f I
$1
f
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
In the United States of America,
WASHINQTON, D. C , MAY, 1893.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
APPELLANT,
AGAINST
THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D. D.,
APPELLEE.
Appellant's Argument in support of motion to
sustain the Appeal.
Argume7it of
REV. JOSEPH J. LAMPE, D. D.,
A Member of the Prosectiting Comjuiiiee.
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
In the United States of America,
W^ASHINOXON, D. C, N'lAY, 1893.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
APPELLANT,
AGAINST
THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, B, D.
APPELLEE.
Appellant's Argument in support of motion to
SUSTAIN the Appeal.
Argument ofy
REV, JOSEPH 7, IaMPE, D. D.,
A Member of the Prosecuting Committee.
OHN C. RANKIN CO., PRINTERSp
J 34 CORTLANDT ST., NEW YOKXc
T
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
APPELLANT,
AGAINST
THE REV, CHARLES A. BRIG OS, D. D.,
APPELLEE.
Appellant's Argument in support of motion to
SUSTAIN THE ApPEAL.
In accordance with Section qS of the Book of Discipline,
the Appellants assign five grounds of appeal, viz. : Irreg-
ularity in the proceedings of the Presbytery of New York ;
receiving improper, and declining to receive important
testimony; manifestation of prejudice in the conduct of
the case ; and mistake or injustice in the decision.
Some of the specifications under these grounds have
reference only to the order of procedure. Your attention
is called to them for the reason that errors of procedure
should not be allowed to become precedents for future
cases.
I St. The first ground is that of irregularity in the pro-
ceedings of the lower judicatory.
I. The first important error was the rejection of
Charges 4 and 7 of the amended form ; for if these charges
were essential parts of the original charges, sent down
by the General Assembly of 1892 to the Presbytery of
New York, to be tried on the merits thereof, and, if Dr.
Briggs has really not disavowed the serious errors charged
against him in them, then it was irregular for the Presby-
tery to order the Committee of Prosecution to strike them
out, and the Appellants were in duty bound to bring them
here, as has been done in the first and second specifica-
tions under the first ground of appeal.
Two principal objections were made to these charges :
I. That they were new charges. 2. That the defendant
had disclaimed the teachinof with which these charg^es
were concerned.
The substance of Charge 4 was originally a specification
under the first of the original charges (Spec. 7). It
was objected to as being vague and indefinite, and, in
accordance with Dr. Briggs' own criticisms, it was made
definite. It was objected that it did not charge the con-
travening of any essential doctrine, and so an explanatory
clause was added to show the essential character of the
doctrine which had been contravened.
The 7th specification of the first original charge accused
Dr, Briggs of teaching that much of predictive prophecy
had been reversed by history, and that many predictions
had not been and could not be fulfilled. Charge 4 is more
specific. It relates principally to Messianic prophecy.
It refers to the exact words of Dr. Briggs. The general
nature so far is not changed ; the general nature of Specifi-
cation 7 was predictive prophecy, and, as Messianic proph-
ecy is a species of predictive prophecy, it is not chang-
ing the general nature to raise the question of the species
instead of the question of predictive prophecy generally.
But objection was made to the explanatory clause in
the 4th amended charge. Does this make the charge
new ? If so, then one must ask this question :
Why is it an offence to deny the fulfillment of the great
body of Messianic prediction ? Well, your answer may
be either (a) Because the word of God is infallible, in
which case you assume the infallibility of the Bible as the
ground for belief in the Messianic prophecy, or (b)
Because of the attributes of God. Dr. Briggs affirms that
the great body of Messianic prediction not only has not
been fulfilled but cannot be fulfilled. If that be the
correct view, it must be asked, What is to be thought of
Him who inspires a false prophecy, and of the words of
Jesus Himself that all things must be fulfilled ? Inasmuch
as Dr. Briggs had denied the truthfulness of Scripture,
and yet had admitted its Inspiration, the only possible
essential reason which could be adduced for the doctrine
of the fulfillment of all Messianic prediction was that it
came with the authority of God. That God being true
could not lie ; that God beinor omniscient could not be
ignorant ; that God being immutable could not change.
Undoubtedly the charge was serious ; possibly the
defendant was not aware of what he had been denying.
But, If Innocent of the charge, it was for him to retract the
assertion, or to meet the evidence of the Committee with
6
proper evidence of his own. On the contrary, he asserts
before the testimony is taken, that he does not hold any
such doctrine, and yet reaffirms the doctrine by declining
to retract the original statement. Can any one say that
such a manner of dealing with the subject did not demand
the judicial decision of the Presbytery ?
This brings us to the other ground upon which Charge
4 ^vas struck out. It was because of the alleged dis-
claimers and disavowals of the defendant.
All the eieht. amended charges alleofed certain offences.
The evidence for these allegations was contained in
.verbatim citations from the writings of Dr. Briggs, which
he himself put in evidence, and which he declined to
withdraw or retract. Prior to being called upon to plead
''guilty" or " not guilty" to the charges, and while the
sufficiency of the charges was under discussion, his
alleged disclaimers and disavowals, which were not at
that time in evidence, were brought forward as a ground
upon which Charge 4 and also Charge 7 should be struck
out. He objected, and Dr. George Alexander objected
on his behalf, to going to trial on Charges 4 and 7,
because he had never taught the doctrines with teaching
which he is therein charged. Why, then, did he consent
to o"0 to trial on the remaining charges ? Was it because
he has tausfht the doctrines therein alleged ? If that is
the reason, then why did he plead not guilty to these
remaining charges ? Why did he not disclaim these as
he disclaimed Charges 4 and 7 ? But, if he has not taught
7
any of the doctrines alleged in the amended eieht charo-es
why not go to trial on all eight of them, or else disclaim
having committed the offences contained in all ei<Tht of
them ? The Committee had no wish to find more errors
in the Inaugural than were really there ; but the duty of
the Committee was to the church, to come to a decision
as to these doctrines taught explicidy in the Inaugural
Address, which had never been withdrawn or retracted
by the defendant. A plea of not guilty is not sufficient
evidence in a man's defence. Still less is a plea of not
guilty sufficient evidence when it is not introduced as
evidence, but is brought forward irregularly as a pre-
liminary objection to the indictment.
Much fault was found with the committee for noticino-
this doctrine of predictive prophecy in connection Avith
Dr. Briggs' doctrine of Scripture, but the mandate of the
Assembly was that the case should be tried on its merits,
and this was a part of the original case. The Inaugural
Address had been put in evidence by the defendant him-
self; it was no injustice to discuss that evidence.
Having discussed so especially Charge 4, but litde re-
mains to be said with respect to the amended Charge 7.
It will be sufficient to inquire whether it was a new
charge. Charge 7 of the amended charges is a sub-
division of Charge 2 of the original charges.
The latter charged the defendant with teaching a doc-
trine of " the character, state and sancdfication of believers
■'' after death." Notice the exact words. It is not a doc-
trine of the sanctificatioii of believers after death alone^
but is a doctrine with respect to the state and character
after death. What is the state and character of the be-
liever after death ? Is he one who has already believed
in this life, or has he come to faith and penitence beyond
the grave ? On this subject the teaching of the Inaugural
Address is definite, although it might be said that the
second original charge was indefinite. To make the ac-
cusation definite, so that the defendant might have knowl-
edge of the specific offence with which he was charged, the
original Charge 2 was divided into amended Charges 7
and 8. The general nature of original Charge 2 was
eschatological. It was also so closely related to Dr.
Briggs' doctrine of Redemption, that one of these doc-
trines could not be understood to the exclusion of the
other. The Committee was prepared to show that the
defendant had taught that other processes than sanctifica-
tion were continued in the life to come, and they summed
these up in the words, state and character, as distinguished
from sanctification. Dr. Briggs has expressly taught that
more than one of the processes of redemption may go on in
the future state. The Committee were prepared to prove
this at the time when the original charges were presented,
and they are prepared to prove the amended Charge 7, to
which Dr. Briggs, in advance of being called to plead,
made the alleged disclaimer. Judicial process was neces-
sary to determine whether his written words upon
which the charges are based or his verbal disclaimer
were to be taken as the truth. The language of the
9
Inaugural is on this point unambiguous, and has never
been retracted.
The original Charge 2 deals with the subject-matter
of both amended Charges 7 and 8.
Under the specification to the original charge is cited
that passage of the Inaugural Address where it is said :
'' Another fault of Protestant theology is in its limitation
" of the process of redemption to this world." The process
of redemption is a process which corresponds to the
'' character and state '' referred to under original Charge
2. The process of redemption, according to the defendant,
is a manifold process. It includes regeneration, faith, as
well as sanctification. The denial of Dr. Briggs, as it is
called, in answer to the question on this subject as pro-
pounded by the Directors of Union Seminary, took place
before the General Assembly of 1892 sent the case for
full trial to the lower judicatory. The Prosecuting Com-
mittee reappears here with the same complaint, that
being ready to prove the charge with respect to the
defendant's views of the future life, in spite of the opin-
ions of judges who were his advocates on the floor of the
Presbytery, the general nature of original Charge 2 was
so changed by the order of the court that the mandate of
the General Assembly has been disobeyed in one of the
most important particulars.
The changes made in extracts from the Confession can-
not change the general nature of the charge. The refer-
ences to the Confession in both series of charges and
10
specifications are practically the same, the changes being
comparatively few. But it matters not whether they are
few or many, for references to the Standards are proofs
to the charges, not part of the charges themselves. In
any event, it must be remembered that the Standards
are always in the Court, both as law and evidence, and
that any part of them can be cited at any time in support
of a charee.
2. The second error was in compelling transfer of the
proofs from their proper place after the specifications to a
place immediately following the charges. Since the
Presbytery was to vote on the matter contained in the
specifications, either to sustain or not to sustain the
charges, it was the Committee's duty to show that the
statements contained in the specifications are in conflict
with Scripture and the Standards. The order to transfer
the references to Scripture and the Standards from the
specifications to the charges was made with the evident
purpose to place them where they could not be used
"effectively as proofs. This order therefore was a gross
error in procedure on the part of the Presbytery as
pointed out in the third specification.
3. The insertion of a large amount of matter into the
official stenographic report, at the request of the defendant
and with the approval of the Moderator, after the adjourn-
ment of the Court and after both parties had given
notice that they had presented all the evidence which they
intended to offer, was grossly irregular and therefore
11
more than a mistake, as indicated in Specifications 7
and 8. It needs no discussion to convince the Assem-
bly that evidence can be introduced regularly only in
open Court and at the proper time.
4. The vote to strike from the record the request of
the Committee of Prosecution, as stated in Specifications
9 and 10 ; the refusal to permit the members of the
judicatory to vote to sustain in part, as indicated in the
eleventh specification ; and the decision to give to the
unsworn statements, explanations and disclaimers of the
defendant the force of sworn, approbated and subscribed
testimony as noticed in the sixth specification, were all
flagrant errors of procedure. The bare mentioning of
them makes plain their irregularity.
5. The sixth specification refers to the new matter
alleged to have been introduced in the argument replying
to that of Dr. Briggs. If that contention had any force, it
obliges us to make the terms " new matter " equivalent to
new evidence. A reference to the artrument will show
any thoughtful man that no new evidence was introduced.
That new matter, in the way of varied presentation of the
case, in the way of illustration and argument was brought
in. there can be no doubt, otherwise the closing argu-
ment would have been but a repetition of the opening.
The argument was confined strictly within the limits of
the evidence submitted, and in every case was directed
against the pivotal positions of the Appellee. It was un-
necessary to follow the defence step by step. It was no
12
less the Committee's duty than its privilege to show in
any legitimate way which seemed most effective that he
had evaded the main issue and had not harmonized his
views with the Holy Scripture and the Standards.
The defendant errs in maintaining that we had only the
right of rebuttal. The Committee's argument was not in
rebuttal, but was the closing argument of the prosecution,
in which all the evidence submitted by both was at our
disposal for use in answer to that of the defence.
The Appellee also errs in speaking of illustration in
argument as the introduction of new evidence. It is a
well-settled principle of ecclesiastical procedure that
authorities quoted in illustration have the force, not of
evidence, but of argument.
It was therefore irregular to allow the defendant to re-
ply to the closing argument of the prosecution.
6. The twelfth specification calls your attention to the
order of the inferior judicatory, directing that each item
of the several charges should be voted on separately, for
the alleged reason that each charge contained as many
offences as it contains direct references to doctrines of the
Standards. But this is clearly a mistake. Each one of
the five charges contains but a single offence as any one
will see from a single glance at them.
The double or triple reference to doctrines of the Con-
fession does not multiply the offence to that extent, but
furnishes so many proofs to establish the one offence.
13
Had we cited a dozen doctrines of the Confession in sup-
port of a charge and in addition a hundred texts from the
Bible, they would not have made so many different of-
fences in the charge, but would have been merely so
many added proofs to establish the one offence of the
charge. If the position taken by the Presbytery be cor-
rect, then it will be impossible ever to cite more than one
proof in support of an offence.
