possess this quality, they are full of deity, they communicate to us something of God. So far, then, from this being a definite doctrinal statement concerning what we call inspiration, "the essence of which is superintendence," it is a panegyric of the saving and enlightening power of the Scriptures, which is due to their containing a revelation of God, and not to any supposed historical or scientific inerrancy whatever. Its nearest parallel is the declaration of another New Testament writer: "The word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword." Listen to the whole of our passage, and judge: "But abide thou in the things thou hast learned and been persuaded of, knowing of whom thou didst learn them, and that from a babe thou hast known the Sacred Writings that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Every writing breathing the Spirit of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." Instead of having here the single dogmatic statement concerning an inspiration that superintends, we have a testimony in full harmony with the other passages we have studied, concerning the Word of God in Scripture, the rule of faith and life to the Church the source of salvation and edification to the individual Christian. Now, Moderator and Gentlemen of the Presbytery, I have examined every text quoted by your committee in defense of their doctrine. I have done it, as I believe, candidly and with an open mind. For I would rather be convinced of error than not, if I am in error. The result of the examination is to show not one text that makes for the doctrine of the committee as formulated in their charge. It must be plain to you that, so far from departing from the Confession and the Scriptures, I am in the fullest harmony both with the Scriptures and the Confession. It is the committee which is trying to read into both a theory which is an extraconfessional refinement of the theologians. The Roman Catholics are right in maintaining that the doctrine of the Church grows. In every Church there is a tradition. At first, it assumes to explain or harmonize the Scriptures. It grows by logical and metaphysical refinements on the plain doctrine which the Church deduces from the Scriptures. It then arrogates something of the authority which belongs of right first to the Scriptures, in the second place to the Confession. This is true in the case before us. The doctrine of inerrancy is a dogmatic refinement on the statements of the Confession. I have no quarrel with any who find it a help to their faith or a logical necessity to their system. But, when it pushes itself forward as the doctrine of the Confession and of the Scriptures, when it sits on the bench as judge and dictates terms of ministerial standing-then is the time to test it by the facts and declarations of Scripture. For the Protestant Church is witness that all doctrine and all theology needs perennially to be brought back to the fountain head of Scripture. "The Supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture." There spoke Protestantism! What now does your committee of prosecution propose? They propose to set up an unscriptural and extraconfessional test of doctrine. They propose to set up a doctrinal formula drawn from a review article about ten years old. They tell the student of the Bible that his results are in conflict with a theory of inspiration contained in the Confession (if there at ali) only by a precarious inference, and for which they have. been able to bring not even a single text of Scripture. On this unstable basis a minister is to be censured, perhaps deposed, and that at a time when the Church is engaged in revising her Confession, and when this very presbytery has proposed amendments that go against the letter of the standards as they are now received. Moderator: I ask no charity, no indulgence. The proposition before us is one of law. Under the solemn responsibility that rests upon you as judges of a court of Jesus Christ, you are to decide whether the committee have charged me with an offense against the fundamental doctrine of the Church. The statute book of the Church and her ultimate Code have been examined. I believe it has been fully shown that the doctrine alleged by the committee is not found there. On the ground, therefore, that the second charge is insufficient in legal effect, I respectfully ask that it be dismissed. CHAPTER X. REPLY AND REJOINDER. The reader will have discovered that the decision hinges upon the relation of inerrancy to inspiration. The charges and specifications may have been open to objection in form. But whether they were faulty in form or not, they did express the point at issue. One party held to the necessary connection of inerrancy and inspiration-the other party refused to affirm it. In order to conviction by process, however, it is necessary to show that the doctrine impugned is (1) contained in the Confession of Faith; (2) also clearly taught in the Scriptures; and (3) an essential article of the Scriptural and Confessional system. In order to prove these points, the Committee of Prosecution in their reply laid stress (first) on the Calvinistic system of doctrine as the great treasure upon which the Presbyterian Church had fixed its heart. It was, indeed, in connection with the first charge that this emphasis was laid. But the principle is the same. The distinctive principles of the Presbyterian Church were affirmed to be the especial care of the Church. It is a question, however, whether this is the theory of the Church itself. The first chapter of the Form of Government lays down the principle "that truth is in order to goodness, and the great touchstone of truth is its tendency to promote holiness." One would think the consequence of this principle to be the emphasizing of those doctrines as essential and necessary which in all communions have had the greatest influence in developing holiness. The speculative doctrine of iner rancy could have little prominence judged by such a rule, both because it is speculative and because it has not been held by many men of large attainments in piety. The attempt was made by one of the prosecutors to show the evil results of denying the doctrine of inerrancy. These were in brief the following: 1. If inspiration does not secure inerrancy, the Bible must be defective in both the embodied facts and opinions, because of the infirmity of human memory. Even where there is perfect honesty, errors are likely to result from imperfect memory. 2. Such a record of a revelation would be liable to error from the author's misapprehension of the revelation which he had received. 3. Such a record would be marred by unconscious defects of expression. Nothing is more common than for perfectly truthful men to utter not merely equivocal statements but actual misstatements, because the speakers are not masters of language. 4. If the writings be not inspired, every reader must be permitted to except to any statement, and accept only those of which he may approve. 5. In making a choice of the true and the false there is no definite principle by which one can be guided. 6. Only an inerrant record can have the power to accomplish in the human soul the work for which the revelation has been given. Man is to be subdued, to be made at once God's servant and God's son. Infallible truth and absolute authority alone can produce these necessary results. If the Scriptures contain mingled truth and error, they can not do more than develop in man their counterpart; the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, can never be produced. 7. Confusion and perplexity must be perpetual where men |