would never have left the Church had he not been excommunicated.

But if it is a sin for a Church to exscind its members (except for the gravest cause), it is also a sin for a member lightly to leave a Church in which he is useful. His usefulness is prima facie evidence that he is where God intends him to be. But he thinks he is not in harmony with "the views commonly received among us." How does he know he is not? Nothing is more difficult to define than the views commonly received. Besides, he is not required to conform to these views, or to the views of the majority of the Assembly. How absurd it would be to require a minister periodically to accept the views of the majority of the General Assembly, or the system of doctrine commonly held by Presbyterian ministers.

So much of this article was already in type before I saw Dr. Ecob's article in The Evangelist of March 31st. That article leads me to review the ground. It is unnecessary to protest that I would not intentionally "offer a premium to intellectual dishonesty."

We find ourselves confronted by a "condition, not a theory," and probably many Church officers have had occasion latterly to inquire what obligations they have actually taken upon themselves. My contention is simply that a contract is to be interpreted according to the fair and natural meaning of the language. When one has avowed his belief in the Scriptures as an infallible rule and is accused of inconsistency because he does not accept their every statement as inerrant, he has a right to say the two things do not necessarily go together. The subscriber can not be held to more than the language he has used fairly means.

So far I suppose every one will agree with me. But one thing more must be said: language does not mean the same thing to-day that it did two hundred years ago. It may be

true that the Church of the seventeenth century believed the doctrine of the Confession to be in every point identical with that of the Scriptures, and tried to have its officers affirm this at ordination though I doubt both propositions. Nevertheless, the Church of to-day does not read this identity of doctrine in the formula of ordination; is not this admitted on all hands? What else does the Revision movement mean? The Church of to-day still requires assent to the proposition that the Standards contain the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, yet it does not understand the words in the strict sense I have described above. Now, when I am asked to assent to these words, I ask myself again, What do they fairly mean? Verbal legerdemain and logical contortion are as distasteful to me as to any one. But when I ask myself in all seriousness this question, it seems to me quite clear that the words, as construed by the Church to-day, allow a considerable difference of doctrinal opinion. My only desire is to understand the construction now put upon them by the Church.

We must draw the line somewhere, as the man said who refused to invite his father and mother to his wedding. My contention is that in this difficult and delicate matter the Church has herself undertaken to draw the line, and that she has undertaken to draw it by judicial process. 66 'An offence is

any thing in the doctrine . . . of a church member, officer, or judicatory, which is contrary to the Word of God"--this is the way the line is drawn. And where an alleged error is not treated by the Church as an offense (either in that process is not instituted or in that conviction does not result), then the Church broadens her interpretation of the "system of doctrine." Not long ago I was told sharply that the Church refuses to answer questions in thesi.

How, then, we can know

what is included in the system of doctrine, except by judicial process, does not appear.

CHAPTER VIII.

CHARGES BROUGHT.

The Committee on Erroneous Teaching had no doubts as to its own mission. The purpose in the minds of the members was probably strengthened by the action of the General Assembly (May, 1892), at Portland, Oregon. This Assembly sustained the appeal of the Prosecuting Committee of the Presbytery of New York from the action of that body in dismissing the case against Dr. Briggs, and the Presbytery was ordered to permit amendment of the charges, “so that the case may be brought to issue and tried on the merits thereof, as speedily as may be practicable." The Assembly also adopted the following deliverance:

All

"The General Assembly would remind all under its care that it is a fundamental doctrine that the Old and New Testaments are the inspired and infallible Word of God. Our Church holds that the inspired Word as it came from God is without error. The assertion of the contrary can not but shake the confidence of the people in the sacred books. who enter office in our Church solemnly profess to receive them as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. If they change their belief on this point, Christian honor demands that they should withdraw from our ministry. They have no right to use the pulpit or the chair of the professor for the dissemination of their errors until they are dealt with by the slow process of discipline. But if any do so act, their Presbyteries should speedily interpose, and deal with them for violation of ordination vows. The vow taken at the

beginning is obligatory until the party taking it is honorably and properly released. The General Assembly enjoins upon all ministers, elders and Presbyteries, to be faithful to the duty here imposed."

The "duty here imposed" is evidently the duty of disciplining those who are unfaithful to their ordination vows in using the pulpit or the professor's chair for the dissemination of their errors. Inasmuch as there has never been any proof offered that I have used either the pulpit or the professor's chair for the dissemination of any errors whatever, the warning of the Assembly could not rightfully be applied to me. The particular doctrine on which the Assembly supposed some to have changed their belief, is the doctrine that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Here, too, I must consider myself untouched by the charge. The fundamental and unique character of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice, I have repeatedly affirmed during this debate. If, now the Assembly meant to amend the Confession of the Church by its affirmation that our Church holds that the "inspired Word, as it came from God, is without error," then the Assembly transcended its power. The affirmation is itself ambiguous. If it means to assert the inerrancy of the original autographs, it should say the inspired Word was without error. If it means to assert that our present texts are inerrant, it goes against the consensus of scholars and the common sense of Christendom. As a historical statement, it can bring no evidence for its support. Such a resolutiou can not legitimately be taken as defining the doctrine of the Church, and, as we have seen, its exhortation to Presbyteries to be faithful has no reference to my

case.

But, as I have said, the Committee seem to have been, if any thing, strengthened in their purpose by this action. In

fact, they cite it at length in their report. This report, presented in June, was acted upon in September. It begins by enlarging its own commission. As we have seen, the Committee was appointed to consider the subject of the disapproval of Dr. Briggs, and the action of former Assemblies "which would preclude the teaching of the dangerous doctrine of errancy." The Committee now call themselves a committee to take under consideration and investigation the matter of erroneous views and teachings within our bounds regarding the Scriptures and the standards of the Church." The ground has been wholly shifted. The Committee as originally appointed was to consider erroneous teaching in our theological seminaries. One would think they would take pains to present some evidence on the existence of such teaching. But the whole of the first part of their report entirely ignores this question and devotes itself to views and teachings outside the seminary altogether. With the second part of the report, which severely attacked the Trustees of the Seminary, we are not here concerned. One assertion in it may be noticed: "In the meantime, your Committee endeavored in various ways, and especially by a courteous written proposition sent by its Chairman to Professor Smith, to secure a personal conference with him, with a view to a satisfactory adjustment of existing difficulties, which Dr. Smith declined." As the letter of the Chairman has been given in full in Chapter VI, the reader can judge how nearly it answers this description.

In regard to myself, the Committee call attention to the address on Biblical Scholarship, to my speech in the Detroit Assembly, and my two Evangelist articles. They affirm that they "have endeavored to obtain from Prof. Smith some expression concerning his purpose, and have no reason to believe that he intends to withdraw the statement made by him and published in said pamphlet." As no one ever pointed out any