650 



PRESBYTERIANS. 



inspiration when the standards had hitherto 

 only emphasized the fact of inspiration ; because 

 it was dogmatizing on a matter of which we 

 necessarily have no knowledge ; because it was 

 insisting on an interpretation of the standards 

 which they had never borne, and which on their 

 face was impossible ; because it was setting up 

 an imaginary Bible as a test of orthodoxy ; be- 

 cause it was disparaging to the Bible we have 

 and endangering its authority under the pres- 

 sure of a prevalent hostile criticism. An answer 

 was prepared to be spread on the minutes, to- 

 gether with the protest affirming that the decla- 

 ration imposed no new test of orthodoxy and set 

 forth no new theory of inspiration, but only 

 reaffirmed certain statements in the Confession 

 of Faith and the Larger Catechism ; and a resolu- 

 tion was also recorded declaring that the Bible 

 as we now have it, in its various translations 

 and versions, when freed from all errors and 

 mistakes of translators, copyists, and printers, 

 is the very Word of God, and consequently 

 without error. 



After Proceedings in the Case, of Prof . Briggs. 

 After the adjournment of the General Assem- 

 bly, Prof. Briggs published a letter charging the 

 responsibility for the action of that body upon 

 " the reactionary theologians of the school of 

 Breckinridge," who, he said, had "exhausted 

 their power in suspending one man from the 

 ministry and in making new definitions of dog- 

 ma and new precedents of law," and indicating, 

 on the assumption that a minority of the Church 

 had violated the constitution, what, in his opin- 

 ion, liberal Presbyterians should do under the 

 circumstances. The lines of battle, he said, 



should be (1) legal and (2) doctrinal. The legal lines 

 are those for which the appellee contended (a) that 

 there should be no appeal by a public prosecutor 

 against a verdict of acquittal ; (6) that a presbytery 

 can not appoint a committee of prosecution which, 

 will be independent of the presbytery ; and (c) that 

 the jurisdiction of the synod can not be taken from it 

 at the pleasure of the General Assembly. The doc- 

 trinal lines are: (a) That Holy Scripture is the only 

 infallible rule of faith and practice : (o) that a minister 

 is bound only to the system of doctrine contained in 

 the Westminster Confession; (c) that the General 

 Assembly can not make new definitions of dogma, 

 either by deliverance or by a final judgment in a 

 heresy trial. 



Having advised action by presbyteries and indi- 

 viduals for asserting and vindicating the consti- 

 tutional rights of the presbyteries, the writer 

 continued : 



The Presbyterian Church is a constitutional 

 church, which has in its form of government a pre- 

 scribed course of procedure for amendments of its 

 definitions of faith and of law. If a General As- 

 sembly by a majority vote make new law and new 

 doctrine, it makes them by unconstitutional proced- 

 ure, which no minister or layman is -under obligation 

 to obey, but which he is under bonds to resist to the 

 utmost as illegal and revolutionary. Therefore no 

 minister or layman should feeL under any obligation 

 to retire from the Presbyterian Church on account of 

 the illegal acts of the late General Assembly. Every 

 true Presbyterian should rather be challenged to de- 

 fend the constitution against those who have tram- 

 pled it under foot. 



The appeal of Prof. Briggs to the Synod of 

 New York against the action of the presbytery 



was heard in October. It embraced five com- 

 plaints, of which one related to the status of the 

 prosecuting committee ; two were based on the 

 refusal of the presbytery to sustain objections 

 to the amended charges ; a fourth was based on 

 the refusal to strike out the concluding para- 

 graph of the amended charges ; and the fifth on 

 the action of the presbytery declaring the evi- 

 dence offered by the prosecution competent. 

 The synod dismissed all the complaint, alleging 

 as its reason that the merits of the case had 

 been heard on appeal, and a final judgment 

 given by the General Assembly covering the 

 whole case. The committee added : " This, in 

 our opinion, clearly and finally disposes of all 

 interlocutory questions in those cases, no matter 

 when the cases were pending." 



The Case of Prof . Smith. Besides the con- 

 demnation of Union Seminary for retaining Prof. 

 Briggs, the report on theological seminaries 

 contained the following with reference to Lane 

 Theological Seminary : 



In the list of professors the Assembly finds the 

 name of Kev. Henry P. Smith, D. D., who was in 

 December last suspended by the Presbytery of Cin- 

 cinnati for .unsoundness in the faith. On Jan. 31, 

 1893, Prof. Smith tendered his resignation to the 

 board because of that suspension.' The board de- 

 clined to receive such resignation, but continued him 

 by formal action in the duties of his professorship in 

 the seminary. 



Where a minister is suspended, ho is suspended 

 from all the functions of his office. Among the most 

 important of such functions is that of training young 

 men for the ministry. However serious the embar- 

 rassment to the seminary, the board should have im- 

 mediately accepted the resignation of Prof. Smith, or 

 at least relieved him from the discharge of his duties. 

 Loyalty to the Church should have compelled them 

 to take such action with reference to the seminary. Its 

 charter requires that all the professors shall be mem- 

 bers of the Presbyterian Church in good standing. 

 The Assembly, therefore, is constrained to withhold 

 its approval and commendation of Lane Seminary 

 until the board has reconsidered its action in this re- 

 spect and remedied the error. 



The Board of Trustees of the Seminary, after 

 receiving this action of the General Assembly, 

 adopted a protest against the Assembly's assum- 

 ing the right to review and censure the proceed- 

 ings of the trustees of the seminary in the ad- 

 ministration of its internal affairs. No such 

 power, the board asserted, had ever been con- 

 ferred upon the Assembly, nor had the attempt 

 ever been made heretofore to exercise it. 



But if the board [the protest continues] feels con- 

 strained to put on its record its protest against the 

 assumption of power by the Assembly, for which it can 

 show no warrant, much more does it feel compelled, 

 for the protection of its chartered rights and its own 

 self-respect, to protest against the quasi-judicial pro- 

 ceedings of the Assembly in passing under review the 

 alleged proceedings of the board without having its 

 records before it, casing its censure avowedly on ex 

 parte information gathered from sources other than 

 otficial, and which the proceedings of the board show 

 to be incorrect. 



The board must further protest against the act of 

 fhe Assembly by which it summarily, with no con- 

 ference with' the board or notice of its intent, cut 

 Lane Seminary off from the approval of the Assem- 

 bly, and its students from the aid of the Board of 

 Education, so rendering the continuance of its work 

 difficult, almost to impossibility. By this act the As- 

 sembly has of its own motion withdrawn from the 



