to find in the ecclesiastic, or in the New Testament Greek, to find an idea to help me in this matter, and I do not find one but will show me that reconciliation is always reconciling man to God, and not God to man."

Second. That in his statement and examination he denied in effect the justification of the believer by the imputed righteousness of Christ, thereby contravening the teaching of Scripture as interpreted in the Confession of Faith. To prove this second charge, an extract is submitted from Mr. Vrooman's written statement which he read before the presbytery, as follows: "To be more specific about some particular doctrinal points, I believe God is the creator of all things, and is, therefore, the universal and absolute sovereign; that he rules in wisdom, truth, justice, and love; that there is nothing good in man but what was first in God, and that all men are righteous in so far as they confess a calling from God, and yield to it; that all false religion proceeds from the notion that man is to make his way up to God by certain acts, or by a certain faith of his, instead of receiving God's witness of himself and yielding to his government." They also submitted in confirmation of this charge an extract from his examination:

QUESTION. "In what sense do you regard Christ's righteousness as instrumental in salvation?" ANSWER. "I think that he imparts it."

QUEST. "Is it imputed to man for his credit?" ANS. "Do you mean that a man-that a tag is put on a man whether he is righteous or not?"

QUEST. "I would not put it that way." ANs. "Well, that is the idea." QUEST. "You were asked a moment ago the difference between justification and sanctification, and you began to tell us what justification was. Now, you have not answered the question as to sanctification." ANS. "I do not know the difference between the two."

Third. That in the said statement and said examination of the said Vrooman, he denied the everlasting punishment of the ungodly, thereby contravening the doctrine of Scripture as taught in the Confession of Faith. Proof: Extract from written statement, "I do not see how a man can be out of torment while in sin, for sin is hell, and hell is sin. Just how long sin will exist in a world which is God's, which he made and controls in love and wisdom, I do not pretend to know." Extract from examination :

QUEST. "Do you believe in the possible eternity of sin?" ANS. "I do not believe in the eternity of sin. I do not know but what it might be eternal.”

QUEST. “Do you believe that any are ceaselessly and endlessly punished?" ANS. "No sir; I do not."

QUEST. "Do you believe in the future repentance and restoration of the wicked after death?" ANS. "I cannot say that I do, sir. If there is anything which relieves my mind of the possibility of everlasting and endless torment, it would be that death is simply death."

QUEST. "Annihilation?" ANS. "I cannot say that I believe in that. I do not know what I believe in in that regard."

Fourth. Because in said statement and examination said Vrooman did not sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of the said church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, without equivocation, evasion or mental reservations, as required in Chapter xv., Section 12. Proof: Extract from written statement, "I claim the Scriptures as my open book. I deny the right of any man, or men, to introduce any infallible popery of human standards

between my open soul and my open Bible. I claim liberty of conscience and liberty of intellect as two inalienable rights which I surrender to none. Now it is for you to say whether you find here Calvinism. As herein defined and interpreted I can sign the standards. I do not know much about dogmatic theology. My studies and activities have been in other directions more congenial to my inclinations and my convictions."

Proof

from responses to constitutional questions:

THE MODERATOR: "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripturrs ? MR. ROOMAN: "In the light of the interpretation of this morning, I do most sincerely answer, yes.”

THE MODERATOR: "Give an unequivocal answer."

MR. ROOMAN: "The answer is, I do."

THE MODERATOR: "Do you approve?"

MR.

ROOMAN: "Yes, sir."

(Cries of "What is the answer?" "We did not hear it."
MR.

ROOMAN: "I wish to say right here

THE MODERATOR: "The Moderator will conduct this business. The question not having been heard, will be reread and the answer given. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?

MR. VROOMAN: "I do."

DR.

"That question was answered a moment ago, and it is only fair that I should have heard that answer, and the answer should have gone on record." MR. VROOMAN: "Mr. Moderator, I do not want any possible doubt or hesitancy in the mind of one single brother here this morning. I do not believe in the verbal inspiration of the standards of the Presbyterian Church, but I do believe the substantial outlines as interpreted by all that I have said here to-day and a week ago to-day; I accept them wholly and without a doubt.”

For the aforesaid reasons your complainants humbly pray that you reverse so much of this action of the Presbytery of Chicago as sustained his examination as satisfactory, and that the steps following thereupon, namely, his reception into this body and the arrangements for his installation as pastor of Kenwood Church, you declare null and void.

When the complaint came before the Synod of Illinois, it was referred to the Judicial Committee. The committee brought

in two reports. The majority was as follows:

"In the matter of the complaint of the Rev. W. S. P. Bryan and others vs. the Presbytery of Chicago, the undersigned members of the Judicial Committee, to whom the said complaint was referred, would respectfully report that the right of complainants to have the complaint entertained depends upon the question of a presbytery's being the judge of the qualifications of its own members, and, believing

that

Presbytery does possess this power, would recommend that the complaint in this cause be not entertained by the synod."

