, prayerful conference. 
 In self-defence, as we saw. Professor Smith demanded 
 a libel ; and during the three intervening years there 
 has been no opportunity for that quiet, reasonable 
 deahng mth liim which is so desirable. A man 
 under libel, let us remember, cannot, in the nature 
 of things, commit himself in confidential intercourse 
 to those who are seeking to bring the hbel to a 
 judicial decision. 
 
 Is it necessary then for the Supreme Coin-t of our 
 Church, composed as it is of Christian men, and 
 after all that has ah-eady emerged in this case, to 
 insist on carry mg it on to judgment and the bitter 
 end of deposition ? The last General Assembly, as 
 we saw, was almost equally divided on the question 
 at issue. Is there no call upon us, in that view, to 
 
by a Pi''e-Disruptio7i Elder. 39 
 
 proceed with generosity and largeness of heart ? 
 Might not a regard to their owai personal consistency, 
 on the part of individuals, be merged in the common 
 good ? Might not peace be restored in our Church, 
 and this still youthful Professor, after due and 
 solemn but kindly admonition, be reponed in his 
 much-loved position, and be sent back to the 
 ingenuous students who have been looking for 
 him so long, with the sanguine hopefuhiess of 
 youth ?^ 
 
 There is reason to fear that if hard extremities 
 shall be resorted to in this case, the Free Church of 
 Scotland may discover, at no distant date, that she 
 has committed a blunder. It is possible, that a 
 luminous generahsation, reached by some gifted 
 mind, may make it clear beyond dispute, that 
 Professor Smith is, even now, on the proper Hne of 
 inquiry, and not far from a discovery. Were this to 
 happen, what would be the position of this Chm-ch, 
 with all its splendid history and its present 
 salutary influence, both at home and throughout 
 the world ? 
 
 > Of course the procedure pointed at woiJd need to be carried out with 
 strict regard to ecclesiastical forms ; but that would be no difficult task 
 to men versed in these matters, and impressed with the supreme import- 
 ance of the end in view. Even in Civil Courts, the presiding Judge 
 sometimes recommends an action to be summarily compromised or 
 abandoned, for the sake of peace and other social reasons. Is there no 
 analogous mode of bringing cases to an end, in a Court of Christ's house, 
 withoiit pressing them to a judicial decision ? 
 
40 ThotLghts on the Aberdeen Case 
 
 Would it be desirable, when the gentleman at the 
 bar evidently carries the sympathy of so many 
 ministers and elders of the Church, to take a step, 
 if by any means it can be avoided, which must 
 awaken an extensive conviction that Hberty and 
 independence of thought are in danger of being 
 violated ? 
 
 For these reasons surely, the Assembly \^aQ 
 lean, if possible, to the side of forbearance, and re- 
 solve to bring the case to an end, in the large- 
 hearted manner we have ventured to suggest. 
 May we add, — not as a reason, but as a further 
 encouragement to this course, — that we may be 
 very thankful as a Church, that up to this time no 
 heresy, properly so called, has appeared within our 
 borders ; that in God's providence, we have arrived, 
 in very hopeful cu^cumstances, at the Jubilee of our 
 Foreign Mission enterprise ; and that, by a rare 
 coincidence, we shall unite, before the Assembly 
 meets, in coromemorating the centenary of Thomas 
 Chalmers — a name to conjure with, and still fragrant 
 in the memory of all Free Churchmen of every 
 shade of opinion ? Do not all these circumstances 
 combined summon us to a course of conciliation 
 and of peace ? In this attitude, as a united 
 Church, we may humbly cherish the hope that 
 our Divine Head may give us once more, in His 
 
by a Pre-Disniption Elder. 
 
 41 
 
 sovereign mercy, a new season of quickening 
 revival, and refreshing from His presence, — " open 
 ing on us the windows of Heaven, and pourint 
 us out a blessing, that there shall not be 1 
 enough to receive it." 
 
 oom 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 THE LIBEL AS NOW AMENDED. 
 
 "Mr. William Eobertson Smith, Professor of Oriental 
 Languages and Exegesis of the Old Testament at Aberdeen, 
 you are indicted and accused, at the instance of the Free 
 Presbytery of Aberdeen : — 
 
 " That whereas the publishing and promulgating of opinions 
 which contradict or are opposed to the doctrine of the 
 immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and Divine authority 
 of the Holy Scriptures, or any part or parts thereof, as set 
 forth in the Scriptures themselves, and in the Confession of 
 Faith, is an offence, especially in a Professor of Divinity, 
 which calls for such censure or other judicial sentence as 
 may be found adequate ; and more particularly, 
 
 "Albeit 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 agC; who therein, in the name of God, 
 presented, in dramatic form, instructions and laws as pro- 
 ceeding from the mouth of jNIoses, though these never were 
 and never could have been uttered by him. 
 
 " And albeit this opinion contradicts, or is opposed to, the 
 doctrine of the immediate inspiration, infallible truth, and 
 Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, as set forth in the 
 Scriptures themselves, and in the Confession of Faith as 
 aforesaid. 
 
