"That a man cannot fairly be convicted of heresy, for using expressions that may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doctrines, if they may also admit of a more favorable construction: because, no one can tell in what sense an ambiguous expression is used, but the speaker or writer, and he has a right to explain himself; and in such cases, candor requires that a court should favor the accused, by putting on his words the more favorable, rather than the less favorable construction. Another principle is, that no man can rightly be convicted of heresy by inference or implication; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those consequences which may legitimately flow from his assertions. Many men are grossly inconsistent with themselves; and while it is right, in argument, to overthrow false opinions, by tracing them in their connections and consequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion which he disavows" (Craighead Case: "Minutes of the General Assembly," 1824, p. 122).

It is necessary for me to say again what I have said before the Presbytery and also before the General Assembly, that the process against me was instituted without giving me any opportunity to make such explanations as might have rendered a process unnecessary. The process began with a violation of law. I was entitled to make those explanations before process was begun. You ought to have given me the privilege. It was my right under Presbyterian law and ecclesiastical practice. You did me a great wrong then; you cannot deprive me of my legal right to make these explanations now. You are jurors, under your solemn obligation in a court of Jesus Christ, and in the Divine Presence you must give heed to my explanations and judge according to them. You cannot find me guilty unless you find that the explanations I shall give of my statements are contrary to essential and necessary articles of the Westminster Confession and of Holy Scripture.

II

THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY

In order to save valuable time, I shall venture to consider Charges I. and II. together. This may be done with propriety for several reasons: (1) They both relate to the same general subject, namely, “fountains of divine authority." (2) They

both assert the same essential doctrines of Holy Scripture and the Standards to which my teachings are alleged to be contrary. (3) They both cite the same passages from Holy Scripture and from the Standards of the Church in evidence.

The charges differ in two respects: (1) in several citations from the Inaugural Address; (2) in the statements of doctrines taught by me. I shall therefore consider first of all that which is common to the two charges, and afterward what is special under each of them.

The charges have three parts: (1) the doctrines stated as the essential doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; (2) the doctrines attributed to me; and (3) the charge that the doctrines attributed to me are contrary to the said essential doctrines."

66

Let us test these three parts in their order.

(1) The essential doctrine of our standards is said to be "that the Holy Scripture is most necessary, and the rule of faith and practice."

It is plain that two doctrines are here stated. The two doctrines are (1) "that the Holy Scripture is most necessary," and (2) "the rule of faith and practice." These two doctrines might have been embraced under a more general statement of doctrine if the prosecution had chosen to do so. But in fact they state them as two different doctrines. You have decided to try them together, but to vote on each charge separately.

I admit that the doctrine, "that Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and practice," is an essential doctrine of our Standards and of Holy Scripture. There is no evidence required to prove that proposition in the Charge. I admit that the doctrine that "Holy Scripture is most necessary" is a doctrine of the Westminster Confession. I am not prepared to admit that the statement of that doctrine in the Westminster Confession is essential in the form of its expression. But whether it be essential or not, is immaterial. I do not care to argue that question, for the reason that I firmly believe that "Holy Scripture is most necessary" in that exposition of the phrase which the context and the language demand. I subscribe to both of these doctrines entirely, sincerely, and without any reservation whatever. But

it is evident that there is a difference of interpretation of these two doctrines between the prosecution and the defendant. They have the right to prove that their interpretation is the necessary interpretation, and that my interpretation is the incorrect interpretation. They have given you no such proof; I have now the right to give you the correct interpretation of these phrases. I shall consider the evidence offered from Holy Scripture at this stage, the evidence from our Standards later on. The question to be determined in our study of these passages of Scripture is simply this. Do they show that Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and practice, or that Holy Scripture is most necessary, and in what sense?

