ability, and resolutely maintains the traditional views of the Mosaic authorship, historical accuracy and inspiration of Deuteronomy. (See the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, April, 1891.) The writer recommends Germans to read Dr. Green's works. I modestly advise Americans in Cincinnati and elsewhere to do the same. Again, in England the present trend of thought is unfavorable to the negative school. I have seen the statement that recently Prof. Margoliouth, Arabic Professor in Oxford University, has vindicated the integrity and authenticity of Daniel; and has compelled the acquiescence in his views of Profs. Driver and Cheyne, the foremost champions in Great Britain of the negative criticism. If this be true, then so far as that particular book is concerned, Prof. Briggs's inaugural is already a back number. To put this third point briefly: For fifty years the advocates of negation have brought charge after charge against the integrity of Biblical books and the accuracy of Biblical history, only to go down to defeat before the advance of knowledge in ancient Oriental history and Biblical philology. The past unites with the present in evidencing that the Bible is an anvil which has worn out every hammer lifted upon it."

The train of argument of this paper also may be summarized (1) Two out of the many examples of discrepancy in Scripture may be harmonized by assuming errors in transmission; (2) The examples of discrepancy in general are a "part of the shelf-worn stock in trade of rationalistic enemies of the Word of God;" (3) Some critical scholars who are fully acquainted with the questions at issue do not draw the conclusions set forth in the papers; (4) The admission of these conclusions destroys the Word of God; (5) Some of the difficulties and objections have been answered satisfactorily and the rest will be some time; (6) The tide is turning in England and Germany as the author "has seen it stated.”

It ts needless to point out that calling names (rationalists and destructive critics) does not prove any thing, aud that in our Church the authority of critical scholars on either side is not conclusive. The assertion that many of our arguments have been long ago refuted is true so far-that harmonistic efforts have been repeatedly made. The trouble is that they have to be made again, for the refutations do not seem permanently to refute the arguments. The allusion to Zahn and Margoliouth as having turned the tide is calculated only to provoke a smile in any who know the real impression made by these

men.

A third paper read before the Association was a review of Dr. Briggs's Inaugural, and touched upon our positions only incidentally. In regard to the doctrine of inspiration, the author said: "If I must make either affirmation, I deliberately prefer the position of inerrancy, however serious the difficulties that confront me from the second quarter. But have I a right to require that other Christian minds shall take the same position at the peril of being counted disloyal to Holy Writ if they refuse? On the other hand, have they any right to enforce their presumption of errancy upon. me?" It is not necessary to point out that all the authors of the papers on Biblical Scholarship ever asked was that both views of inspiration might co-exist in the one Church. The doctrine of the errancy of Scripture which is often spoken of is not a formulated dogma of any school. It is only when the theory of inerrancy is asserted to be the only "sound,” or "orthodox," or "Confessional" doctrine, that it becomes necessary in the interest of truth and sound learning to show now irreconcilable with such a theory are the facts of Scripture. The judgment of this conservative authority on one point alluded to above may be given here. It is to the effect that inerrancy is not affirmed in the Westminster Confession.

"It seems to be supposed by the advocates of the absolute inerrancy of the original Scriptures in every minute detail, that their view is sustained in some way by the creed of our Church. The plain fact is that there is not a single sentence or phrase in our Confession (or, indeed in any Protestant symbol) by which a man could be convicted of heresy who should affirm that in his judgment there were errors of this class in some of the books of Scripture as originally written. Our creed is much less specific on this point than is commonly supposed much less in fact than is the general belief of the Church itself in our time. The doctrine of inspiration, as most of us hold it, is an historic growth, subsequent to the Westminster Assembly, and indeed chiefly in this century. In condemning departures from that doctrine, it is well to remember that we as Presbyterians can go no farther ecclesiastically than our own Confession warrants; later opinion, however current, is not a constitutional basis for discipline."

With every desire to be fair to these papers, then, I can not discover that they appreciate the problem, much less do they solve it. The alternative is with them either the old view (in substance) or rationalism. The last one of the three was grateful as showing that conservative New School men did not believe in settling the questions by ecclesiastical proBut even it protested against the critical views rather than attempted to discuss the real problem they present. The action of Presbytery was equally discouraging. The overture was passed by a majority of fifty-four to seventeen.

cess.

CHAPTER VI.

ACTION PROPOSED.

As this is in some sense an apologia pro vitâ meâ, I shall not apologize for the frequent use of the pronoun of the first person. I will try, however, to confine myself to the main question. The overtures to the Detroit Assembly were referred to the committee on theological seminaries, and on its recommendation the election of Dr. Briggs was disapproved. The Moderator of the Assembly was Professor William Henry Green. The chairman of the committee was President Francis L. Patton. The vote was 449 to 60. The action was at once interpreted as a condemnation of the view of inspiration held by Dr. Evans and myself. It is, however, worth noticing that the General Assembly can not decide the doctrine of the Church except by judicial process. Besides this, the Assembly, in disapproving the election of Dr. Briggs, was ostentatiously careful to give no reasons. The fact that charges were pending against Dr. Briggs in the Presbytery of New York was sufficient reason why this reticence should be observed. Even if the reasons in the mind of the Assembly were doctrinal ones, there was no method of discovering what they were. Several things had been objected to in Dr. Briggs which Dr. Evans and I did not hold. We had said nothing about the three fountains of divine authority, or about progressive sanctification. These might be the determining factors in the mind of the Assembly, and in that case we could not be involved, even constructively. The action might be a judgment that Dr. Briggs was too sanguine in

temper, or too indefinite in the use of language to be a good teacher; or it might be the expression of a vague prejudice against him in the mind of the Assembly. All that it was, in fact, was a disapproval without reasons. It was, however, taken as an evidence of the mind of the Church on the subject of inerrancy. “It means that men holding the views of Dr. Briggs, and seminaries indorsing or employing such men, cut themselves off from the sympathy and patronage of the Presbyterian Church"-such was the expression of one of the Presbyterian organs, and it doubtless represents the general conservative view.

Be it remembered that there is yet no authoritative decision that the "views" of Dr. Briggs are contrary to the Confession which is the Presbyterian standard of doctrine. This fact makes the declaration just quoted mean in effect this: "A party in the Church holds Dr. Briggs and those who agree with him to be unorthodox. Without waiting for the judicial decision which alone can decide this point, we disapprove his election as professor. Those who hold with him, and who do not hold our doctrine of inspiration, we would remove from their chairs if it were practicable. As this is not practicable, we will withhold the patronage and sympathy of the Church from the institutions which employ them." A more barefaced demand of a single party to rule the institutions of the Church under a threat to ruin them by creating suspicion against them, was probably never made.

What private attempts were made to bring the Trustees of Lane Seminary into line with this policy need not here be rehearsed. The influence of the Presbytery was brought to bear upon them in action taken December 21, 1891, as follows:

"Whereas, The Presbytery of Cincinnati and many others memorialized the late General Assembly to take some notice