44 Appendix. 
 
 " Yet true it is, and of verity, that you, the said Mr. 
 William Eobertson Smith, are guilty of the said offence, in 
 so far as you, the said Mr. William Eobertson Smith, have 
 published and promulgated, or concurred in the publishing 
 and promulgating, the following article and remarks, of 
 which you are the author, videlicet, the article ' Bible ' in 
 the ninth edition of the Encijclopccclia Britannica, and also 
 ' Remarks ' by Professor William Eobertson Smith on a 
 memorandum of the Sub-Committee on the article ' Bible ' 
 in the Encydopcedia Britcumica, published in the College 
 Committee's Report to the General Assembly; which publica- 
 tions, being to be used in evidence against you, are lodged in 
 the hands of the Clerk of Presbytery, that you may have an 
 opportunity of seeing the same ; of which article and remarks 
 you have acknowledged yourself to be the author to the 
 said Presbytery of Aberdeen, at its meeting held there on 
 the twelfth day of April, eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 seven. More particularly, and without prejudice to the same 
 generality, — 
 
 " You, the said Mr. William Eobertson Smith, in the 
 aforesaid article 'Bible,' published in the aforesaid edition 
 of the Encydopmdia Britannica, expressed yourself at 
 page 6375, as follows, videlicet :—' Now the Book of 
 Deuteronomy presents a quite distinct type of style, 
 which, as has been already mentioned, recurs from time 
 to time in passages of the later books, and that in such 
 a connection as to suggest to many critics since Graf the 
 idea that the Deuteronomic hand is the hand of the last 
 editor of the whole history from Genesis to Kings, or at 
 least of the non-Levitical parts thereof. This conclusion is 
 not stringent, for a good deal may be said in favour of the 
 view, that the Deuteronomic style, which is very capable 
 of imitation, was adopted by writers of different periods. 
 
Appendix. 45 
 
 But even so it is difficult to suppose that the legishative part 
 of Deuteronomy is as old as Moses. If the law of the 
 kingdom in Deuteronomy xvii. was known in the time of the 
 Judges, it is impossible to comprehend Judges viii. 23, and 
 above all 1 Samuel viii. 7. That the law of high places, 
 given in this part of the Pentateuch, was not acknowledged 
 till the time of Josiah, and was not dreamed of by Samuel 
 and Elijah, %ve have already seen. The Deuteronomic law 
 is familiar to Jeremiah, the younger contemporary of Josiah, 
 but is referred to by no prophet of earlier date. And the 
 whole theological stand-point of the book agrees exactly with 
 the period of prophetic literature, and gives the highest and 
 most spiritual view of the law to which our Lord himself 
 directly attaches his teaching, and which cannot be placed 
 at the beginning of the theoretic development without making 
 the whole history unintelligible. Beyond doubt the book is, 
 as already hinted, a prophetic legislative programme, and if 
 the author put his work in the mouth of Moses instead of 
 giving it, with Ezekiel, a directly prophetic form, he did so 
 not in pious fraud, but simply because his object was, not to 
 give a new law, but to expound and develop Mosaic 
 principles in relation to new needs. And as ancient writers 
 are not accustomed to distinguish historical data from 
 historical deductions, he naturally presents his views in 
 dramatic form in the mouth of JNIoses.' As also, in your 
 said * Eemarks or Memorandum of the Sub-Committee on the 
 article 'Bible,' you expressed yourself as follows, videlicet, page 
 20 : — ' When my position is thus discriminated from the ~ 
 theories of those who, like Kuenen, ascribe the origin of 
 Deuteronomy to a pious fraud, I do not think that it will be 
 found to involve any more serious innovation in our con- 
 ception of the method of revelation than this : that the written 
 record of the revelation of God's will which is necessary unto 
 
46 Appendix. 
 
 salvation, makes use of certain forms of literary presentation 
 which have always been thought legitimate in ordinary com- 
 position, but which were not always understood to be used 
 in the Bible.' And at page 21 of the said 'Eemarks,' you 
 expressed yourself thus : — ' It is asked whether our Lord does 
 not bear witness to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. 
 If this were so, I should feel myself to be on very dangerous 
 and untenable ground. But it appears to me that only a 
 very strained Exegesis can draw any inference of authorship 
 from the recorded words of our Saviour.' All which, or part 
 thereof, being found proven against you, the said William 
 Eobertson Smith, by the said Free Presbytery of Aberdeen, 
 before which you are to be tried, or being admitted by your 
 own judicial confession, you, the said Mr. William Eobertson 
 Smith, ought to be subjected to such sentence as the gravity 
 of the case, the rules and discipline of the Church, and the 
 usage observed in such cases, may require for the glory of 
 God, the edification of the Church, and the deterring of 
 others holding the same sacred office from committing the 
 like offences in all time coming." 
 
 I-niNTFI) BY T. AND A. CONSTABI,E, PRINTKRS TO HER MAJESTY, 
 AT THE EDINBHROH UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
Date Due 
 
BW5546.S65B4 
 sT^ ' Thoughts on the Aberdeen case 
 
 ^rinceton Theological Semmary-Speer Libr,