SPECIFICATION 8.

He teaches that the disclosures of religious experience given by the inspired authors of the Psalms are not in accord with the mind of the Holy Spirit, and free from moral defect, but are simply the experiences of imperfect and fallible, though pious men.

SPECIFICATION 9.

He teaches that the assertions made by the inspired authors of the Psalms are not to be relied upon as absolutely true.`

SPECIFICATION 10.

He teaches that the last twenty-seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are not correctly ascribed to him.

SPECIFICATION 11.

He specifically affirms the impossibility of the Old Testament Scriptures being free from all error, whether of doctrine, fact or precept.

CHARGE III.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., a minister in said Church, a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in a pamphlet entitled "Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration," while alleging that the Holy Scriptures are inspired, and an infallible rule of faith and practice, with denying in fact their inspiration in the sense in which inspiration is attributed to the Holy Scriptures, by the Holy Scriptures themselves and by the Confession of Faith.

SPECIFICATION 1.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with the unprofitableness of portions of the sacred writings.

SPECIFICATION 2.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with error of fact in their affirmations.

SPECIFICATION 3.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with such unreliability in their utterances that the truth of events can not be ascertained from their utterances themselves.

SPECIFICATION 4.

He teaches that the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is consistent with a bias in the inspired writers, rendering them incapable of recording the truth of events because incapable of believing it.

At the meeting, November 14th, I first objected to three members of Presbytery sitting in judgment on the case, because they had given public utterance to their judgment on the merits of the case. One of them had used the following. language:

"We of the majority believe that the views promulgated by Prof. Smith are widely at variance with the standards of the Church. We believe the utterance of them to be a violation of his subscription to the standards of our Church. We believe it is clearly contrary to the constitution of the Church for any minister to preach or any professor to teach such doctrines."

Another had written as follows:

"Is it right or honorable that any one who has taken a solemn vow to maintain and teach the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church should continue to hold a high office of trust in that Church, not only as a preacher but as a theological professor, when he has abandoned the faith of the Church as defined clearly by the highest court of the Church, and is teaching either in the professor's chair or out of it doctrines which, according to the decisions of the supreme court of the Church, are contrary to its very constitution and subversive of its fundamental law?"

The third had sent a communication to one of the newspapers stating that I had "steadily invited judicial process and forced the Presbytery to institute it." All three of these gentlemen, after stating that they would be able to render an impartial verdict on the argument and evidence, were allowed to sit in the trial. It may be interesting to note that all three voted to sustain every charge and also to impose the penalty of suspension.

CHAPTER IX.

RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES.

MR. MODERATOR:-In compliance with your citation, I appear to respond to the charges and specifications drawn up by your committee. The Book of Discipline (§ 22) allows me at this time to "file objections to the regularity of your organization, or to the jurisdiction of the judiciary, or to the sufficiency of the charges in form or in legal effect, or any other substantial objection affecting the order or regularity of the proceeding." I know of no objection to the regularity of your organization, and I have always recognized the jurisdiction of this Presbytery as the body to which I have promised subjection according to my ordination engagements. I have objections, however, to the regularity of its proceedings, as I made known at the meeting in September. These objections lie against the action of Presbytery in appointing a committee of prosecution, and are as follows:

1. I object to the regularity of this action, in that it was taken in pursuance of the report of a committee called the "Committee on Erroneous Teaching." This committee was appointed to take into consideration the subject of alleged erroneous teaching in theological seminaries, and had no authority to consider the ministerial standing of individual

members of Presbytery. If this committee were appointed to consider the subject of judicial process, this subject should have been distinctly specified in the act creating the committee.

2. I object further to the regularity of this action, that the Committee on Erroneous Teaching, on whose report the action was taken, was a prejudiced and partisan committee, appointed to represent one opinion and one only. This was avowed in open Presbytery by the Moderator who appointed the committee, and it is further evident from the form of the report itself. Additional evidence of prejudice is found in the fact that this report was given to the public prints before it was even read in Presbytery-thus circulating grave accusations against me at a time when the committee knew I could not be present to reply.

3. I object further to the regularity of this action, that it was taken without the distinct inquiry on the part of Presbytery, whether it be necessary for the ends of discipline to investigate the alleged offense. This is contrary to the Book of Discipline (§ 6).

4. The Book of Discipline further declares that "effort should be made by private conference with the accused to avoid, if possible, the necessity of actual process (§ 9)." I object to the regularity of the proceeding of Presbytery, that no such effort has been made. The representation on the part of the Committee on Erroneous Teaching that they had made such an effort was a misrepresentation, as the terms of their own letter show.

I respectfully repeat these objections here because I think them sufficient to vitiate the regularity of the proceeding. They have virtually been overruled by the action of Presbytery in appointing a committee of prosecution. I file them here, that they may be made a part of the record of the case.