2d. The second and third grounds of appeal refer to
the question of testimony, and they may be con-
sidered together.
I. That large amount of matter which, by the request
of the defendant and with the approval of the Moderator,
was inserted into the official stenographic report, after the
adjournment of the Presbytery, cannot, in any proper
sense, be called testimony at all. And yet it was allowed
by the Presbytery to remain on the record as competent
evidence.
In regard to the other evidence offered by Dr. Briggs,
it should be said that he declined to verify it under oath.
He denounced the request that he be required to do so
as an outrage. He was both counsel and client, and, as
counsel, he made statements, explanations and disclaim-
ers in regard to the language which his client had used,
to which the inferior judicatory, contrary to the direc-
tions of Sections 6 1 and 62 of the Book of Discipline, gave
the full value of competent evidence for making up their
final verdict.
14
This was especially unfortunate, as It has been alJ
alonof evident, we are not so much concerned with the
form of the defendant's statements as with the meaning
which he puts into the form. Had the Presbytery
ordered Dr. Briggs to put his client on the witness-stand
to make affirmations under oath, as the Book directs, it
might have been possible to determine more exactly the
value and meaning which are to be attached to his state-
ments.
2. Furthermore, the Presbytery erred in declining to
receive important testimony. We have shown that the
fourth and seventh charges properly belong to the
amended series, since the matter contained in them was
essentially in the original charges.
In these charges Dr. Briggs is accused of teaching-
grave errors. The Committee of Prosecution offered to-
produce testimony to prove those charges ; and whether
competent to prove them or not, it was certainly impor-
tant testimony, and for that reason should have been re-
ceived and examined by the Presbytery. But instead of
that the Presbytery ordered the charges to be stricken
out on the ground principally of some general disclaimers
which Dr. Briggs was alleged to have made, but which
were not specified and were not presented to the Court
as testimony.
3rd. The state of things to which your attention is called
In the specifications given under the fourth ground of ap-
peal, shows conclusively that prejudice was manifested in,
15
the conduct of the case. I need not speak of them at
length. Similar conduct by members of the Presbytery
of New York was declared by the Assembly of 1892 to
be a manifestation of prejudice.
A number of the members of the lower Court showed
a deep personal interest in the case of the defendant.
Some manifested all the zeal of advocates instead of main-
taining- the calmness and equipoise of judges.
One of the judges allowed his zeal to carry him so far
that he affirmed and re-affirmed that some of the charo-es
gave Dr. Briggs the lie direct.
The names of some of the judges are introduced be-
cause of a principle which is here involved. It is not
simply that in assuming the role of advocates they exhib-
ited prejudice. It is especially on account of the grounds
upon which they made prejudiced appeals to the Court.
Their remarks also have especial interest from the time
at which they were made.
In the closing argument for the prosecution citations by
way of argument and illustrations were made from many
eminent writers as expressive of the views which the
speaker was maintaining. It was not new evidence, for
the time of taking evidence was past. This kind of
argument was characterized by Dr. George Alexander
as a "fresh assault" upon Dr. Briggs, and another
judge insisted that new matter had been introduced.
They were called upon to specify the "new matter."
They did not and could not do so.
Their objection was to the quotations which illustrated .
16
the speaker's denial of the claim of Dr. Briggs that his
views represented the belief of historic Presbyterianism.
These extracts made every drop of Anglo-Saxon blood
in the brethren named ** to protest and boil." The quo-
tations were from men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin,
Baxter, the Westminster divines, and especially from the
writings of American Presbyterians like Jonathan Dickin-
son, Samuel Davies, Jonathan Edwards, John Wither-
spoon, Ashbel Green, Archibald Alexander, Thomas H.
Skinner, Albert Barnes and Henry B. Smith. If the time
has come when Presbyterian blood boils at the words of
such men as these, I insist that the attention of the Gen-
eral Assembly should be called to the fact ; especially
since the blood of the same judges did not *' protest and
boil '" when the defendant introduced a large number of
names as authorities in support of his doctrine of an errant
Bible, many of whom advance rationalistic, if not infidel,
views, and none of them, in my opinion, hold the true
Presbyterian doctrine respecting the Holy Scripture.
This claim on the part of the Committee, that there was
prepossession of opinion and prejudiced judgment on the
part of certain officials of Union Seminary, is not essen-
tially different from the declaration of the Directors them-
selves. This declaration was made through Mr. Kingsley,
their representative in the General Assembly in 1892.
According to him, previous to the regular trial in the
Presbytery of New York there had been an investigation
of the charges brought against Dr. Briggs. This investi-
gation was made by the officers of Union Seminary. The
17
result was the questions put by the Directors of Union
Seminary and answered by Dr. Briggs, to which allusion
has so often been made. I quote from the report of the
Directors read by Mr. KIngsley before the Portland
Assembly :
" This board had carefully Investigated the charges
' which the Presbyteries were bringing against Dr.
' Briggs and had received from him a clear and positive
' denial of each charge, on the ground of which denials
' the board resolved to sustain him, saying that ' we will
' stand by him heartily on the ground of this report ' (i. e.,
' the report of his denials received from the committee of
' investigation)."
And again in his remarks on the report Mr. KIngsley
said : "It was due to ourselves and to Dr. Brlofcrs that
" we should be true to the promise we had made 'to
" stand by him.' "
Prejudice was also manifested by the Presbytery in
allowing the defendant the largest liberty for introducing
improper testimony ; In declining to receive Important
testimony offered by the Committee of Prosecution ;
in throwing out Charges 4 and 7 ; in expressing a
desire to relieve the Committee of Prosecution from any
further responsibility in connection with the case ; and In
stating It to be their " earnest conviction that the grave
'* issues Involved In this case will be more wisely and
" justly determined by calm Investigation and fraternal
'' discussion than by judicial arraignment and process."
As the issues Involved are acknowledged to be *' grave,"
18
It would be reasonable for unbiased judges to conclude
that those issues would be more wisely and justly deter-
mined by judicial process rather than by the calm investi-
gation and fraternal discussion, by which nothing can be
determined authoritatively.
4th. The facts presented in the specifications under the
fifth ground of appeal show that mistakes and
injustice have entered into the final judgment
of the inferior judicatory.
A brief consideration of a few of these facts cannot
fail to convince you.
I. According to Section 5S of the Book of Discipline,
if the specifications of fact on which a charge is based have
been shown to be true, then the charge is to be consid-
ered as sustained. Dr. Briggs offered no proof to show
that he had not made the statements which are cited in the
specifications. On the contrary, he admitted and authen-
ticated them all. The charges were based on these state-
ments and sustained by them. Under such circum-
stances, a verdict of acquittal could be justified only on the
ground that the charges themselves were not relevant or
that they contained no valid offences. But when the
Presbytery declared the charges and specifications to be
sufficient in form and legal effect, It thereby decided that
the charges severally alleged an offence. Otherwise, the
charges and specifications would not have been sufficient
in form and legal effect. And therefore, since the charges
were sustained by the facts stated In the specifications,
19
it must be that the verdict of acquittal was not reached
in accordance with the law and evidence in the case.
2. That the charges were proved becomes still more
evident from the statement made in the verdict rendered
by the inferior judicatory to the effect that in acquitting
Dr. Briggs, the Presbytery is not to be understood as
'' expressing approval of the critical and theological view^s
"embodied in his Inaugural Address." A resolution to
that effect was introduced on the floor of Presbytery when
the voting was about to commence, possibly with the
intention of securing votes for acquittal which otherwise
might be conscientiously withheld.
But why this caveat if the views of Dr. Briggs are in
harmony with received truth ? Manifestly, the majority
of Presbytery do not desire to burden themselves or
cloud their reputation by an espousal of those views.
They must consider the influence of such doctrines bane-
ful to no slight extent.
For those critical and theological views, Dr. Briggs
was put on trial. He not only approves them, but dili-
gently propagates them. And it was the duty of the
lower Court, by a calm and impartial investigation, to
ascertain whether or not, those critical and theological
views are in harmony with the Holy Scripture and the
Standards ; and to condemn them if they did not find
them in harmony with those authorities, and thus to check
their spread and influence in the most effective way.
20
The fact that they felt disinclined to acquit the defend-
ant, without expressing a distinct disavowal of his critical
and theological views, for which he is on trial, leads to a
very strong presumption that the decision is contrary to
the evidence not only, but that those rendering the decis-
ion recoofnize the views of the defendant as conflictinQ^
with the Scripture and the Standards ; for, certainly, no
body of Presbyterian ministers and elders need be at
pains to disavow views which are in accord with the Bible
and our Creed. The inferior judicatory, in this final
judgment, has not given us either good Presbyterian law
or doctrine.
3. The presumption that the charges were proved is
strengthened by reference to the method by which the
verdict was reached. This was by " giving due consid-
' eration to the defendant's explanation oT the language
' used in his Inaugural Address, accepting his frank and
* full disclaimer of the interpretation which has been put
' upon some of its phrases and illustrations," and " cred-
* iting his affirmations of loyalty to the Standards of the
' Church and to the Holy Scriptures as the only infallible
' rule of faith and practice."
This can only mean that they have taken Dr. Briggs at
his own word. By their own confession, therefore, they
have not decided the case on the law and the evidence.
It is well known that Dr. Briggs entered a plea of
'' not guilty " ; that he claims to be orthodox and that
he subscribes to an orthodox creed. But, in spite of all
21
that, he has made and persists in making the statements
for which he has been called in question, and which have
alarmed the whole Church.
The question to be determined is, whether or not the
views of Dr. Briggs can be tolerated under the orthodox
creed to which he subscribes ; and to take his word for it
is to evade the whole issue. The explanations and dis-
claimers referred to have not been indicated in the ver-
dict. One wonders where and what they are. They are
certainly not competent evidence. Dr. Briggs has, in fact,
disclaimed nothing, but has distinctly reaffirmed all the
views of his Inaugural Address of every kind.
Is it to be expected that, if the statements of Dr. Briggs
did not relieve the minds of his devoted personal friends
in the New York Presbytery, they can bring assurance
and peace to the Church ?
4. The lower judicatory, in its final judgment, makes
also a number of vague, misleading and contradictory
statements which give further evidence of mistake and
injustice in that judgment.
It is intimated in the verdict that the present contro-
versy is unjustifiable ; that the principles at stake are non-
essential, belonging with '' truths and forms with regard
*' to which men of good character may differ," and are
within the limits allowed under the constitution to
" scholarship and opinion "; and that there has been an
effort made to convict the defendant by " inference and
22
*' implication," and by the unfavorable interpretation of
** ambiguous expressions."
Is it true then that doctrines such as the sole suprem-
acy of the Holy Scriptures as an authority in matters
of religion, their entire veracity and absolute trustworthi-
ness, and the question whether the process of redemp-
tion is confined to this life, or is to be extended to the
life beyond the grave, are matters about which Presby-
terian ministers and elders may differ, or mere matters of
opinion which the scholars of our Church may adopt or
reject ? May one who has assumed the ordination vow
of a Presbyterian minister teach that the Church, as a
great Fountain of divine authority, can savingly en-
lighten men and give them religious certainty apart from
the Holy Scripture ; that the Reason as a great fountain of
divine authority can savingly enlighten and give religious
certainty to those who not only reject the Scripture, but
the entire body of distinctively evangelical truth ? May
he teach that the process of redemption extends into the
next world? It is neither candid nor honest to evade
these questions.
The majority of Presbytery hesitate indeed, and, while
they acquit, enter a caveat. They say that "grave
issues " are involved in the case. But if the issues are
grave, then there must be something more than mere
" inference," " implication," and non-essential principles,
as to which Presbyterian ministers may differ.
23
5. It Is further evident from the language used in the
final judgment, that the inferior judicatory did not make
a decision on the merits of the case. They declare it to
be their '' earnest conviction that the grave issues involved
" in this case will be more wisely and justly determined
" by calm investigation and fraternal discussion than by
" judicial arraignment and process." What is this but to
say that they threw the case out of Court for the reason
that they have an '* earnest conviction against settling the
*' grave issues involved in it by judicial arraignment and
*' process ? "
The Presbytery was constituted a Court to try the case
by judicial process, and the acknowledgment that the
members had an '' earnest conviction " against determin-
ing the issues involved in that way amounts to a confes-
sion on their part that they were disqualified to sit as
judges. The Presbytery of New York, in the first in-
stance, decided that the case was a proper one for judicial
investigation ; the General Assembly sent it back to
Presbytery with direction to try the case on its merits,
and the members of the Court were solemnly charged to
determine the issues of the case by judicial process ; if the
majority of the lower Court were prepossessed against
determining such issues in that way, they should have
withdrawn from the Court and thus have permitted the
case to be tried by those who believe in determining im-
portant questions of doctrine by means of judicial arraign-
ment and process, as the constitution directs.
