they are not material. We know they are there. My statement of the facts is not questioned. But if the doctrine of the committee is true, then whatever power the Word ever had must be lost. For they make its power depend on its inerrancy. And when as text critics we are asked to say that all the errors have come in by transmission, we must give our honest judgment that they can not be accounted for in this way.

The argument of the committee is that their doctrine of inspiration is fundamental because (1) it has always been held in the Church; (2) it is plainly stated in the Confession; (3) it is plainly taught in the Scriptures; and (4) it is indispensable to the Christian life. On all four points I believe I have shown the committee to be mistaken. It is they, and not I, who are the innovators. They are trying to force as a fundamental doctrine what can not be so regarded.

CHAPTER XI.

GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

The reader will have discovered that the discussion up to this point was on the sufficiency of the Charges and Specifications. It resulted in some changes in the form of the specifications, and that all the documents may be in possession of the inquirer, the amended document is given in the Appendix. The evidence adduced in the trial only established what the reader already knows-that my paper on Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration was first read in the ministerial Association and at its request. One witness remembered that he had suggested my appointment to read on this subject, and gave as his reason his surprise at the position taken by Dr. Evans and myself concerning the doctrine of inspiration at the meeting of Presbytery. As we had strictly confined ourselves to general arguments at that meeting and had not made any doctrinal statements whatever, this confirms what was said above, namely: that our defense of Dr. Briggs had already convicted us of heresy in the minds of the majority.

As there was no serious question concerning the evidence the arguments were made again on the doctrinal question. And here it became increasingly evident that the Committee were trying not me, but the specter of infidel Higher Criticism embodied in me. To their minds one admitted error in - Scripture destroyed its divine authority and led logically to blank atheism. This had been made plain by an earlier utterance of one member of the Committee, who had said in

substance; "If the writers of the Sacred Books knowingly suppressed the truth or suggested falsehood, their characters for veracity are gone. According to this,they were not even honest men, much less men inspired of God. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, is a maxim in the law of evidence. If a witness is found to be a conscious liar in any part of his testimony, the court and jury are not bound to believe one word he says. The charge brought against the Chronicler every honest gentleman would deem an insult. Particularly injurious is it when brought against an historian. Imagine Froude or Parkman under such a charge. . . If Chronicles be such a book as is alleged, no sort of inspiration is possible therein but satanic. To assert that false statements are inspired of God seems indistinguishable from blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. When the works which Jesus did were declared to be the works of the devil, he declared that sin to be unpardonable. What is the difference between attributing to Beelzebub the works of the Holy Ghost and attributing to the Holy Ghost the proper works of Beelzebub? If one be the sin which hath never forgiveness, what is the other? It were better far to deny all inspiration; that would be simply a negation; to assert an inspiration, of falsehoods is nothing less or other than blasphemy."

This language shows plainly enough that the Committee were incapable of apprehending the real point at issue, or unwilling to apprehend it. When challenged for not charging the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in their indictment, and in consistency urging the penalty of excommunication, they excused themselves by saying that my views lead logically to that sin, though I had not consciously committed it. Analysis of their later argument shows that they were striving to convict not me but the [supposed] logical consequences of my position. "If we accept the premises of mod

ern criticism, we must accept its conclusions. The Bible at once sinks to the level of other books. It is no longer God's revelation to men. Its supernatural character is at once lost. The Old Testament ceases to be preparatory for Christianity as the religion of a Divine Revelation. There is no sin and no need of a Savior. From this point of view, we can very readily accept the position of a Haeckl, and deny the existence of a personal God. We can not see any stopping place. If we relinquish the Bible. and the present discussion involves this, what have we in its place?"

Now let us be frank. If the present discussion involves this, then we must give up the Bible. The position of the Committee is that of Drs. Hodge and Warfield-that one proved error overthrows the Bible. In that case the Bible is already overthrown, for the single proved error is easily found. But, even if this were true, this logic of the Committee could not rightly be forced on one who refuses to receive it. One who is obliged to admit the existence of error, and who yet keeps his Bible and accepts the Confessional assertions concerning it, ought to be safe from conviction, even if it be at the expense of logic. The Committee had no reason to ignore the fact that I do not accept the conclusions to which they would force me. So far from denying, I have strongly asserted the reality of supernatural revelation. The Old Testament I believe fully to be "preparatory for Christianity as the religion of a Divine revelation." The reality of sin, the need of a Savior, the existence of a personal God, I maintain in the strongest terms, and also that these are made known to us in the Bible. How it could be said that "no enemy of Christianity teaches any thing more injurious" than I teach surpasses my comprehension.

The Chairman of the Committee compared the higher criticism to the Jinnee in the Arabian Nights who was sealed up

in a small jar. When the jar was unstopped, a vast cloud of smoke issued from it which finally took the form of a dreadful giant. In me they insisted this spirit of evil might be crushed. It may be doubted whether the Presbytery actually had the power implied in the comparison. The same gentleman read from Dr. Howard Osgood, who, after naming sixteen representative higher critics, adds: "These authors would all agree in the clear statement and logical position of Professor Kuenen: 'It is the common conviction of all the writers of the New Testament that the Old Testament is inspired of God, and is thus invested with Divine authority. The remark made, as it were in passing, in a passage of the Fourth Gospel, that the Scriptures can not be broken, is assented to by all the writers without distinction. It is unnecessary to support these statements by quoting passages. Such passages are, as every one knows, very numerIts judgment may be regarded as diametrically opposed So long as we regard and judge the authors of the New Testament solely and only as expositors of the writings of the Old Testament, we stand in fact in the presence of this dilemma. We must either cast aside as worthless our dearly bought scientific method, or must forever cease to acknowledge the authority of the New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the Old. Without hesitation, we choose the latter alternative."" The speaker for the prosecution added: "And that is the issue: whether the combined testimony of the Word of God, in support of its inspiration, is to stand against the critical theories of Kuenen and his school." The reader will understand, after reading these utterances, why I said in reply that the Committee were arguing the case of all the higher critics in Germany, France, Holland, and Great Britain. For myself, I have never taken a brief for Kuenen or set up any dearly bought scientific method" against the Word

ous.

to ours.

66