Morning journal and courier., 1894-05-25
PROFESSOR smIrR,s APPEAL.

He Declared the EvIdence by which
He Was Convicted as Defective-In
No Way Had He Impugned the
Essential Doctrine of the westmin-
sIer Confession.
SARATOGA, May "a The interest In the
case of the appeal of Professor Smith from
the findings of the Cincinnati Presbytery
and OHIO synod on charges of heresy was
early manifested this morning by large
attendance of spectators at the meeting of
the Presbyterian general assembly.
At 1910 the assembly was constituted
as court and the reading of the records
in the case proceeded with. Thess papers
contain the record of the synod, the notice
of appeal, and the appeal of Professor
Smith.
After the reading of these papers. the
assembly began to entertain the appeal,
AID argument was begun by Professor
Smith. Ths reading of the full records
was waived except so far as they were to
be used In the argument.
Professor Smith argued that the prelir1-
mary proceedings of the presbytery were
technically informal. The doctrine is not
essential or fundamental, therefore his
| teachings that the Bible contained errors
was not a crime under Presbyterian law.
he challenged them to prove that the doc
| trine of inerrancy of the scriptures was
fundamental. He explained at length his
| idea of the chronological and scientific En-
rors of the Bible and cited examples of in
| consistency and contradictions IN the
Bible. There was nothing, he said, In the
| Westminster confession nor in the judicial
| decisions of the church until 1898 which
| which marked this doctrine as essential.
He examined the two arguments of inner
| rsncy advanced by the conservatives. that
| 1t was taught by the Bible itself and by
| the Westminster standards.
In the afternoon Professor Smith re
| sumed his argument, taking up the ques-
| ton of evidence adduced to sustain the
| two charges on which he was convicted.
| He declared this evidence to be defective
| in that the language ussd by him was not
| cited by the prosecuting committee, but
they presented instead their view of what
| occasion of the address on which the
charges sgsinst him were based. He had
| prepared 1t as an argument In debate
intended to throw ligh. on q question be-
fore the Cincinnati Presbytery. 1t was
| fully justified by the liberties of debate.
The circumstances of the church
at the time of the address, March,
1891, were different from those at the time
of the trial He held that the views of the
church had changed, and that his convic-
ton on views expressed 30 long before was
an ex-post faeto judgment. 1t was in the
midst of the revision movement and the
| spirit of the church seemed to invite an
examination of doctrine. At such q time
any one who has a clear notion of the true
state of the case has call to instruct his
fellows. The conditions of the problem
were such as to justify the address. At
| that time the theory of verbal inspiration
| of the present scriptures prevailed. This
| theory was uutsnable, there must be q
reconstruction. Was Ii not lawful, was IL
not right, was it not necessary that the
subject should be debated on all sides in
| order that the best understanding be
reschedl
Professor Smith explained the old theory
| of respiration at length, claiming that one
proved error In the sculptures makes 1t fall
| to the ground. He made much of the fact
that original autographs Ct the Bible were
not accessible and that 1t could OF be said
of them that they were absolutely free from
error. He knew of the existence of dis
crepancies In the present Bible and 1t was
not crime to say there may be errors In
the originals. He discussed the evidence
sdduced on the trial from the Bible and
from the confession of faith. He explained
the true teachings off inspiration and in
errsncy and he showed that his doctrines
were not in any way contrary to the scrip
lures, and that he had in no way impugned
the essential doctrine of the Westminster
confession. He closed with an earnest
plea for liberty. Said he:
"The correct answer to this question
concerns you more than 1t concerns me.
The ministerial usefulness of one man lie
indeed a small thing. When we have done
all we are Improbable servants. But to
have q great church 60 in the face of we'll
ascertained facts Is not o small thing. To
have the supreme court of euch q church
moved by private opinion rather than by
plain and obvious statements of it's creed
Is not small thing These are matters of
greatest weight. To have wrong action
In these places would be Q cslsmity-s
disaster whose magnitude we can hardly
| estimate"
DIR. William McKibbIn of Cincinnati
! presented the case for the prosecution.