24
But it is certain that a body having this earnest convic-
tion against settling the questions in dispute by judicial
process, could not give a righteous or even intelligent
judgment on the merits of the case. The verdict is self-
contradictory. In effect, the opinions of Dr. Briggs are
declared to be in harmony with the Scripture and the
Standards, but discredit is thrown on the judgment by
the refusal to approve the very views which form the
basis of the trial. Such a verdict is unjust to all and can
do nothing to allay the disquietude which pervades the
Presbyterian Church.
We are now to show by an examination of the merits
of the case, that the final judgment rendered in it by the
Presbytery of New York, is not in harmony with the
Holy Scripture, the Standards, and with the evidence
submitted.
Dr. Briggs has disavowed nothing. He expressly de-
clares that he holds firmly to all the views contained in
the Inaugural Address. He says : " The Inaugural Ad-
" dress was simply a concentration of opinions expressed
" more at length in other places and under other circum-
" stances. The defendant is altogether unconscious of
" any substantial change of opinion on the subject-matters
" of the charges for many years. * * * The defendant
" has not asked for toleration. He claims his rights un-
" der the constitution of his Church to teach anything
" and everything that he has ever taught." (Defence,
Preface, p. i8.)
25
Nor has he made any statements or explanations which
show the views, which are the subject of these charges,
to be in harmony with the Bible and our Standards.
The bare categorical replies by Dr. Briggs to a series
of questions put to him by sympathetic professors and
directors of the Union Seminary, neither explain or dis-
avow anything ; for all but one of the questions are sus-
ceptible of more than one meaning, and the answers can
be made by one holding the doctrines of Dr. Brig;;'^s.
They give us no more light than does his orthodox sub-
scription.
It is conceded freely and cheerfully that Dr. Briggs has
made many orthodox statements and that he has sup-
ported them efficiently. No accusation is made against
him for these. But he has been charged with the propa-
gation of views which are believed to be heretical. For
these he has been put on trial.
In his Defence, Dr. Briggs made a number of state-
ments in reference to the law by which he is to be judged,
which, if accepted, reduce that law as nearly as possible
to a nonentity.
He contends that the Court must determine whether
or not the doctrines are essential to our system ; but he
contends also that the decision must depend upon the ex-
tent of the system as understood by the Westminster
divines, so that in so far as the doctrines of that system
are differently understood now than they were by those
26
divines, he is not to be tried by them. He forgets that
we have nothing to do with the opinions of the West-
minster divines. If we have to do with any, we should
follow those of the American divines, who adopted the
Presbyterian Standards of 1788 as representative of their
own views.
He maintains also that he is not to be tried by the Bible
except so far as it has been embodied and defined in our
Standards. But he does not wish to be tried by the
Standards except in so far as they can be proven to be true
by express statements of the Scripture ; nor would he be
tried by all that part of the Standards which is supported
by express statements of Scripture. The measuring-
rod, according to Dr. Briggs, must consist only of those
doctrines which are stated in the Confession and in both
of the Catechisms. If a doctrine of the Confession be not
restated in both Catechisms, then it is not to enter into
consideration even though it be shown to be true from the
Holy Scripture. This fencing about the law gives the im-
pression that the defendant is conscious of inherent weak-
ness.
There is no need of hedging and fencing. The Book
of Discipline gives the law by which a person is to be
tried in our judicatories. Sections 3 and 4 tell us, " An
" offence is anything in the doctrine, principles or practice
*' of a Church member, officer or judicatory, which is con-
" irary to the Word of God ; or which, if it be not in its
'' own nature sinful, may tempt others to sin, or mar their
*' spiritual edification. Nothing shall, therefore, be the
27
'' object of judicial process, which cannot be proved to be
'' contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or to the regulations
*' and practice of the Church founded thereon.'' It is
clear that anything which can be shown to be contrary to
the Holy Scriptures, is an offence and may be made the
object of judicial process, even though it be not embodied
or defined in the Standards ; and in like manner that
anything which can be shown to be contrary to the
Standards is an offence which may be made the object of
judicial process, even though it be not supported by ex-
press statements of Scripture, for the Standards accept
doctrines derived from Scripture by necessary inference.
The prosecution therefore have to prove the offence
either against the Scripture or the Standards or against
both ; but let it be distinctly observed that proof from
either Scripture or Standards alone is sufficient to estab-
lish the offence.
The deeree of the offence and the measure or kind of
discipline to be inflicted for it, are not for us, but for the
Court to determine. We have never said, and do not now,
say a word about the kind o discipline which should be
exercised if the offence were established ; but we contend
that the offence Is one which merits discipline.
The Craighead case, to which Dr. Briggs has referred,
was essentially different from the one in hand and does
not apply to it ; but it is maintained by all alike that if the
statements of Dr. Briggs are capable of two constructions,
he must have the benefit of the more favorable construe-
28
tion, should he claim that as his, even if the more evident
construction, is plainly heretical ; and also that he is"not
to be charged with an opinion which he disavows.
Fountains of Divine Authority.
The first and second charges refer to the subject of
divine authority and may be considered together. In
them he is charged with teaching : ''First, that the Rea-
" son is a fountain of divine authority which may and
"does savingly enlighten men, even such men as reject
*^ the Scriptures as the authoritative proclamation of the
" will of God and reject also the way of salvation through
** the mediation and sacrifice of the Son of God as re-
'' vealed therein." " Second, that the Church is a fountain
"of divine authority which, apart from the Holy Scrip-
" ture, may and does savingly enlighten men." We ask
you to notice the statements contained in the citations
made from the Inaugural Address in the specifications
under these charges, as amply justifying these charges.
On page 24 of the Inaugural, after having referred to
the imperfection and errancy of all the forms of human
authority, he states in definition of divine authority, " The
*' earnest spirit presses back of all these human authorities in
'' quest of an Infallible guide and of an eternal and immutable
" certainty. Probability might be the guide of life in the
''superficial i8th century, and for those who have inher-
" ited Its traditions, but the men of the present times are
'* in quest of certainty. Divine authority is the only
29
'< authority to which man can yield imphcit obedience,
"on which he can rest in loving certainty and build
" with joyous confidence." '■■ '■■ * There are historically
three great fountains of divine authority— the Bible, the
Church and the Reason."
The Bible, the Church and the Reason, then, are equal
in being great fountains of divine authority. The quality
of diviiTity, and the right of divine authority belong alike
to all three ; and, as such, each can be to man an infallible
guide of life, and speak to him with eternal and immutable
certainty, for he can yield to each implicit obedience,
rest on each with loving certainty and build with joyous
confidence.
It does not in the least relieve the matter to say that
the Bible differs from the other two fountains of divine
authority in being in addition also an infallible rule of faith
and practice, for according to Dr. Briggs' own definition,
the Church and the Reason, as infallible guides, can do
for men precisely the same things which the Bible does
for them as an infallible rule.
We have to do with the Church and the Reason. In
respect to them Dr. Briggs affirms : ^rst, that they can
conduct men to a saving acquaintance with God ; and
second, that they can give to men immutable certainty or
assurance in matter of religion. Martineau and the
rationalists are examples for the Reason. Newman and
the Churchman for the Church.
30
'• Newman could not reach certainty through the Bible,
" striving never so hard.'' He and the majority of Chris-
tians from the apostolic age have found God through the
Church. '' Martyrs and saints, fathers and schoolmen,
'' the profoundest intellects, the saintliest lives, have
'' had this experience. Institutional Christianity has
" been to them the presence-chamber of God." Dr.
Briggs affirms this to be true categorically, although, he
remarks : *' It is difficult for many Protestants to regard
'' this experience as any other than pious illusion and de-
*' lusion.'' (Inaugural, p. 25.)
'' Martineau could not find divine authority in the
" Church or the Bible, but he did find God enthroned in
" his own soul.'' (Inaugural, p. 27.) To him and the
rationalists, the Reason is the Holy of Holies of human
nature, in which God presents Himself to those who seek
Him. (Inaugural, p. 26.) And therefore, although it is
well known that they reject the Scriptures as the authorita-
tive proclamation of the will of God and the way of
salvation through the mediation and sacrifice of the Son
of God as revealed therein, Dr. Briggs nevertheless
would not "refuse these Rationalists a place in the
" company of the faithful." (Inaugural, p. 27).
That Dr. Briggs conceives of each one of the three
fountains of divine authority as capable of imparting a
saving knowledge of God is evident from his own state-
ments on the subject. He says : '' Unless God's authority
" is discerned in the forms of the Reason, there is no ground
" upon which any of the heathen could ever have been
31
*' saved, for they know nothing of Bible or Church. If
** they are not savingly enlightened by the light of the
" World in the forms of the Reason the whole heathen
" world is lost forever." (Inaug., 2d ed., pp. 88, 89.)
The divine authority in the Reason therefore does sav-
ingly enlighten men in the view of Dr. Briggs.
Again he says : " Spurgeon is an example of the
"average modern Evangelical, who holds the Protestant
•' position and assails the Church and Reason in the in-
*'terest of the authority of Scripture. But the average
" opinion of the Christian world would not assign him a
'' higher place in the Kingdom of God than Martineau or
** Newman. May we not conclude on the whole, that
*' these three representative Christians of our time, living
''in or near the world's metropolis, have, each in his way,
''found God and rested on Divine authority ? '•' ''-'' *
*' Men are influenced by their temperaments and environ-
" ments which of the three ways of access to God they
"may pursue." (Inaugural, p. 28.) Here Dr. Briggs not
only teaches that men may and do find God savingly
through any one of the three fountains of divine authority,
but admits that the Bible, as the only way for obtaining sal-
vation and certainty, as held by Spurgeon, is the Pro-
testant doctrine. And therefore, since the Presbyterian
Church is a Protestant Church, he convicts himself of
teaching doctrines which are not Presbyterian.
The labored argument made by Dr. Briggs in his
Defence to show that according to the teaching of both
32
the Bible and the Standards, the Church and the Reason
are great fountains of divine authority, is wide of the
mark and wholly unsuccessful.
The facts that God can give evidence of himself to
man's soul and that man has the power of verifying truth,
that he can receive communications from God, and be
the subject of gracious influences, show that as created in
the image of God, man is endowed with a moral and
rational nature, but does not at all prove that his reason
is a great fountain of divine authority.
The Church, as shown by the citations which Dr. Briggs
made from the Standards, has no authority except such
as Christ has delegated to it, and prescribed for it in his
word. The Church is guilty of usurpation whenever it
attempts to exercise authority not so delegated or pre-
scribed, so that it may become a curse instead of a
blessing, as abundantly shown in the history of the Church.
Christ is supreme in the Church and in all matters of
faith and life. But we know nothing about Him, except
through the Bible story. The truth by means of which
He saves and assures His people is treasured up in the
Scriptures, so that we are shut up to them, both for a
saving knowledge of God and for assurance. The Bible
alone tells us what we need to know about God, ourselves,
the plan of salvation, our duty and the conditions of eter-
nal life and destiny. For this reason, the Bible alone, as
against the Church and Reason, gives light in the moral
and spiritual realm. It is a light to man's pathway and a
33
lamp to his feet, by which he discovers his way through
the darkness of this world to the world of eternal light.
The Bible is as the bread of God to give life to men's
souls, for man shall live by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God. The Church is constituted of
errant men and women only partially sanctified, and the
Reason, unless enlightened by the word of God, gropes in
the darkness of sin. Neither has power to enlighten,
assure and quicken a human soul, but light and life come
from the Holy Scriptures to believing hearts, for in them
the Holy Spirit speaks with divine love and power.
In harmony with all evangelical Protestants, Presby-
terians believe that salvation and assurance are obtained
through belief of truth revealed in the Holy Scripture ;
they do not hesitate to say that, since the Holy Spirit
bears witness by and with the word of this blessed book
which has expressly set down in it the whole counsel of
God concerning all things necessary for His own glory,
man's salvation, faith and life, men who tell us they can-
not find God and certainty in these Holy Scriptures are,
as those Scriptures declare, dead in trespasses and sins.
The Scripture expressly declares that men by wisdom,
that is through the forms of the Reason, have not known
God. History shows that to be absolutely true. Reason,
unaided by revealed truth, has never been able to bring
man out of the bondage of sin to God. And, therefore,
'' it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save
" them that believe." God begets men to a new life by the
34
word of truth and saves them by the behef of that truth,
" for how shall they believe on Him of whom they have
" not heard and how shall they hear without a preacher ?"
(Rom. lo ; 14.)
Any discussion in respect to the salvation of infants, in-
capables and exceptional cases of heathen, through the
working of the Spirit, is immaterial here — no question is
raised in the charges in reference to them. The matter
in hand is wholly different. Can one having the Bible and
rejecting it find the way to God through either Church or
Reason ? The Bible teaches that those possessing the
revealed truth which it contains are saved through belief
in that truth, and not otherwise. The Holy Spirit has
given the Bible to enlighten men savingly, and it is hardly
to be supposed that He will enlighten in other ways those
who reject the Holy Scripture, or find it an unsatisfactory
source of comfort. There is nothing in the Church and
Reason, apart from the Bible, by which the Spirit can
savingly enlighten men. He bears witness by and with
the Word in the hearts of those who believe unto salvation.
