Other heresy trials and the Briggs case

Present*

PRINCETON, N. J. ty

3>.T>.

OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE.

Heresy trials seem to be an anachronism in our age and country
which allow the largest religious liberty consistent with pubic order
and peace. On the continent of Europe they have ceased, at least in
the Protestant churches. The theological professors in German,
Swiss, and Dutch universities are not sworn to a creed or profession
of faith; they are not responsible to an ecclesiastical tribunal, and
they enjoy the widest latitude of investigation. But in this country,
the theological seminaries are the creatures of churches ; the teachers
are appointed and supported by churches or by their representative
boards, -on the basis of a creed which they have to subscribe to.

It is a singular fact that theological ami political freedom do not
progress at equal pace. England, with greater political freedom, is
more orthodox than the continent; Scotland is more orthodox than
England; America is more orthodox than Europe; the West and the
South are more orthodox than the East, in our country. The strictest
Roman Catholics are not found in Italy and France, but in Ireland
and in the United States. So the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians,
and the Lutherans of this country are less liberal and progressive than
their fellow-religionists in the Old World.

Heresy trials will, therefore, from time to time take place in those
churches which hold and require subscription to a strict orthodox
creed. They occur whenever a public teacher sets forth views which
are inconsistent with such a creed and yet have sufficient vitality
and power to command a respectable following and to disturb the
peace of the denomination. They stir up all the bad blood of theo-
logical passions which are the deepest and strongest, and sometimes
they result, in division and schism. Heretics are no longer tortured, im-
prisoned, and roasted as in the Middle Ages; but they are deposed
and expelled from their denominations if found guilty, with the lib-
erty to join any other denomination willing to receive them, or to
found a new sect of their own. But they are usually acquitted and
restored, and in this case the result of a heresy trial is larger liberty
and progress. This has been the experience of several heresy trials
in the Presbyterian Church.

622 OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE.

Orthodoxy and heresy are relative terms. Orthodoxy is conform-
in- to an established and recognized creed; heresy is a departure from
it. The term " orthodoxy " does not occur in the New Testament;
" heresy " is mentioned several times in King James's version, for a
.. word which means " division," " party," " sect." The revised
• ii retains it in 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20; and 2 Peter ii. 1.
After the union of Church and State in the days of Constantine the
ruling church of the Roman Empire was the orthodox church, and
every one who publicly opposed its teaching was regarded and treated
as a heretic. At the present time Christendom is divided into many
churches and creeds, and to them correspond as manj^ types of ortho-
doxy. There is a Greek orthodoxy which conforms to the seven
ecumenical councils and the catechism of Peter Mogilas. There is a
Roman Catholic orthodoxy which must agree with the Tridentine and
Vatican standards. There is a Lutheran orthodoxy measured lyy the
Augsburg Confession, an Anglican orthodoxy which holds to the
Thirty-nine Articles and the Common Prayer Book; a Presbyterian or
Calvinistic orthodoxy which conforms to the Westminister Confession
and Catechisms. What is orthodoxy in one church may be heresy in
another. Thus the Greek church holds that the Filioque, the doctrines
of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and of the infalli-
bility of the Pope, are heretical innovations of the church of Rome.
Protestants reject these and other dogmas of Romanism such as
transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, the invocation of saints,
purgatory, indulgences, as anti-Scriptural errors; while Rome con-
demns all the distinctive doctrines of Protestantism as heresies. The
Lutherans regard Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper as heretical;
the Calvinists of the synod of Dort condemned the Arminian tenets
concerning predestination, the extent of atonement, irresistible grace,
and perseverance of saints, as errors, which were adopted by the Wes-
leyan Methodists, as truths. Baptists reject infant baptism and every
mode of baptism but by immersion.

In this condition of conflicting creeds, who is to decide? Where
is the infallible tribunal? The Greeks say, the ecumenical councils;
but th' Be have only defined the dogmas of the Nicene and Chalcedo-
nian creed, and have ceased since 787. The Roman Catholics say,
>]»e of Rome; but the Pope of Rome was not declared infallible
7". and P. >]>e Tlonorius III. was condemned as a heretic both
i ouncil and by several popes. Thus we have coun-
cil contradicting council and popes contradicting popes. Evangelical

OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE. 623

Protestants say, the Bible; but the Bible is claimed by all churches
and sects, and who is to decide between their various interpretations?
The Rationalists say, the reason; but whose reason? Where there
are six Rationalists there are seven reasons.

