The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-05-25
Inspiration Not Taught
in Scripture.
IS THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE.
Nuts for the Presbyterians to
Crack.
AN ISSUE THAT WAS D0DGED.
Even the Last General Assembly
Fought Away From the PropO-
Sition Now Advanced.
AN ISSUE THAT WAS DODGED.

SARATOGA, May 24.-The only vacant
seats at the opening of the Presbyterian
Assembly were those reserved for men,
bers of the family of Professor Smith,
whose appeal was set for to-day. The
judicial committee changed the rules so as
to provide that each member have three
minutes on the rollcall to discuss the case.
The assem- bly, was then constituted court,
and after the reading of the records the
argument was begun by DR.. Smith, who
stated that he proposed to argue only six
grounds Of appeal instead of twelve.
Professor Smith sought to show that the
records of the original trial proved preju-
dice. as members were allowed to sit in
the case who had published opinions con-
corning the guilt of the accused. 1t was
further shown that the regular order pre-
scri6ed for judicial process by the consti.
tuition of the church had not been COM
piled with in the preliminary stages before
the beginning Of the actual trial.
The third point argued was that the
charges were fatally defective in that
they did not formulate the doctrine
against which offense was alleged. 1t was
expressly said that the doctrine of in
SEPARATION mentioned in the charges was
the one implied In the confession Of
faith, whereas the constitutional law de-
manded of the church that the doctrine
offended against shall be fundamental.
That which is fundamental will never be
left to inference. The doctrine of inspira-
ton alleged in the charges was cOntended
to be one not taught in Scripture or in the
confession, and in fact to be contrary to
the doctrine of the confession of faith of
the church. The inerrancy of the origi-
nal autographs Of Scripture was claimed
TO be entirely outside of the doctrine of in
spiratiOn and Independent OF it. 1t was
further shown that the doctrine of iner-
rancy has theological, not biblical, orr
gin, and that the question as it stands is
no support of the position of the prose-
cutiOn.
Professor Smith then argued that the i'm
plication of the charge contained a contra
diction Of true Presbyterian doctrine. On
this point the speaker said: "And now
we have reached the point where we may
examine the utterances of the last General
Assembly. ! do not mean. of course, that
it is the duty of this assembly to review or
revise any particular decision of the as
sembly of 1893, with the idea of setting
it aside. The confession Of faith says that
all synods may err, or have erred, or that
their decision must be examined"
Professor Smith went on to show that
the Washington Assembly evaded the is-
sue raised by the doctrine of the con-
feSsiOn in failing to declare that the
Scriptures mot only ''are the words Of
God" but are "inerrant" To say that the
original autographs were inerrant makes it
necessary to say that the Holy Scriptures
were the word of God. But, on the con-
fesson was stated to be that the Bible, as
contained in the present Hebrew and
Greek copies, is the present arbiter of
present controversies.
The next objection had reference to the
two charges upon which he was found
guilty and the lack of defniteness in their
allegations. At he close of this section of
the defense the assembly took recess.
At the afternoon session Professor Smith
continued his argument, contending that
by its verdict of guilty the presbytery
affirmed that the accused had committed
the crime charged. but that the evidence
adduced had failed to support the accusa-
ton. The appellant maintained that the
verdict of guilty implied that he denied
Inspiration In the sense implied or ex-
pressed by the scriptures themselves. but
since the scriptures and confessions con-
tain no definitions, he claimed 1t was not a
crime in Presbyterian law to decline to
say what the confession does not say or to
decline to say that God must make all he
does perfect according to our idea of per-
lection. 1t is not an offense to affirm the
facts which a careful examination discoy-
ers in the scriptures themselves.
The argument was concluded by the
claim that il cannot be a crime to assert
that Gods work is more effectualiy done
by his permitting some human error to
show itself in his instruments. This fact
has always been recognized in the Office of
the preacher, and why not elsewhere The
whole argument was briefly summarized
and an appeal made for careful consider
alton and enlightenment of the holy spirit.
The afternoon was closed by quotations
from the professors connected with the
new school branch of the church to show
their accord with the prosecution.
The evening session was taken up by
Mr. McKibben's arguments. He read ex
tracts from Professor Smiths book on in
SEPARATION. from letters and other records.
and was frequently interrupted with cries
of go on. Read further"