Albert Barnes states very truly on i Peter, 1:23: " It is
" the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures that divine truth
" is made the instrument of quickening the soul unto
" spiritual life."
The same is true in reference to the question of cer-
tainty. Assurance stands solely on the truth of Scripture,
on God's promises. Christian assurance, resting on a firm
belief in doctrines respecting Christ and salvation, must
So
stand or fall with faith in Scripture's truth. It is absurd to
suppose, and dangerous to teach, that the Holy Spirit
would give this assurance through Church or Reason to
those who either reject or turn away from the Holy
Scripture. As Albert Barnes states in 2 Thess., 2:13:
'' No one who is not a believer in the truth can have
" evidence that God has chosen him."
That the Holy Scriptures claim for themselves supreme
authority in matters of faith and life is indicated by texts
which we have cited in connection with these two charo-es
o
and their specifications. These texts are to be taken in
their obvious meaning, and not in the strained interpreta-
tion which Dr. Briggs puts upon them.
Christ and the New Testament writers invariably appeal
to the Holy Scripture as the ultimate authority for the
settlement of all religious and moral questions. ''// is
" written " was with them a final settlement, since for them
God speaks in what is written. Christ convicted the
rationalistic Sadducees of error respecting the resurrection,
and the churchly Pharisees of error respecting divorce, due
in each case to ignorance of the Scriptures. (Mt. 22 :
29; 19: 3-6.)
With Christ and the Apostles the Bible alone held the
place of absolute and final authority. They never ap-
pealed to either Church or Reason, but brought both
Church and Reason to the bar of Scripture for judgment
and lieht.
36
In harmony with this truth of Scripture, our Standards
as cited by us affirm that " the whole counsel of God
'' concerning all things necessary for His own glory and
" man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
" down in Scripture, or by good and necessary con-
" sequence maybe deduced from Scripture," so that all
who will may become savingly acquainted with God and
gain assurance of his love ; that the Holy Scripture is
*' most necessary'' as it makes the full discovery of the
" ^^/y z£/<2j)/ " of man's salvation, the Holy Spirit bearing
witness '* by and with the word'' in the heart for the con-
version and comfort of the soul ; and that all matters of
religion are to be authoritatively settled by an appeal to
the Holy Scriptures, since the Holy Spirit speaks in them
as the " Supreme Judge."
Dr. Briggs' teachings conflict with both Scripture and
the Standards. They touch matters which are vitally
essential to Presbyterians, whose faith and practice are
based solely on the authority of Holy Scripture.
According to these views we must recognize the Church
of Rome as a great fountain of divine authority, able to
give men, without or above the Bible, a saving knowl-
edee of God and divine assurance. This would be a
complete abandonment of the Reformation position ; and
for the Presbyterian Church it would mean denomina-
tional suicide. Whether or not Dr. Briggs would regard
this as in any sense a calamity, cannot be determined
with certainty, for he regards it to be the duty of the
37
hour, in the interest of the broadest comprehension,
to destroy all denominational barriers which separate
Protestants, and to form an " alliance between Protest-
'' antism and Romanism and all other branches of Chris-
" tendom." (Whither, p. XI.)
The positions taken in his Inaugural certainly en-
title him to the dignity of chief Apostle in such a move-
ment.
Dr. Briggs' teachings respecting the Reason are even
worse than those respecting the Church. In referring to
Martineau as an illustration, he has made his meaning
unmistakable. Martineau 's late work shows that he re-
jects the entire Bible as a revelation from God, and all
the distinctive doctrines of grace, rejects Christ Himself
as Lord and Saviour, and consigns the account of His In-
carnation, Resurrection and other miraculous events to
the wonders of an invented Messianic Mythology or pop-
ular apotheosis. The Bible states : " That if thou shalt
" confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be-
" lieve in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the
'' dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. lo: 9.) Christ de-
clared : " If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in
" your sins." (Jno. 8 : 24.) '* Whosoever shall deny
" Me before men, him will I also deny before my Father
** which is in Heaven." (Mt. 10 : 33.) '' No man cometh
" to the Father but by Me." (Jno. 14 : 61.) Martineau,
therefore, in refusing to believe in the resurrection of
Christ, and in rejecting the Saviour, puts himself among
38
those to whom Christ and the Scripture deny salvation.
Yet Dr. Briggs, with a full knowledge of these facts,
states, in his Defence : ''It is plain to me that Martineau
" has orained a higher sta^re of Christian freedom and
" direct communion with God, and it is immaterial how
" he gained it." (Defence p. 67.)
If men of that type are to be heralded as representative
Christian men, if after rejecting Christ and the Scripture,
they have entered into friendly communion with God and
obtained divine assurance through the forms of the
Reason, then our entire Church Hfe and activity is a mis-
take and of all men we are most miserable. It would be
wise to close our Churches and Theological Seminaries
and to devote our money to causes better adapted to
human advancement than Home and Foreign Missions
can be.
Surely it is clear that the final judgment of the New
York Presbytery on the first and second charges, is not
in accordance with the law and evidence in the case, and
that it should be reversed.
The Truthfulness of the Bible.
The third charge has reference to the subject of inspira-
tion. In it Dr. Briggs is charged with teaching that
errors may have existed in the original text of Scripture,
as it came from its authors. Dr. Briggs admits the cor-
rectness of the facts cited in the specifications, and that
the charge correctly states his teaching on this point,
but denies that it is an offence.
39
Our Standards assert that the Holy Scriptures are the
Word of God ; therefore to say that there may have been
errors in the original text, is to assert that God may have
put into that text that which is not true.
Dr. Briggs' view of inspiration does not give assurance
of entire truthfulness in the genuine text of the Holy
Scripture. On the contrary, it enables him to teach, as
we shall show from the evidence submitted, that the oren-
uine text of the Bible contains errors.
It is in evidence that Dr. Briggs maintains three prop-
ositions in regard to the Holy Scripture which, if true,
render not merely possible, but even quite certain, that
errors pervade its contents. They are vitally connected
with his view on this question.
1. He contends that instead of saying the Scriptures
are the Word of God, the true statement is, that they
" contain'' the Word of God, using that expression not
in the Shorter Catechism sense which is equivalent to the
statement that the Scriptures are the Word of God, but
in the sense, that some parts of their contents are not the
Word of God. (The Bible, the Church and the Reason,
p. 99).
2. He makes the anti-confessional statement that there
are in the Holy Scripture certain circumstantial and non-
essential elements which, whether inspired or not,
are pervaded by errors. (Inaugural, pp. 36, 36.)
In our Standards some portions of the Bible are
40
regarded as more important than others ; but all alike
are regarded as truly inspired and entirely truthful.
3. He affirms that not the language of the Bible but
the concept or thought conveyed by the language is in-
spired. (Inaugural, pp. 31, 32.)
In his view " we cannot term the providential care of
" God over the exter7ial production of His Word " inspi-
ration. (Inaugural, pp. 31, 32. BibHcal Study, p. 161.)
Thus the entire text of the Bible from beginning to end
is exclusively of human and not of divine origin. It is
the human setting in which the '' divine jewel " of the
substance of the thought or the concept is held. The
writers of the Bible received concepts of divine truth
which they were left to dress up in human language. The
Bible is therefore only the fallible expression of divine
truth of which the concepts were imparted to the writers
by God. As no one has ever seen or known those con-
cepts in their naked reality, we can never be entirely cer-
tain, according to Dr. Briggs, that the human authors of
the Bible received anything more than a fallible impression
of the truth. At all events, if the divine inspiration did not
extend to the language of the Bible then the revelation
which God made to the writers perished with them. The
record of that revelation at least is only human and fallible
and the Scriptures are but the human account of the Word
of God — not that Word itself. If so the Bible is only one
of the many good books which contain divine truth, and
41
is not the Book of books, which Christians have always
considered it to be.
Holding such views, Dr. Briggs naturally enough
teaches that the genuine text of Scripture may contain
errors and he need find no difficulty in holding that it
must contain errors since nothing human is free from
error.
So after having pointed out a number of cases of
what he regards as biblical errors, Dr. Briggs states
(Defence, p. 114), "The number of such instances as I
" have given above might be increased to an indefinite
*' extent, extending over a large part of the Old Testa-
*' ment and the New Testament."
Dr. Briees teaches then that the number of errors in
the Bible extending over large parts of both Testaments,
is very great, and the connection clearly shows that he
holds those errors to be in the genuine text of Scripture.
This conclusion is supported by the evidence in the case,
for he states, in The Bible, the Church and the Reason :
''These human features render it improbable that the
" Bible should be free from errors in its human setting. ''''' '-''
" How could it be otherwise if the divine revelation was
"to come throueh such men as the ancient times were
*' capable of producing ? Holy Scripture does not claim
*' inerrancy in its human setting, and it does not in fact
"possess it." (p. 108.) Further on he states: ''The
'* Evaneelist seems to have overlooked the fact that one
" of these passages is from Malachi 3:1. Here are two
42
^' slips of memory on the part of the Evangelists, such
''as any writer is liable to make." (The Bible, the
Church and the Reason, p. 109.)
It will be conceded that what the Evangelists wrote
belonged to the genuine text of Scripture, yet, according
to Dr. Briggs, such a text is marred by errors of memory.
It is clear that inspiration, as understood by Dr. Briggs,
did not keep the writers of the Bible from making such
errors '' as other men are liable to make."
This doctrine of Dr. Briggs conflicts irreconcilably with
the doctrine respecting the Holy Scripture as formulated
in the Standards of our Church. There it is affirmed that
the writings, not the concept merely, were inspired
throughout, and that they are entirely truthful for the
reason that they are inspired.
In regard to the text of the Bible, as we have it, the
Confession makes mention of the marvelous fact that by
God's " singular care and providence " it has been " kept
" pure in all ages "; but of the genuine text it affirms that
" the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament
"in Greek were immediately inspired by God!' Of the
one, as cared for by the singular providence of God it
affirms relative accuracy, for the general providential care
of God does keep men from all error ; but of the other,
as coming immediately from God, it asserts absolute
accuracy, as we shall see.
The Confession states that the Scripture, in its genuine
text, was committed " wholly unto writing" by the Lord
43
Himself, so that the entire series of canonical books con-
stitute the one " Holy Scripture," or " the Word of God
" written," having all of them been " given by inspiration
*' of God to be the rule of faith and life." And it further
declares that ^'the authority of the Holy Scripture, for
"which It ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth
" wholly upon God (who Is truth Itself) the author thereof;
** and therefore it is to be received, because it Is the word
'* of God." And this declaration Is made In reference to
the entire written contents of all the canonical books.
The books were written by men, yet the God of truth
Is In such a deep sense their author, that everything
written therein Is to be received, believed and obeyed
because it Is His word. A statement so sweeping and
solemn could not be made If the Scriptures were only
partially Inspired and were mixed with error. But that
the Confession does not tolerate the Idea of the presence
of errors In the Holy Scripture Is still further evident
from the fact that the *' entire perfection " of the Scripture
is given as proof that it Is the word of God, while the
assertion is made that the Holy Spirit assures the believer
of the " infallible truth and divine authority thereof.''
A book which contains errors cannot have the quality
of " entire perfection " and the Holy Spirit could not
assure us of Its " Infallible truth." Our Standards teach
the truthfulness of the entire written Bible because It is
the "very word" of the God of truth.
This Is the doctrine of the Holy Scripture itself. That
Scripture claims full inspiration throughout for both
44
matter and form. If the inspiration stopped in the
writer and did not extend through him to the language, then
are the writings themselves not inspired and we have no
Holy Scripture.
But the Bible affirms inspiration of the language as well
as of the thought. '-All Scripture is given by inspiration
"of God,'' not merely the substance of truth, but the
Scripture or writing itself. And it matters not whether
we take the rendering of the Revised Version, " every
^'Scripture'' or the ''all Scripture'' of the Authorized
Version, for the word Scripture was used only of inspired
writings, and we must take it in the obvious sense in
which Paul employed it. There can be no question that
he meant the entire Old Testament, all of which Timothy
had known from his childhood, and recognized as en-
tirely God-inspired.
Again the Scripture states that "God, who at sundry
'' times and in divers manners spake in time past unto
'* the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days
'' spoken to us by His Son.'' (Heb. i : 1,2.) God, then,
did not speak merely to the prophets and His Son, but by
them, through them, to men. He not only revealed truth to
them, but controlled their language in conveying the truth.
It is also evident that what^God delivered by the prophets
is put on an equality with what He spake " to us by His
" Son." It is all His Word commended to our faith by
the same divine authority. The entire Epistle to the
Hebrews carries out this idea that the statements of
Scripture are the sayings of God.