This report was signed by the chairman of the committee, Dr. John W. Pugh, Rev. T. A. Robinson, and three ruling elders,

W. B. Metcalf, C. C. Lines, and George K. Ingham. We have here an illustration of the fact that one may grow old in the ministry, and become eminent in the church, and never learn the primary lessons in parliamentary procedure. The writer recalls one of his own early exploits. He was moderating a presbytery. A motion was made calling for action which was plainly unconstitutional. The young moderator promptly ruled the motion out of order, and silently felicitated the presbytery on having one to preside over its deliberations who could guide it safely within constitutional limits. His sweet complacency was soon interrupted by one of the venerated church fathers, who informed him that it was not expected of the moderator to bear the responsibility of deciding questions of constitutional law. The young moderator's loss of self-conceit was compensated by a permanent gain of selfdistrust. He has never since been appointed to a duty by a church court that he has not carefully considered, with timid caution, the limits of his prerogative. Evidently the majority of the synod's committee had never enjoyed the benefit of such salutary training. They mistook the duties of a judicial committee for those of a judicial commission. They proposed to relieve the synod of the trouble of adjudicating the matter in dispute between the complainants and defendants. If a If a judicial committee may pass on questions of law involved in a case, they may with equal propriety pass on the evidence submitted. But granting that they are empowered with such prerogative, no case could ever get before a court. The judicial committee would decide each case on its merits, and if they decided adversely, they would recommend to the court to throw it out; if they decided favorably, they would simply ask the court to ratify their finding.

The minority report was as follows:

"We, the undersigned members of the Judical Committee, beg leave to present a minority report in the case of the complaint of W. S. P. Bryan and others against the Presbytery of Chicago, believing the complaint in order would recommend that it be entertained, and that the case be issued by a commission of Synod."

This report was signed by two ministers, G. A. Pollock and C. T. Phillips. They recognized that their duty was simply to

find whether or not the complaint was in order, and then recommend the best method of procedure. No matter what a committee's views about the constitutionality of a question involved in a complaint, the Presbyterian Church gives to its humblest member the right to have, not the committee of a court, but the court itself pass judgment on the question.

The parties in the case offered the following agreement as a substitute for the minority report:

"We, the respondents, agree to submit the whole question to a commission of Synod, and agree to consider their finding as completely final in consideration of a similar agreement on the part of the complainants. Both agree also that the complaint is in order in form, and that the number of the commission be twentyfive, and the commission to be appointed by the Moderator."

The majority of the Judicial Committee, upon request of its chairman, were granted leave to withdraw their report, and the agreement was adopted as a substitute for the minority report. The commission appointed under this motion organized with Rev. T. D. Logan, D. D., as moderator, and Rev. Ambrose S. Wright as clerk. Dr. W. S. P. Bryan, in behalf of complainants, and Dr. Thomas Hall, in behalf of respondents, appeared before the commission by its request and explained that they agreed that the papers technically correct, and that they submitted to the commission: (1), The entertainment of the complaint; (2), The method of procedure; (3), The merits of the case.

were

After argument on the first point by representatives of both parties in the case, the commission voted nineteen to four in favor of entertaining the complaint.

The next thing was to decide the method of procedure. Both parties agreed that the case be submitted to the commission on the printed evidence as substantially accurate except in regard to specification fourth, in reference to the adoption of the standards, concerning which the respondents were permitted to present evidence as to impressions made upon them by Mr. Vrooman. The evidence which they introduced was a written statement signed by Thomas C. Hall and C. A. Lippencott:

“We hereby solemnly aver as our best knowledge and belief concerning the allegation of a qualified acceptance of the standards, that the last paragraph of the

evidence must be inserted in or about the third line, and that there is omitted a solemn repetition by the Moderator of the constitutional questions, and amidst a great stillness there was given an unqualified assent."

Supposing this to be a correct version of what took place, it only strengthens the case of the complainants. For Mr. Vrooman to give an unqualified assent to the standards, after having contravened their teachings on several of the fundamental doctrines, could hardly inspire confidence in his soundness in the faith, but inust inspire distrust of his perfect moral honesty. One member of the presbytery said that "he would rather cut off his right hand than subscribe to the Confession of Faith after making such a statement as that of Mr. Vrooman." We are not surprised that he should have said this if Mr. Vrooman subscribed with an unqualified assent. One of the most interesting points suggested by this trial is the meaning of the question, "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?" We hear constantly about two classes, those who hold to a strict construction of this language, and those who construe it loosely. Is it not in order to suggest that the only honest construction to put on language is that which permits it to speak for itself? If it says a certain thing, it should be taken for granted that it was designed to say that thing. Putting this construction on the aforesaid question, it means, do you accept the Calvinistic system of doctrine as the system taught in Scripture? Do you accept sincerely, without qualification or mental reservation, all the doctrines which constitute that system? There can be no doubt in a candid mind that this is what is involved in the question, and when one answers "I do," to this question, there ought to be no doubt that he is a Calvinist pure and simple. The writer once asked a minister in the Episcopal Church (now a bishop), how one holding Arminian views could subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles? He said, "Our subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles is not understood to bind the conscience." When a man has adopted a principle of casuistry that will permit him without a twinge of conscience to say one thing and mean the opposite, is he not in training for successful competition with Ananias and Sapphira his