(1) Is. viii. 20 was shown to be irrelevant in my Response last year. I renew my objection to it as follows:

The passage is incorrectly translated in the version used, for the meaning "there is no light in them," is not justified. The Revised Version renders "surely there is no morning for them," they have no hope of a dawn of brighter things. The proper rendering is:

"When they say unto you, Seek unto the necromancers and unto wizards; "Ye chirpers and mutterers, should not a people seek unto their God? "On behalf of the living will they seek, unto the dead for instruction and for testimony?

"If they say not so, who have no dawn," etc.

This passage has no reference whatever to the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them; but is a rebuke of the people of Judah for seeking necromancers and wizards, rather than the living God (pp. 44, 45).

They are not warned against seeking God in the forms of the Reason or the Church. They are not taught that Holy Scripture is most necessary, or that Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and practice. The prosecution insist upon the rendering of King James' Version and upon the reference to Holy Scripture. But the Church has not indorsed their version or their interpretation, and you cannot insist upon them as tests of orthodoxy.

(2) Matt. x. 32, 33:

"Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny

me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

Our Saviour here tells His disciples what may be expected in the final day of judgment. Then those who have confessed Christ will be confessed before the Father and those who have denied Christ will be denied. This passage has nothing whatever to do with the mode in which Christ becomes known, whether through Bible, Church, or Reason. Jesus does not assert that Holy Scripture is most necessary, but that confession of Him is most necessary. He has nothing to say about those who neither confess nor deny Him through lack of knowledge of Christ. The denial here spoken of is the antithesis of confession. It is not the attitude of the careless or indifferent, or of those who have not yet been convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus or of the divine authority of Holy Scripture. It is solely and alone of those who have definitely examined the claims of Christ and have deliberately and finally denied Him before men. If the prosecution think that Martineau is such a man, I do not agree with them. But I agree with them as to the fact that all those who thus deny Christ will be denied of Christ in the judgment. Now I ask the court whether I am to be condemned simply on the spider's web of connection that any one may see between this text and the experience of Martineau? Have I said in my Inaugural that men may so deny Christ and be saved? I have not.

(3) Luke xvi. 29-31:

“But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, Father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead."

It is difficult to see the relevancy of this passage. It is doubtless a true reflection of Abraham that the one who refused to hear Moses and the prophets, that is, the witness of the Old Testament Scriptures, would not be persuaded to hear one who rose from the dead. And yet Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and we have the New Testament Scriptures in addition to the Old Testament Scriptures. As the sufficiency of the Old Testa

ment Scriptures did not obstruct the resurrection of Christ and the giving of the New Testament Scriptures, why should the sufficiency of the whole Bible prevent men from finding God also in the forms of the Church and the Reason?

If Holy Scripture is most necessary, according to this passage, then it is Moses and the prophets that were most necessary. But are the prophets so necessary that we have no need of apostles? Is Moses so necessary that we have no need of Christ? If not, then the passage does not prove most necessary to the exclusion of other things, as the prosecution would prove from their use of the phrase "most necessary."

(4) John v. 39:

"Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me.

The reference here is to the Old Testament Scriptures and to them alone.

The Old Testament Scriptures certainly bear witness of Christ, but that is not to say that the New Testament Scriptures may not bear witness of Him, or that the Church may not bear witness of Him, or that the Holy Spirit may not bear witness of Him in the heart, in the forms of the Reason.

(5) John xiv. 6:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus is the way to God, and, indeed, the only way, because He is the only mediator between God and man. But that does not imply that all men shall have the same intellectual apprehension of Jesus or the same doctrine of His person, His offices, and His work. It does not tell us the way to Jesus. Holy Scripture is a way to Jesus. This passage does not tell us so, and there is nothing in this passage to show that the Church and the Reason are not also ways to the Son of God. It matters little how we get to the way, if only we are in the way-so it matters little how we get to Jesus, if Jesus is only our way to God. Will any of you undertake to say that Martineau is not in this way? Or, if you do, will you convict me of heresy because I cannot agree with you as to the question of fact?