45
Peter and Paul unite in affirmino- that both the thouofht
and language of the Scripture are inspired : " The prophecy
" came not in the old time by the will of man ; but holy
" men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
" Ghost.'' (2 Pet. I : 21.)
Paul declares : " Now we have received, not the spirit
" of the world, but the Spirit which is of God ; that we
'' might know the things which are freely given to us of
" God. Which things also we speak, no^ in words which
" mans wisdom teacheth^ but which the Holy Ghost
" teachethy It is then the positive teaching of the
Scriptures themselves that their entire contents are in-
spired, both in respect to matter and form.
In the New Testament, a large number of quotations
from the Old Testament are attributed to God or the Holy
Spirit, even when the Old Testament text does not repre-
sent them as the speakers. Even narrative parts are in
this way attributed directly to God. Mt. i : 22 ; 2 : i5 ;
Acts 4 : 25 ; 13 : 34 ; Rom. 1:2; Acts 1:16; 28 : 25 ;
Heb. 3:7; 4:7; 9 • S ; 10 : 15, etc.
In many places the phrases, ''it is zuritten^' and
" the Scripture saith,^^ are used as equivalent to what God
says. The human authorship is not excluded. The
Scripture is the joint product of a human and divine
authorship ; but infinite knowledge pervades the whole
Scripture, and the human authorship was so under the
control of the divine that the entire Scripture bears the
stamp of divine authority and is absolutely reliable.
46
Writers of the most advanced school of Theology admit
that the authors of Scripture claim inspiration for the Holy
Writings as such and not merely for the substance of
truth contained in them. Richard Rothe, quoted in my
argument before the Presbytery, is an example. He says
of the New Testament writers : "They see nothing in the
'* sacred volume which is simply the word of its human
'' author, and not at the same time the very word of God
"Himself. * '•' * They refer the prophetic inspiration
" to the achis scribendi of the biblical authors."
The biblical writers also teach the entire truthfulness of
the Holy Scripture for the reason that it is fully inspired.
It is impossible for God to lie. Everywhere this is
assumed and arguments are enforced on it as the basis.
Paul supports an important Christological argument in
Gal. 3:16, on the fact that the singular instead of the
plural number of a word is used in the Old Testament.
The Word of God " is true from the beginning." Christ
declared to God in prayer, *'Thy word is truth," and
affirmed, ''Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
'' tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful-
'' filled.'' (Mt. 5 : 18). He based the fact that a certain
statement had been made in the olden time on the abso-
lute infallibility of the record of the Scripture, in which it
is reported, when He said : "Is it not written in your
*' law, I said, Ye are gods ? If he called them gods, unto
" whom the word of God came, and the Scripture ca^inot
*' be broken J' According, then, to the infallible opinion of
47
Jesus Christ, absolute truthfulness of any sentence or
statement is proved if it be a constituent part of the
Scripture. Christ and the Apostles teach therefore the
inerrancy of the entire written Word of God. Not an
utterance did they make which can warrant the belief on
our part that they thought the Holy Scriptures tainted
with errors. They referred to them always as absolutely
true, and taught that disbelief in them Is sin.
The full inspiration and the entire truthfulness of the
written Scripture Is therefore a doctrine which is clearly
taucrht In the Bible itself, and is to be received, like all
other biblical doctrines, for the reason that the Holy
Scripture teaches it. The doctrine is obtained from
Scripture by application of the strictest principles of
exegesis and by the broadest induction from all the rele-
vant facts, statements, claims and allusions of the Scripture
in reference to the subject ; it is supported by the entire
evidence showing the New Testament writers to be trust-
worthy teachers of Christian doctrine. Ultimately this
evidence rests on the authority and trustworthiness of
Christ Himself, for He refers us to them for His statement
of doctrine, assuring us that He fitted the writers by
giving them the Spirit of truth, to guide them into all truth
and to teach them whatsoever He desired them to com-
municate.
This doctrine of the truthfulness of the Scriptures due
to their full inspiration, as taught in the Bible, has been
held by the Church of Jesus Christ from New Testament
48
times until now. Dr. Briggs has misunderstood the faith
of the Church on this point. All the great historic names
which he has cited in favor of an errant Bible are on
record in defence of the opposite doctrine. Origen,
Jerome, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Baxter and the West-
minster divines have left their testimony that the whole
Bible is the inerrant word of God.
It is preposterous at this late day to advance the
claim that insisting on the truthfulness of the Bible is
tantamount to setting up a new test of orthodoxy. The
Church has never believed anything else. Especially is
this true of the Presbyterian Church. It will not be
possible to point to a single representative Presbyterian
divine, from the Westminster period down, and especially
among American Presbyterians, who has taught the doc-
trine of the errancy of the Holy Scriptures. All sides,
parties and schools in our Church have been agreed in
affirming the inerrancy of the Word of God. Green,
Alexander and Hodge cordially unite with Richards and
Barnes in subscribing to the statement of Dr. Henry B.
Smith that inspiration extends to both thoughts and
words and gives us '' truth without error " in the Bible.
Our Church has always held that, when we have deter-
mined the exact historic-grammatical meaning of a state-
ment in the Bible, we have then the absolute truthfulness
of that statement certified to us by the Spirit of God.
The issue before this Assembly is whether or not the
Presbyterian Church will abandon the historic faith of the
49
Church of Jesus Christ and affix Its imprimatur to the
doctrine that the Bible is permeated with errors to "an
" indefinite extent.''
To sum up, the teaching of Dr. Briggs in this matter
constitutes an offence as defined in the Book of DiscipHne,
for several reasons :
1. It conflicts with the teaching of both Scripture and
Confession.
2. If this teaching be true, the Holy Scripture can-
not be an infallible rule of faith and practice, since, ac-
cording to it, we cannot say the Bible is the Word of
God, but only that it contains the Word of God. Webster
defines the word infallible as '' not fallible ; not capable of
*' erring ; entirely exempt from liability to mistake ; un-
'' erring ; inerrable." In plain English, therefore, a book
which is pervaded by errors "to an indefinite extent,"
cannot be an infallible rule. It lacks the one essential
of infallibility, viz., absolute truthfulness for all its
contents.
3. This teaching subjects the Bible to the reason. For
if the Scripture has any erroneous circumstantials, and if
the entire visible text is simply human, each man must
determine for himself by his own reason or conscience
how much may be accepted as the Word of God. Thus
the Bible can have practically no objective authority, for
it will have to each man only such authority as he may-
be pleased to accord it.
4. It undermines the trustworthiness of the whole
Bible. For if the writers of the Holy Scripture were not
50
enabled to make correct statements on matters of history
and every-day occurrence, in which it is comparatively
easy to avoid errors, most men must feel that the state-
ments of such writers respecting the more difficult ques-
tions of faith and morals are unworthy of acceptance.
Furthermore, the doctrine of the truthfulness of the
Holy Scripture is supported by the entire evidence, which
commends all its other doctrines to our faith. If this
evidence is not trustworthy in the case of one, it is not
trustworthy in respect of any doctrine.
The final judgment of the Presbytery, therefore, on
this charge, is not in accord with the law and testimony
in the case, and it should be reversed.
Genuineness and Authenticity.
I. In the fourth charge, the fifth of the amended series,
relating to the genuineness and authenticity of the Penta-
teuch, Dr. Briggs is charged with denying the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch. He admits that both speci-
fication and charge are accurate, but denies that his teach-
ing on this point constitutes an offence.
In his Response to the original charges and specifica-
tions. Dr. Briggs affirmed that Mosaic history, Mosaic in-
stitutions and Mosaic legislation lie at the base of all the
original documents. In his Defence he asserts that a
Mosaic code exists in Chapters 12 to 26 of Deuteronomy ;
that some Mosaic laws are contained in Chapters 20 to 23
of Exodus, and that some general principles for direction
51
to the priesthood were given by Moses, the place of
which he does not indicate. (Who Wrote the Penta-
teuch ? pp. 23, 1 58, 159.)
This legislation, however, was merely rudimentary.
The Pentateuch, as we have it, was a development.
Deuteronomy did not attain its present form until in the
times of King Josiah ; the Priest code not until the times
of Ezra, and the code of holiness came '' into the historic
" field first in connection with Ezekiel." (Who Wrote
the Pentateuch? pp. 124, i5y,) Yet, because a few
rudimentary laws given by Moses were the basis of
the small original documents, we are told that '' the
'' name of Moses pervades the Pentateuch as a sweet
" fraorrance."
o
Dr. Briggs maintains that such elaborate codes as those
of the Pentateuch could not have originated in the early
national existence of Israel. " Several generations are
'' necessary," he says, *'to account for such a series of
** modifications of the same law." (Who Wrote the
Pentateuch? p. 106.) Again he states: "There
" seems to be no room for them (the laws), in
'' the times of Moses or Joshua or Samuel or David.
" The providential historical circumstances did not admit
'' of obedience to such elaborate codes before we find
*' them in the history of the times of Josiah and Ezra.
'* A priestly code seems to require its historical origin in
'' a dominant priesthood. A prophetic code seems best
52
" to originate in a period when prophets were in the pre-
'' eminence. A theocratic code suits best a prosperous
*' Kingdom and a period when elders and judges were in
" authority." (Who Wrote the Pentateuch? p. 124.)
Thus Dr. Briggs declares the great body of laws and
regulations which are contained in the Pentateuch to be
not merely post-Mosaic in origin, but to be post-Mosaic
by several centuries, so that, naturally enough, he can
call the Pentateuch an '* anonymous " book, and Deuter-
onomy a " pseudonym." He reaches this result by using
processes based on naturalism and evolution, which
enable him to determine at what period in the history of
Israel the literature and laws of the Pentateuch could have
arisen and come to their present form. By the same
processes, he is enabled to declare the laws of the Penta-
teuchal Codes mutually inconsistent (Who Wrote the
Pentateuch? pp. loi, etc.) ; and to speak of the histories
of the patriarchs, as well as some later Mosaic history, as
stories derived from an unreliable tradition. (Who
Wrote the Pentateuch? pp. 75, 79.)
Dr. Briggs informs us that these results are endorsed
by a virtual consensus of biblical scholarship. This we
deny. A large number of biblical scholars does not con-
sent. All the leading names in the list, given by Dr.
Briggs, are, in my opinion, not biblical, but anti-biblical
scholars, since they deny the presence of the Supernatural
in the Bible ; and the rest do not hold to a true doctrine
of inspiration.
53
But there is In fact no consensus amone the hieher
critics in regard to the source of the Pentateuchal docu-
ments, their number, the times of their composition, and
the results reached from an investigation of them. And
when further, we remember that the higher critics con-
duct their inquiry by principles which are purely sub-
jective to themselves, and that the results which they
have reached are not only contrary to all known historical
facts, but also to the obvious teaching of the Word of
God, it is preposterous to ask Christian people to put
confidence in their conclusions.
Criticism of this type ignores the one great fact in the
life and history of Israel, which harmonizes and veri-
fies everything in the Pentateuch as the work of Moses ; it
fails to recognize the visible presence of Jehovah with the
Israelites to control their entire national life, whether civil
or religious.
The Holy Scripture, as shown by the texts appended
to the specification of this charge, gives an account of the
origin of the Pentateuch, altogether different from that
given by Dr. Briggs.
The Pentateuch itself points to Moses as its author. It
speaks of him as a maker of books, in which he wrote
history and laws by the command of Jehovah.
A great part of the document is ascribed to the pen of
Moses. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy
are credited to him, as the medium throuo^h whom God
54
communicated them to his people, when Israel was in the
Wilderness, and when Aaron and Eliezer were high-
priests. The laws of all the codes appear in the Penta-
teuch as a unit on the background of Israel's wilderness
life, not mutually conflicting, but mutually supplementary
to each other.
It is conceded that Genesis has a common authorship
with the other four books. So that we must accept the
conclusion that the Pentateuch claims Moses as its author.
Scholars like Kuenen freely admit this.
If this claim be not true, then the Pentateuch is neither
genuine nor authentic, and it must be untrustworthy. If
the Pentateuch's claim of Mosaic authorship be false, and
the work originated piece by piece during centuries after
the death of Moses, the document as it has come to us is
a fraud, and no dependence can be placed upon it.
Dr. Briggs would have us believe that a book thus
constructed may still be spoken of as inspired. Thus he
says, on page 121 of the Defence: "If Ezra can be
*' shown to be responsible for our present Pentateuch, is
" he not as truly a well-known biblical and inspired
" man and as capable of producing a rule of faith and
" practice as Moses ? " Well, we should say not. For
we would have to change our ideas completely, not
only of Ezra, but of inspiration, to suppose that he, as
an inspired man, could palm off on a credulous people, a
piece of deceit and fraud as the truth of God. If Ezra
could do that, then we say without hesitation that he was
55
not as capable of producing a rule of faith and practice as
Moses.
Inspiration, as understood by Dr. Briggs, is clearly not
that kind of inspiration which will keep the inspired writer
from makincf mistakes or tellinof lies.
