if the Church has been mistaken in some respects as to this true nature of the Scriptures? The answer to this is in the mind of the movers of the resolution, that so soon as inquiry unsettles faith in a single statement of the Confession, it must be condemned by the General Assembly; rather let us say (for there is no attempt to quote definite and specific statements of the Confession) that so soon as critical inquiry shall unsettle faith in the dogmatic system which is generally taught in our church, critical inquiry must go outside the Church. A more glaring claim of infallibility in doctrine was never made by any Church.

The question raised by this resolution concerned every member of the Presbytery. It was evident from the first that the party in favor was very strong. But those of us who were of another way of thinking felt that it was not a case where a silent vote in the negative was sufficient to satisfy conscience. As we looked at it, the Presbytery were about to commit a rash and unwise act. The act was rash because based on a newspaper report. It was unwise because calculated to increase prejudice already strong enough. It was besides unconstitutional, in that it was in fact a judgment on the soundness of a man not under our jurisdiction. So much as Presbyters we were bound to say. And this was all that we did say at this meeting of Presbytery. By we I mean Professor Evans and myself, though there were not wanting others to stand by us in the minority.

Professor Llewelyn J. Evans was at this time in charge of the department of New Testament Greek and Exegesis in Lane Seminary. He had been engaged in teaching in the Biblical department twenty-four years, having been earlier professor of church history. In his own department he ranked among the first scholars and teachers of the

country. Against his orthodoxy there had never been a breath of suspicion. Of late years, owing to the state of his health, he had not spoken much in public, and in this exigency he might have excused himself from speaking. But he felt that it was a time to speak, no matter what it might cost the individual. On the questions before Presbytery he was easily one of the first authorities in the country. He saw the danger of drawing dogmatic lines so rigidly as to shut out well established conclusions, and so. of forcing the Church into an untenable position. For this reason he opposed the overture in the Presbytery, though at the meeting of March 2 he confined himself to the grounds. already stated. He felt, however, that the time had come for a discussion of the merits of the question. He believed that the positions of Dr. Briggs in the inaugural (as well as in his books) were not in conflict with the system of doctrine adopted by the Presbyterian minister at his ordination. As an exegete he felt that not to say this (or simply to say it and not show it in detail) would cause himself to be misunderstood.

Dr. Evans therefore, in spite of his physical infirmity, and in fact at great risk to his health, made up his mind to go into the merits of the question, and to ask Presbytery to hear him at some length. Our position at the March meeting was already criticized. One of the daily papers pronounced our views virtual infidelity. At the Ministerial Association I was asked to read a paper on the subject of inspiration—with the evident purpose of getting me to explain my inten-, tions." There was every reason why the question thus forced upon us should be discussed fully and frankly. In this conviction I arranged with the Ministerial Association that Dr. Evans should read his paper before that body, and that I should follow. As the matter was of interest to others than

Presbyterians, I suggested also that the meeting be thrown open to the public. After the papers were read, many requests were made that they be printed, and they were consequently published. They are here given (in the next two chapters) as originally read.

CHAPTER III.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND INSPIRATION.

I-BY LLEWELYN J. EVANS.

It is the purpose of this discussion to present some of the accepted conclusions of the best Christian scholarship of the day respecting certain features of our sacred Scriptures, as these conclusions bear on the question of the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of these Scriptures, and on the rights and obligations of those who are appointed to direct the study of them in our theological schools. It is a question which, whatever we may think of the occasion or the methods which have precipitated it upon us, has been pushed to the front by tendencies and conditions the operation of which it was not within the power of man to stem or to control. Now that the issue is upon us we must meet it, in no temper of suspicion, prejudice, or partisanship, but in a frank, manly, straightforward way, and in a spirit of loyalty to the truth, to our church, and to God. As to the personal form which the issue has taken, as a movement to challenge and to invoke the formal and authoritative condemnation, by the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, of certain utterances respecting the Scriptures, and Scripture truths, recently made by a prominent theological professor in our church, I shall have very little directly to say. I am

not concerned to justify the utterances of my brother professor in detail. In that particular, my friend is abundantly able to take care of himself. If, as I confidently hope, the views which are here urged shall obtain from the Church, in its ultimate decision, the recognition which is claimed for them as scriptural, evangelical, confessional, scientific, reverent, and indispensable to the satisfactory and permanent solution of the great problems of our age, and to the harmony of religious faith with scientific and critical processes and results, I have no fear that any one will be wronged. The principles which are at stake are to my mind more vital than any personal issue. The movement of which I have spoken, and the utterances in the press and elsewhere which have accompanied and interpreted its inception and purpose, convince me that the time has come for a definite understanding respecting the rights of Christian Scholarship in the Biblical departments of our Theological Seminaries. That is a question in which I may be pardoned for feeling an intense personal interest. It is a question which affects my calling, my work, my very life. If there is any thing in which my whole being is wrapped up, it is the study and teaching of the Word of God. If there is any thing that I love with every fiber of every heart-string, it is that blessed old book. If there is any thing for which, so far as I know myself, I would gladly lay down my life, it is that this Book may be known and read throughout the length and breadth of the world as the guide of lost souls to heaven. It is because I believe in this Book with a conviction and love which grow with every year's study of it, that I take my present position. And it is because I believe that, in order the sooner and the better to accomplish its mission in the world, it must be rescued out of a false position, and be put before the world where it puts itself, that I would fain help in clearing off the stumbling-blocks which mistaken zeal has put in the way of inquiring souls, and dig down through the quick