But the Pentateuch is not alone in assertinor that Moses
is its author. The other books of the Old Testament
concur in that claim. The entire body of the Mosaic leg-
islation seems to have been in existence immediately
after the death of Moses in the times of Joshua, for the
people are commanded by the Lord to guide their life
and conduct by it. The Book of Joshua gives evi-
dence of the existence at that time of Mosaic regfulations,
which Dr. Briggs assigns to succeeding centuries ; as, for
instance, the command to the 2)% tribes to help their
brethren in conquering the land (1:13), the rule that the
Levites should have no inheritance (13:14) ; that Hebron
should be given to Caleb (14:6) ; that the land should be
divided by lot (14:2) ; that cities of refuge should be set
apart ; and many other regulations. The same can be
said of the other preexillc books, especially of Hosea and
Amos, and of some of the Davidic Psalms. They testify
to the existence of the Mosaic laws as a whole by direct
statements, and by revelations of the life and customs of
the people in their respective periods. Indeed, all the
books of the Old Testament testify in favor of the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch.
Wellhausen says that in the time of Chronicles, Moses
56
was already taken to be the author of the Pentateuch.
(Encyclopedia Britannica. Pentateuch.)
It must then either have existed and been believed in as
Mosaic in the time of the Kings before the Exile as the
book states ; or the account must have been worked into
Chronicles fictitiously by Ezra after the Exile. If the
latter supposition be true, as the critics assert, then Ezra
perpetrated a fraud ; and he did it so well that not only
did none of his learned contemporaries detect it, but
neither Jews nor Christians for many centuries since then
had the slightest suspicion of its being a fraud.
The Jewish people for 3,000 years have given their
united testimony in behalf of the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch. The Christian Church has always united in
that testimony. This singular unanimity of God's people
on this question for so many centuries is of such great
value that it cannot be sneered out of Court as mere
traditionalism.
Such a consensus Is not to be cast aside for the trivial
reason that it does not accord with the subjective impres-
sions of the higher critics, which impressions are those of
men as fallible as the rest of us.
Prof. Thayer, of Harvard, himself a progressive critic,
says that the recent discovery of the Gospel according to
Peter *' affords conjectural criticism some edifying lessons."
He states, it "consigns the staple of books like ' Super-
" natural Religion,' with their conjectural criticism on the
'' Gospels, 'to the Museum of biblical antiquities.'"
57
Conjectural criticism on the Pentateuch is likely to be
consigned some day to the same museum of biblical an-
tiquities. It has not established its claim to our confidence.
For not all of those who use it attain to eood results
when working in fields where the rest of us can follow.
Thus Dr. Briggs has misapprehended completely the
teaching of the Fathers, Reformers, and Westminster
divines respecting the truthfulness of the Bible. If he
has not been unable to understand them on a point which
they make so clear, how can we trust ourselves to him in
the more difftcult task of ascertaining what kind of He-
brew history and doctrine, holy inspired men ought to
have written in the Bible ?
But Christ and the writers of the New Testament give
unqualified testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch. When speaking of '' the law,'' " the law of
Moses,'' ''the book of Moses'' and ''^ Moses' writings!' they
used those terms, in the accepted meanings of that time,
as referring to the entire Pentateuch. They charged
the Jews with sin in not believing and obeying what
Moses had written. They accepted and endorsed the
belief of the Jews that Moses was responsible for the
whole Pentateuch.
Christ refers to Moses by name eighteen times, not as
referring to a book of that name, but to him personally,
as a great national leader, his own forerunner, who gave
laws and commandants, and also wrote of Him.
58
In assigning to Moses the patriarchal institution of cir-
cumcision (John 7: 22); laws like those concerning
divorce (Mark 10: 5) ; and the account concerning the
burning bush (Mark 12: 26) ; he credits Moses with be-
ing the author of the Pre-Mosaic, the legislative and the
historical parts of the Pentateuch. That includes the en-
tire document. He certainly assigns the whole body of
Pentateuchal laws to Moses (Luke 16: 29; Jno. 7: 19;
Mt. 8: 14; 19:8; 23: 2; John 7: 23) ; and never spoke
of any part of the Pentateuch in a disparaging way ; but
by what he said and did not say, made it clear that He re-
garded the whole of it to be the Word of God, reliable
and true in all its parts.
The higher critics feel the force of this testimony of
Christ, and feel called upon to explain how it is that their
statements about the Pentateuch are in conflict with the
teaching of Christ. Dr. Briggs maintains that when
Christ assigns a particular law or statement to Moses, it
and no more belongs to the great law-giver. He min-
imizes the testimony of Christ on this point, thus :
" When Jesus uses Moses as another name for the law or
" Pentateuch, it is by no means certain that Jesus meant to
*' say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch." (Who Wrote the
Pentateuch.'^ p. 25.) But why should it not be certain?
That is what He was understood to say, and it certainly
did not behoove Him, as the great Teacher of truth,
consciously to leave a false impression on the minds of His
hearers.
59
The critics have two ways of explaining this discrep-
ancy between their teaching and that of Jesus Christ :
I . One is, that He knew Moses not to be the author of
the Pentateuch, but, since all His contemporaries believed
Moses to be its author, He accommodated Himself to
their belief and way of speaking.
Dr. Biiggs says : '"Jesus was not obliged to correct all
**the errors of His contemporaries." (Who Wrote the
Pentateuch ? p. 29.) Well, if that is true, then it is a
great pity that Dr. Briggs did not follow so good an ex-
ample so as not to disturb the peace of a great Church.
But this explanation cannot be accepted. It would not
be creditable to Christ, especially from Dr. Briggs' point
of view. For Dr. Briggs holds the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch to be one of the barriers set up by theo-
logians to deprive men of the Bible, and states that we shall
not be able to see ''the magnificent unity of the whole
" Bible, to capture all its sacred treasures and to enjoy all
"its heavenly glories," until this mischievous error is
removed from the face of the earth by the destructive
process of the higher critics. If Christ knew that the
belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch would
prevent the Bible from being understood and would rob
people of its treasures and heavenly glories, then should
He not have exploded that error at once ? We can believe
nothing less of Him.
2. The other and more commonly adopted view, is
60
that Christ did not know the real author of the Pentateuch,
and so fell into the common error, with His contempo-
raries, of believing and teaching that Moses was its author.
He never enjoyed the advantage of going to Oxford or
to Germany to acquire a scientific and conjectural theory
for searching out the truth of the Bible. He did not know
the Scriptures, and the higher critics do. Dr. Briggs
speaks approvingly of this theory, as follows : ''If we
*' should say Jesus did not know whether Moses wrote
" the Pentateuch or not, we would not go beyond His own
" saying that He knew not the time of His own advent.
'' Those who understand the doctrine of the humiliation
" of Christ and the incarnation of Christ, find no more
"difficulty in supposing that Jesus did not know the
*' author of the Pentateuch than that He did not know
*' the day of His own advent." (Who Wrote the Penta-
teuch ? pp. 28, 29.) Conscious ignorance of that distant
future day is one thing ; but the unconscious teaching of
error is quite another. The one would not detract from
the truthful testimony of Christ, the other would. He made
no disclaimer of knowledge on this point, but claimed and
made the impression that He did know all about the Pen-
tateuch and its author. He is the truth. He came into
the world to bear witness to the truth, and positively as-
serted that He always spoke the truth. He declared to
the Jews : *' He that sent me is true ; and I speak to the
'' world those things which I have heard of Him.'' Could
He affirm in a more solemn way the entire truthfulness
of all that He said?
61
The New Testament gives a large amount of evidence
that, as sinlessly perfect and as filled with the Holy Spirit,
the knowledge of Christ was universal. And to affirm
that when He declared Moses to be the author of tlie
Pentateuch, He erred through ignorance, is a reflection
upon His mental as well as upon His moral character,
which discredits the New Testament representation of
Him as in all respects perfect.
This teaching of Dr. Briggs in regard to the non-Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch is in vital conflict with the
teaching of the whole Bible. It necessarily involves the
positions that the Pentateuch, as we have it, is not only
erroneous, but also fraudulent ; that the writers of the
other Old Testament books either knowingly connived
at the fraud, or unintentionally perpetuated it ; and that
the testimony of Christ and the writers of the New Testa-
ment must be discredited.
This teaching is far more dangerous than affirming the
Scripture to be in error in matter of minor importance ;
it tends to a total destruction of faith in the Bible. It
has done that already for many. It is entirely at variance
with the confessional doctrine of the Holy Scripture.
II. The question concerning the book of Isaiah involves
the same principles as does that concerning the author-
ship of the Pentateuch.
The matter is formulated in the fifth charge, or the
sixth of the amended form, in which Dr. Briggs is charged
" with teaching that Isaiah is not the author of half the
62
'' book that bears his name.'' He admits this to be his
teachinof but denies that it is an offence.
In his Defence, he points out the 26 Chapters which
he allots to Isaiah, and the 39 which he takes from him,
although bearing his name.
He is led to this result, not by historic facts, but, as
shown in his Defence (pp. 132-146), by subjective im-
pressions whereby he finds himself able to determine the
style in which a man like Isaiah ought to have written,
what theological ideas it was possible for him to express,
and from what historical situation it was possible for him
to utter predictive prophecies. The last, however, is the
decisive test. It is with the critics a canon of infallible
authority that a prophet of God can predict future events
only from his own historical point of view, and to the
needs of the people of his age. Chapter 13 to 14 : 23 is
taken from Isaiah for the reason that that section cannot
stand this test of their canon of criticism. The style and
theological ideas are correct enough, but it contains a
predictive prophecy which Isaiah could not have given
from his own historical situation, and the passage can
therefore not be assigned to him. But the Scripture
credits Isaiah with it. It begins with the statement :
*' The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amos
*' did see." (Isa. 13:1.) The explanation by which Dr.
Briggs seeks to nullify this distinct affirmation of the
Bible is weak, far-fetched and entirely unsatisfactory. In
the same way the entire book could be taken from Isaiah.
63
But It shows that any statement of the Bible, which comes
in conflict with the theory of higher criticism, must be
discredited ; and thus we see here again, as In the case
of the Pentateuch, that this criticism undermines the
trustworthiness of a biblical writing by denying its claim
about itself If Isaiah did not write Chapter 13 to
14 : 23, then that section is neither genuine nor authentic.
It makes a false claim. It pretends to be what it is not,
and so Is wholly unworthy of confidence.
The assumption of the critics by which this result is
reached also destroys the evidential value of prophecy.
For, if a prophet can only speak from his own historical
point of view and to the needs of his own times, then
predictive prophecy requires no more divine help than
that long foresight by the help of which wise statesmen
have often been able to point out needed lessons for the
future from the drift of present events. Here again we
see the damaging nature of the theory of higher criticism.
It aims to explain supernatural phenomena in biblical
history and prophecy on merely naturalistic principles.
But this division of Isaiah Is In direct conflict with the
statements of Christ and the writers of the New Testa-
ment. They assign quotations from all parts of the book
to him, as a person. With reference to the disputed parts
it Is said : '' For Esalas salth. Lord, who hath believed our
'' report?'' But Esaias is very bold, "I was found of
'' them that sought me not ; I was made manifest unto
^* them that asked not after me. These things said
'' Esalas, when he saw His glory and spake of Him.''
64
It is clear that, with all his contemporaries, Christ be-
lieves Isaiah to be the author of the entire book which
bears his name, as He held Moses to be the author of the
Pentateuch ; and it must destroy confidence in Him as
the great Teacher of the New Testament dispensation, if
He was so ignorant respecting the character and origin
of the Old Testament, which He pretended to know
thoroughly, which He came to fulfill, and on which He
claimed to found the doctrines of the Gospel. This
teaching must bring discredit on Christ as the Teacher.
These declarations of Dr. BriQ-crs in reference to the
authorship of the Pentateuch and of Isaiah, but especially
of the former, create distrust of the entire Bible. His
teaching necessarily involves that. He says : " Higher
'' criticism comes into conflict with the authority of
" Scripture when it finds that its statements are not au-
*' thoritative and its revelations are not credible." (Bibli-
cal Study, p. 243.)
Dr. Briggs here admits that higher criticism does
come into conflict with the authority of Scripture to the
extent of finding some of its statements not authoritative
and some of its revelations not credible. And how is it
possible to keep the whole Bible from being involved in
distrust if higher criticism finds its statements not au-
thoritative and its revelations not credible ?
This teaching of Dr. Briggs is contrary also to our Con-
fessional statements. *' The consent of all the parts,"
65
can bear no testimony to the entire perfection of such a
Bible as the higher criticism gives us. In fact, all the
parts dissent as we have seen, and Dr. Briggs' position
comes to this, that the Bible is so full of conflictine and
mutually inconsistent elements, that it requires to be cut
to pieces by the higher criticism and reconstructed on a
different basis before the different parts will consent
harmoniously.
This criticism also contravenes that statement of our
Confession which says : '' The infallible rule of interpreta-
'' tion of Scriptures is Scripture itself," for It does not In-
terpret Scripture by ' ' other places of Scripture which
" speak more plainly," but by the evolutionary principles
of the conjectural theory. If we allow Scripture to Inter-
pret Itself we find confirmed the authorship of the Penta-
teuch and Isaiah by Moses and Isaiah respectively.
But our Standards assert that the entire written Bible
is to be believed, received and obeyed, for the reason that
it Is the word of God, the God of truth being the author
thereof, and that the Christian shows his faith by believing
" to be true, whatsoever Is revealed in the word, for the
*' authority of God Himself speaking therein."
It Is Impossible to require such faith in a Scripture
which Is not only erroneous but also tainted with fraud.
The verdict of acquittal by the Inferior judicatory on
these two charges is therefore contrary to the law and
evidence In this case and should not be allowed to stand
as the judgment of our Church.
66
The rejected charges may be considered at this point.
We claim that the inferior judicatory erred in ordering
these two charges to be stricken out. It was an error
for the reason that they allege valid offences, as we will
now show.
I. Predictive Prophecy.
In the fourth of the amended charges, Dr. Briggs is
charged '* with teaching that many of the Old Testament
'' predictions have been reversed by history, and that the
'' great body of Messianic prediction cannot be fulfilled."
He complains that he is misquoted, and that invalid
inferences are drawn from his statement, but the complaint
is not well founded. The entire statement is given in the
specification, and it sustains the charge. The qualifying
clause concerning ** the details of predictive prophecy of
'' the Old Testament '' in no wise modifies the statement
that "many of these predictions have been reversed by
" history."
The statement was originally made by Kuenen, and
when Dr. Briggs adopted it as his own, he failed to state
that he did not use it with Kuenen's meaning. Kuenen
sustained his position by denial of the reality of predictive
prophecy, the inspiration of the prophet and the presence
of the supernatural in the Bible. He says : " It is the
'* common conviction of all the writers of the New Testa-
'' ment that the Old Testament is inspired of God, and is
" thus invested with divine authority. The remark, made
67
" as It were in passing, in a passage from the fourth Gos-
'' pel, that the Scripture cannot be broken, is assented
" to by all the writers, without distinction. In accordance
" with this they ascribe divine fore-knowledge to the
'' Israelitish prophets. And far indeed from limiting this
'' fore-knowledge to generalities, and thus depriving it of
'* all its importance, they refer us repeatedly to the
'' agreement between specific prophetical utterances and
*' single historical facts, and have no hesitation in declar-
'' ing their conviction, both that the prophet spoke of
" these specific facts, and that they, under God's direction,
" occurred in order that the word of the prophet might be
*' fulfilled. -J^ * * Xhe New Testament judgment
** concerning the origin and nature of the prophetical ex-
" pectations, and concerning their relation to historical
" reality, may be regarded as diametrically opposed to
" oicrsy (Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel,
pp. 448, 449.)
Kuenen here acknowledges that all the New Testa-
ment writers without distinction believed In the fulfillment
of the details of predictive prophecy and that he aimed to
disprove the details, the specific prophetical utter apices and
single historical facts, for the purpose of destroying the
value of the prophecy Itself.
It must be conceded that whenever predictive prophecy
may become an actual occurrence, there must be a suffi-
cient number of details to make that event possible ; and
hence, to deny details is to deny the actual occurrence of
the event predicted.
68
But even if admitting that the qualifying clause covers
the last sentence, the case is not changed. Dr. Briggs
categorically asserts all that is charged against him, for
he says, that " the great body of the Messianic prediction
" has not only never been fulfilled, but cannot now be
" fulfilled"; and also that "the prediction of Jonah is not
" the only unfulfilled prediction in the Old Testament."
These utterances of Dr. Briggs have caused alarm and
justly. The leaders of the higher criticism school are, for
the most part, avowedly hostile to that supernatural ele-
ment in Scripture which predictive prophecy calls for ;
consistently, therefore, they deny the existence of such
prophecy, and hold that the prophets of Scripture were
nothing more than men of extraordinary genius and illu-
mination, whose utterances concerning the future were
based on a far-seeing foresight of the providential drift of
thines in their historical situation.
The Scripture contains a large number of predictions.
Some of them have been fulfilled, while others remain
thus far unfulfilled. It is possible that both the matter
and form of some predictive prophecies have been mis-
understood, and thus misinterpreted, but it is impossible
to misunderstand the Scripture position, that all which
the Lord has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets
is to be fulfilled. Joshua states the biblical point of view
in these words : " Ye know in your hearts and in all
" your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good
'' things which the Lord your God spake concerning
69
** you ; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing
'' hath failed thereof.'' How different this from Dr.
Briggs' position.
The New Testament writers repeatedly assert that the
Scriptures contain predictive prophecy, take for granted
that every part of it will be fulfilled, and give detailed
instances where either it has come to pass or will yet
surely take place. They thus refer to the ministry of
John ; the fact that Christ was born of a virgin, and at
Bethlehem, and resided at Nazareth ; that He rode on
an ass into Jerusalem ; was forsaken by His disciples ; was
sold for thirty pieces of silver, and that lots were cast for
His vesture. (Isa. 40 : 3, and Mt. 3:3; Isa. 7:14, and Mt.
I -.23, 24 ; Micah 5:2, and Mt. 2:5,6; Mt. 2:23; Zech.
9 : 9, and Mt. 21 : 4, 5 ; Zech. 11:12,13, ^^^ Mt. 27:9;
Zech. 13 : 7, and Mt. 26: 31 ; Ps. 22 : 18, and Mt. 27 : 33.)
Similarly, allusion is made to the abomination of desola-
tion spoken by Daniel the prophet as certain to be ful-
filled. (Dan. 9 : 27, and Mt. 24 : i5.) Here the fulfill-
ment of Old Testament predictions are cited to the
minutest detail.
The language of Christ is still more emphatic. He
came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law and the
prophets, and most solemnly affirmed that rather would
heaven and earth pass away than that one jot or one
tittle of them should remain unfulfilled. (Matt. 5 : 17, 18.)
He claimed the fulfillment in Himself of what the Spirit
foretold by the mouth of David in Psalm ex., and told His
70
disciples, after the resurrection : " That all things must
*' be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses,
** and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me."
(Luke 24 : 44.) Our Lord here affirms that there is a
divine necessity that, not merely prophecy in general, but
all things concerning Him must be fulfilled ; ''All things ''
must surely include Messianic predictions. Much more
might be cited to the same effect, but this is sufficient.
If, in view of all this, the statements of Dr. Briggs are
to be considered as correct, that ''many predictions of
" the Old Testament have been reversed by history'';
and that '* the great body of the Messianic prediction has
'' not only never been fulfilled, but cannot now be ful-
'' filled," then the plain utterances of Scripture coming
ostensibly from the Lord by the mouth of His servants
the prophets, together with the declarations of Christ con-
cerning prophecy in general, and Messianic prophecy in
particular, are contradicted. It is the Bible and Christ
against Dr. Briggs. The attributes of God, pointed out
in the charge, are here involved.
These statements of Dr. Briggs being in conflict with
the declarations of Scripture and the citations from the
Standards should be condemned by this Court and be
disavowed by him.
2. Redemption after Death.
The other rejected charge is the 7th of the amended
form, in which Dr. Briggs is charged '' with teaching that
71
'' the processes of redemption extend to the world to
'* come in the case of many who die in sin."
It is claimed that he disavowed this doctrine by cate-
gorically answering a question propounded to him in
private by directors of Union Seminary. But such a cate-
gorical answer under such circumstances proves nothing
and disavows nothing ; the more so, because since that
time Dr. Briggs has affirmed his adherence to everything
which he has stated in the Inaugural both as to " matter
*' and form."
We therefore ask this Venerable Body to consider
whether the facts pointed out in the specification do not,
in the light of the evidence submitted, prove the charge.
He accuses Protestants of the fault of not extending the
process of redemption to the vast periods of time in the
middle state between death and the resurrection. (In-
augural, p. 53.)
" The processes of redemption," he states, '' ever keep
" the race in mind. The Bible tells us of a race origin, a
" race ideal, a race Redeemer and a race redemption."
(Inaugural, p. 5o.)
According to Dr. Briggs, redemption is not limited by
election. He says, ''The Bible does not teach universal
'' salvation, but it does teach the salvation of the world, of
" the race of man, and that cannot be accomplished by
" the selection of a limited number of individuals from the
72
'' mass. ''* * "^ The salvation of the world can only mean
" the world as a whole, compared with which the unre-
" deemed will be so few and insignificant and evidently
'' beyond the reach of redemption by their own act of
'* rejecting it and hardening themselves against it, and by
*' descending into such depths of demoniacal depravity in
" the middle state, that they will vanish from the sight of
" the redeemed as altogether and irredeemably evil
'* and never more disturb the harmonies of the saints."
(Inaugural, pp. 55, 56.)
If Dr. Briggs does not teach in this passage that some
men who die impenitent might have been redeemed in the
middle state but for their " descending into such depths of
" demoniacal depravity in the middle state," then certainly
when he tried to clothe his concept with language, he
puts its clothes on upside down. The unmistakable drift
of the entire passage is that the redemption of the world,
of the race of man, is largely to be accomplished by means
of the opportunities which will be given them in the
middle state.
And this agrees with what Dr. Briggs has stated con-
cerning " a judgment immediately after death." (In-
augural, p. 54.) He calls it a '' hurtful unchristian error," a
"bugbear," which "makes death a terror to the best of
men." This points unmistakably to another chance after
death, since the issues of life are not to be regarded as
final at death. It is a hurtful error which he renounces.
In line with this. Dr. Briorors terms the statements of
73
Dr. Dorner concerning the possibility of repentance in the
next world, ''excellent thoughts." (Whither, p. 211.)
His remarks about the unpardonable sin cited in the
specification, point in the same direction. He says of
some classes of people that not until they reach the
middle state " are they justified, for there can be no justifi-
*' cation without faith for them any more than for others.
*' The intermediate state is for them a s^a^e of blessed pos-
'* sibilities of redemption." (Magazine of Christian Litera-
ture, Dec, 1889, p. no.) "We are opening our
'' minds," he says, '' to see that the Redeemer's work upon
" the cross was the beginning of a larger work in the
" realm of the dead, and from His heavenly throne
*' whence the exalted Saviour is drawing all men to
'' Himself." (Andover Review, vol. 13, p. Sq.) And
again, " If life in this world is brief, and life in the middle
*' state is long, we must rise to the conception of the love
" of God as accomplishing even greater works of redemp-
" tion in the middle state than in this world." (Magazine
of Christian Literature, Dec, 1889, p. 106.)
These are danorerous utterances, all the more so be-
cause they come from a professor of a prominent Theo-
logical Seminary. They are calculated to make men
careless about their eternal welfare and lead them to
presume on the mercy of God. The Scriptures and the
Standards of our Church, as shown by the citations
annexed to this charge, confine the work of redemption
to this life under the dispensation of the Gospel. Both
74
Scripture and Standards agree in declaring that " now is
" the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation '' ;
that "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
^' J7idgment,'' and that there is an impassable " gulf fixed "
immediately after death between the righteous and the
wicked. (2 Cor. 6:2; Heb. 9 : 27 ; Luke 16 : 26.)
This teaching of Dr. Briggs should be condemned by
this Court, and be retracted by him.
Progressive Sanctification after Death.
The last or 8th charge of the amended form refers to
the subject of Progressive Sanctification after death, ia
which Dr. Briggs is charged '' with teaching that Sancti-
'' fication is not complete at death."
He admits the charge, but denies that it constitutes
an offence, alleging not only that the doctrine is not
contrary to the Scripture and Standards, but also that it
is the very doctrine taught in them.
Sanctification has for its aim, the removal of sin from
the nature of believers with all its effects. '' Sanctifica-
" tion is a work of God's free grace, whereby we are
'' renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and
" are enabled more and more to die unto sin and live
*' unto righteousness." And when we are completely
dead to sin, when it has been entirely exterminated from
the soul, then sanctification has completed its work, and
the believer, having been renewed in the whole man
75
after the image of God, will live unto righteousness, and
be perfectly holy. He will be no longer in need of either
sanctification or redemption.
Adam, before he sinned, as created in the image of
God, was perfectly holy, and did not need to have any
part of the process of redemption applied to him. It was
possible for him to advance in the breadth and intensity
of holy life to all eternity, but such an onward growth in
holy life cannot be called a process of sanctification.
Christ was perfectly holy when He was born. After
that He grew, as the God-man, into a larger and fuller
life, but He was at no time more holy or morally perfect
than on the day of His birth. In the same way the
believer will, when at death he has been made perfect in
holiness, advance along all the lines of holy life forever.
That is not the question at issue.
That Dr. Briggs uses the term sanctification in the
sense of eliminating sin from the soul of believers is plain
from the language of the Inaugural. In order to main-
tain his doctrine of progressive sanctification after
death, he finds it necessary to attack the Protestant
doctrine, which limits the process of redemption to this
world, and refuses to extend it to the vast periods of the
world beyond the grave. (Inaugural, pp. 53, 54.) The
Protestant doctrine, according to which the believer is
made perfectly holy at death, stands in the way of Dr.
Briggs' doctrine.
76
He affirms that progressive sanctification after death Is
necessary, " In order that the work of redemption may be
''complete." (Inaugural, p. 54.)
He terms the transformation of the saint, In the dying
hour, a magical illusion, which should be banished from
the world and renounced as a hurtful unchristian error.
(Inaugural, p. 54.) He maintains that believers, after death,
" are still the same persons, with all the gifts and graces,
" and also the same habits of mind, disposition and temper,
" which they had when they left the world. Death de-
'' stroys the body. It does not change the moral and
" religious nature of man." (" Evil Habits," In Magazine
of Christian Literature.) Sin, therefore, remains still in
the higher nature of man, and it is the office of progressive
sanctification after death to overcome sin In that nature.
(Inaugural, 2d ed., p. 108.)
" The Intermediate state," he says, " Is for all believers,
" without exception, a state for their sanctification. They
" are there trained in the School of Christ, and are pre-
" pared for the Christian perfection which they must
"attain ere the judgment day." (Magazine of Christian
Literature, Dec, 1889, p. 112.) He assures us that
believers are. In the middle state, "delivered from all
" temptations such as spring from without, from the world
" and the devil. They are encircled with influences for
" good such as they never enjoyed before." (Inaugural, p.
107.) Therefore, "we may justly hold," he states, "that
" the evil which still lingers In the higher moral nature of
77
*' believers will be suppressed and modified with an energy
" of repentance, humiliation, confession and determination
" that will be more powerful than ever before, because it
'' will be stimulated by the presence of Christ and His
'* saints." (Magazine of Christian Lit., Dec, 1889, p. 114.)
These statements show that, in the view of Dr. Briggs,
believers do not enter the next world free from sin. If
they were without sin, then certainly there could be no
place for confession, repentance and humiliation for sin,
and endeavors to suppress it.
His reference to Abraham, in illustration of the doc-
trine, confirms this view. In his earthly life. Dr. Briggs
tells us, the old patriarch lived on a plane of moral ad-
vancement so low, that, were he living now, we could
not receive him into our families ; nay, we might be
obliged even to imprison him lest he should defile the
community by his example. But when he '' went into
" the abode of the dead, he held his pre-eminence among
" the departed. He made up for his defects in this life by
" advancing in the school of sanctification there open to
" him." (Inaugural, pp. 56, 57.) Abraham was freed
from sin and moral imperfection in the intermediate state.
This is still further confirmed by the naturalistic prin-
ciple of evolution which, in the opinion of Dr. Briggs,
necessitates the extension of the process of sanctification
into the next world. He states : " It is unpsychological
*' and unethical to suppose that the character of a disem-
" bodied spirit will all be changed in the moment of
*' death." (Inaugural, pp 107, loS.)
T8
In his Defence, he maintains the same position. He
states that the best of Christians leave this world weak
and imperfect (Defence, p. 177) ; that they are still impure,
in need of Christ as their Priest, and of cleansing by His
blood (Defence, pp. 166-8); and that they are morally
imperfect in nature and conduct. (Defence, pp. 166, 169,
170, 172, 173, 175.) Those who are impure and morally
defective in character and life are sinful ; for sin does not
consist merely of positive transgressions, but any want of
conformity to the law of God is sin. He does in fact
affirm that not until the judgment day shall believers be
fully and forever freed from all sin (Defence, p. i56) ;
and therefore when he says, " I see believers enter
" the middle state still imperfect, but they are cleansed
" by the blood of Christ from all sin, and are therefore
" sinless" (Defence, p. 177), he must in consistency be
understood to mean that sin is not imputed to them, as
it is not to believers in this world. This accords perfectly
with his statement on pp. i58, i5g of Defence, where he
says : " I do not doubt that the fountain which flows
" from the Redeemer's side cleanseth from all sin in the
" hour of death as in any hour of life^ when the sinner
" opens his heart in faith and repentance to the saving
" love of Jesus." All believers are thus imputatively
sinless.
The whole contention of Dr. Briggs, in his Defence, is
that the Bible and the Standards favor the view that the
work of making believers pure, morally perfect and holy,
is accomplished by means of progressive sanctification
79
after death. In discussing one of the rejected charges, it
was shown that, according to his teaching, the exercise of
faith and the act of justification may possibly take place
after death ; so that, as sin cannot be removed before
justification nor before the exercise of faith and repent-
ance, it is clear that believers can enter the next world
sinful and morally imperfect.
This doctrine is contrary to the teaching of the Holy
Scriptures. The two passages of Scripture appended to
this charge, show in the one case that the spirits of just
men in the state between death and the resurrection are
perfect ; and in the other, that the transformation of the
saints, who shall be on the earth when Christ shall come
again, from their imperfect and sinful condition in this life
to perfect holiness shall take place instantly, *' in the
" twinkling of an eye." It is easily possible for the Spirit
of God to work the same change in the souls of all
believers instantly at their death, in spite of any natural
principle of psychology or ethics.
But the Bible teaches in many other places that
believers enter immediately after death into a state of
perfect holiness. It represents them there as the " in-
" heritors of the promises," as arrayed in white robes
with palms in their hands, as having entered into the per-
fect rest of God and exchanged the mortal for the im-
mortal. It speaks of them as housed in heaven, where
only the undefiled can go, and as having gone to be for-
ever with Christ, whom only the holy shall see. The
80
Bible gives no intimation of any process of redemption or
sanctification in the next world.
The Standards of our Church, too, are as silent as
the Bible respecting any Gospel work, processes of re-
demption or ministrations of the Spirit in the life after
death. They confine redemption in all its processes to
this life.
The Confession states that '' the souls of the righteous "
immediately after death, " being then made perfect in
'' holiness, are received into the highest heaven''; the
Larger Catechism tells us, "The Communion in glory
** with Christ which the members of the invisible church
'* enjoy immediately after death, is in that their souls are
'' then made perfect in holiness, and received into the
*' highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in
'' light and glory ," and the Shorter Catechism asserts,
" The souls of believers are at their death made perfect
" in holiness and do immediately pass into glory'';
by no violence can such language be made consistent
with the doctrine of progressive sanctification after death ;
it is impossible to conceive that the authors of our Stand-
ards could have intended to teach any such doctrine, for
they held the opposing doctrine, which they have expressed
so well in the statements quoted. They say in L. C, S^,
that the righteous " even in death are delivered from the
'^ sting and curse of it ; so that although they die, yet it
^' is out of God's love, X.o free them perfectly from sin and
*' misery!'
81
This doctrine of Dr. Briggs then is an offence accord-
ing to the Book of Discipline for the following three
reasons :
1 . The doctrine is contrary to the Bible and the Stand-
ards. It is injected into them at the behest of a natural-
istic principle of psychology and ethics according to which
the instant change of a saint of God at death to perfect
holiness by the divine Spirit is declared to be a magical
illusion.
2. It is separated from the Roman Catholic doctrine of
purgatory by so frail a barrier that it will easily pass into it.
3. It will lead to graver departures from the faith. The
doctrine of redemption after death is advocated at present
principally in the interest of the doctrine of Second Pro-
bation, Dr. Briggs entertains the largest hopes in re-
spect to the possibilities of redemption in the middle
state.
He says, in Whither, p. 221 : ''The question which
" we have to determine as Calvinists is — whether the
** divine act of regeneration may take place in the middle
" state or not."
Certainly, if we once admit that one of the processes of
redemption takes place in the middle state, we will be
compelled, ere long, in logical consistency, to affirm that
all the processes of redemption may be carried on there.
The verdict of acquittal, therefore, on this charge, is
82
contrary to the evidence and to Presbyterian doctrine,
and should be reversed.
We have shown that the Presbytery of New York has
rendered a decision contrary to the law and evidence in
giving Its verdict of acquittal In this case. As not in
accord with true Presbyterian doctrine, the verdict should
be reversed and another should be formulated in harmony
with our doctrines and the evidence in this case.
The Presbytery, while not approving the erroneous
views of Dr. Briggs, suggests that they should be toler-
ated in the interest of scholarship and liberty.
The Presbyterian Church favors the best scholarship
and Insists that its ministers shall be thoroughly educated.
It welcomes the deepest research, but it requires also a
reverent handling of the Word of God. The type of
higher criticism which Is before us has no monopoly of
scholarship. Scholars who In knowledge and skill are at
least easily the peers of those who claim to be the higher
critics dispute their claims. Since the methods of higher
criticism are uncertain and Its results so far not large, it
"becomes Its apostles to be modest. They have, however,
laid themselves open to suspicion by inordinate conceit
and utter recklessness.
The Presbyterian Church is the friend of liberty. It
has always been foremost In efforts to promote religious,
civil, social and Individual freedom. It demands the
freest and fullest honest investigation of all the facts and
phenomena of the Bible.
83
But as in all other relations and institutions, divine and
human, liberty in our Church or in any other Church
must be regulated liberty. It has its limitations. The
freedom of one's house does not mean the right to pull
out its foundation. And liberty in a denomination can-
not mean the right to destroy its denominational life and
doctrines.
No one restrains the liberty of Dr. Briggs. He is as
free to go as he was to come. On his own responsibility
he can proclaim his theological and critical vieAvs from the
liouse-tops. The whole world will give him a hearing.
But he may not exercise this liberty in the denomination,
at the expense of that of his brethren. They have an
equal right with him to the enjoyment of liberty.
The Presbyterian Church is also entitled to her share
of the blessings of liberty. If she feels in conscience
bound to maintain her unbroken testimony for doctrines
which were taught by Christ and the Apostles, and which
have been held by the Church of Christ from New Testa-
ment times to the present, then in God's name, the
liberty to do this should be freely accorded to her. No
man may wrench from her hand her imprimatur and
affix it to doctrines which are abhorrent to her member-
ship and destructive of her denominational tenets, genius
and life.
At three different times the General Assembly has
warned the churches aofainst the baneful influence of that
kind of biblical criticism, which Dr. Briggs (Champions, as
84
tending to undermine faith in the Holy Scripture ; and
enjoined the Presbyteries to see to it that our students
for the ministry were not subjected to this criticism dur-
ing their theological training. The Church has been very
patient in this matter, and Dr. Briggs, not having heeded
the warning of the Assembly, has now no right to com-
plain that his liberty is unduly interfered with, if they re-
fuse longer to be responsible for the destructive opinions
which he propagates.
Greater things than mere liberty and scholarship are
involved in this issue. Truth, honor and fidelity to
great trusts committed claim our attention. We are
in a crisis. Not only are great doctrines of our faith
emasculated; the Bible itself is in peril. It is assailed
from unusual quarters. It is wounded in the house of
its friends. Our people are profoundly stirred. They
are greatly troubled, and look to this Assembly for
relief.
A great responsibility rests on you to-day, Mr. Moder-
ator and Brethren. It is for you to decide whether our great
Church shall continue her faith in the sole supremacy of
the Holy Scriptures as the source of authority in religion
for salvation and certainty ; or admit the Church and the
Reason to an equality with the Scriptures in this matter ;
whether we will continue our testimony for the absolute
truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God, or
tolerate the propagation of the doctrine of an errant
Scripture ; whether we will still affirm the plenary in-
85
splration of the Holy Scripture to the extent of entire
truthfulness, or so lower the doctrine of inspiration as
will permit us to say that an inspired writer in penning
the Bible not only committed errors but stated what he
knew to be false, and whether we shall still teach that the
work of redemption is confined to this life, or that it is
to be extended to the vast periods of time which intervene
between death and the resurrection.
These questions have hitherto not been relegated in
the Presbyterian Church to the domain of liberty of
opinion. They have been regarded as of such vital
importance that those who have assumed the vow to
which Presbyterian Ministers subscribe might not differ
in respect to them.
The Presbytery of New York concedes that '' grave
" issues " are involved. Truly, truly. Tolerate the
errors, say the Presbytery, but be careful not to approve
them. Strange delusion. Now, our people not only,
but Christian people generally, are anxiously waiting to
hear w^hat answer this great Assembly will give to these
questions. And the opportunity is offered to this Vener-
able Body to allay anxiety, to restore confidence and to
re-establish peace, by wise counsels, by bearing clear
testimony for the truth of God, by speaking with no
uncertain sound, by contending '' earnestly for the faith
" which was once for all delivered unto the saints," and
by firmly holding " fast the form of sound words."
Date Due
v. <:>- '£(1^
. ^'. -r\'
Lt-.i ■ -:-
■^ H 1 ;
' - .!'■■*
^^CO^
/ Y
FACMLT1
f
f)
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11