Here, then, comes in the whole question of the relationship be-
tween the Bible, the Church, and the Reason, and this is one of the
most important questions raised by the Briggs trial. Of all the
Protestant denominations in this country the Presbyterian is the most
orthodox and has the most rigorous creed (the Westminster Confes-
sion), which carries the ponderous weight of the metaphysical and
polemical theology of the seventeenth century. Hence she has had
more heresy trials than any other church in America. Three of these
trials have a historic interest beyond the limits of that denomination,
and involve divines of national repute. We shall give a brief account
of them, dwelling mostly on the last, which is still in progress.

Dr. Lyman Beecher, the father of the world-renowned family of
that name, was in his day the greatest preacher in New England, and
chief champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy against Unitarianism, but
somewhat erratic and eccentric in his theological opinions. He
was called from Boston as Professor of Theology to the newly founded
Lane Seminary at Cincinnati in 1882. Dr. Stowe, his son-in-law,
labored in the same institution. They imported New England notions
and measures, which seemed to conflict with the Presbyterianism of
the stricter Scottish type. Dr. Wilson, pastor of the First Church in
Cincinnati, charged Dr. Beecher with holding and teaching Pelagian
or Arminian views on free agency, total depravity, original sin, and
regeneration, contrary to the Scriptures and the Westminster Confes-
sion of Faith which he had accepted at his installation.

The trial was held in 1835 and continued for several days with
intense and unabated interest. It resulted in the complete vindication
of Dr. Beecher by a nearly two-thirds vote of the Presbytery. Dr.
Wilson appealed to the Synod and was again defeated. He appealed
to the General Assembly, but asked and obtained leave to withdraw
his appeal in obedience to the wishes of his friends and in view of the
approaching trial of Dr. Barnes, which involved the same principles
of sympathy with New England theology as taught by Dr. Ta}dor,
of New Haven, and his intimate friend, Dr. Beecher.

Albert Barnes was one of the most learned, worthy, and popular
preachers and authors in the United States, and his "Notes on the
New Testament " had an enormous circulation (exceeding a million of

624 OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BR1GGS CASE.

copies) in America and in England, especially among Sunday-school
t< achers. lie studied theology at Princeton, entered the ministry in
I 825, and was called to the First Presbyterian church of Philadelphia
in 1S30 (where he died in 1870).

Dr. Green brought charges against him in Presbytery for heretical
doctrines preached in a sermon on " The Way of Salvation." The
case created a great deal of commotion, action, and counter-action.
Dr. Jenkins, President of Lafayette College, at Easton, Pa. (the father-
in-law of Stonewall Jackson), became the chief prosecutor of Mr.
Barnes and tabled ten definite charges of errors selected from notes
in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Chief among them
was the denial of the legal imputation of Adam's sin and guilt to his
posterity, and of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers.
Barnes did not deny hereditary sin, but only hereditary guilt. So far
he sided with Arminianism, as also in regard to the extent of the
atonement. The Synod of Pennsylvania condemned the alleged errors
and suspended Barnes from the exercise of the functions of the gospel
ministry until he should recant and repent. He submitted, and sat for
a whole year Sunday after Sunday under his own pulpit listening to
the preaching of a stranger, — a rare instance of meekness and humil-
itv, which reminds one of Fenelon, who published the papal condem-
nation of his own book, the " Maxims of Saints."

Barnes, however, could appeal to a higher earthly tribunal, which
Fenelon could not. That was the General Assembly which met at
Pittsburg in 1836. This Assembly spent a whole week in hearing
his case and sustained the appeal by a vote of 131- to 96, and by a still
more decisive vote restored him to the active ministry.

But the agitation between Old and New School theology continued
with increasing force and animosity, and ended in a division. The
General Assembly of Philadelphia in 1837 abrogated the Plan of
Union between the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists (dating
from 1801) as " unnatural and unconstitutional," without consulting
the oilier party. The same Assembly cut off four Synods, the
rn Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, from the Presbyterian
Church in the United States, and dissolved the third Presbytery of
Philadelphia to which Dr. Barnes belonged — all without a hearing and
without a trial, by an act of intolerance worthy of the Westminster
Assembly which, in connection with the Long Parliament, deprived
thousand Episcopal ministers of their livings for the sole crime
of non-conformity.

OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE. 625

These exscinding acts split the church in two branches called the
Old School and the New School, which held the same standards of
doctrine and discipline, but differed in their interpretation, and were
to all intents and purposes two different denominations. Dr. Beecher
and Mr. Barnes survived the opposition and are numbered with the
brightest luminaries in the horizon of American Christianity.

The schism in the Presbyterian church continued for more than
thirty years, but was happily healed in 1870 on the basis of the West-
minster standards pure and simple, leaving the question of interpreta-
tion and application open. This reunion was inspired by a truly
Christian spirit of love and harmony and is one of the noblest events
m American church history.

For twenty years the union continued unbroken, and a new gener-
ation arose which almost forgot that there was an Old School or a New
School. Princeton and Union were on the best of terms, and united
with other Presbyterian seminaries in the publication of a "Review,"
which for ten years discussed the leading theological questions and
ecclesiastical events of the times under the joint editorship of profes-
sors of Princeton (Hodge, Patton, and Warfield), and a professor of
Union (Briggs). The " Review," however, gave indications of a grow-
ing difference in theological sentiment concerning the inspiration and
authority of the Bible and the attitude towards the results of " the
higher criticism," so called, which deals with the Bible as literature
and freely investigates the origin, value, and canonicity of the differ-
ent books. The Beecher and the Barnes trials had to do only with
purely American questions of theology; but since then American
theology has been brought into close contact with the critical and
historical researches of the theology of Europe, especially Germany, the
great workshop of the Reformation and of modern Protestant learning.

In 1889 arose the revision movement which demanded important
changes in the Westminster Confession, especially the elimination of
the doctrine of pretention and the denunciation of the pope as "the
antichrist" predicted by Paul, and of the papists as "idolaters."
The movement spread with as much rapidity as the reunion move-
ment had done twenty years before, and promises to result not only in
a revision of the old confession but in the formation of a new, shorter,
more scriptural, and popular creed, that shall express in an irenic,
evangelical and catholic spirit, the living faith of the present age
rather than the faith of the seventeenth century.

While the revision movement was going on, ihe peace of the church

626 OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE.

was disturbed by another heresy trial which surpasses even the
Beecher and the Barnes trials in importance and general interest.

Dr. Charles A. Briggs, the hero of the latest heresy trial which has
attracted the widest notice of the secular as well as of the religious press
of America, was born in the city of New York, January 15, 1841, and
is consequently in the prime of manhood and usefulness. He studied
in the University of Virginia (1859-60), and in the Union Theological
Seminary at New York (1861-63) under Robinson, Henry B. Smith, and
Hitchcock. He finished his theological education at Berlin, mainly
under Rodiger and Dorner (1866-69), and familiarized himself with the
latest phases and tendencies of German theology. After a short pas-
torate at Roselle, N. J. (1870-74), he was appointed tutor and soon
afterwards Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary (1874), and has been connected with it for the
last seventeen years. He received the degree of D.D. from the Uni-
versity of Edinburgh at its tercentenary in 1883, which he attended
as a delegate of the Union Seminary. In the autumn of 1890 he was
transferred to the Edward Robinson chair of Biblical Theology (in
the modern German sense of that term, as distinct from Ecclesias-
tical and Systematic Theology). He had been teaching this branch
since 1883 when Dr. Schaff gave up the remainder of his lectures on
the Old Testament (Critical Introduction and Old Testament Theol-
ogy); but as the chair was only recently endowed, as a distinct pro-
fessorship, by the liberality of the venerable Dr. Charles Butler, the
president of the Board of Directors, in honor his friend, trie dis-
tinguished Biblical scholar and explorer, Dr. Edward Robinson, it
was deemed proper and due to the founder to have a formal induction
by the usual solemnity of an inauguration.

Dr. Briggs accordingly, at the request of Dr. Butler, delivered an
inaugural address on "The Authority of Holy Scripture," January
20, L89L* This address was the occasion of the heresy trial. It con-
tain, 'd little or nothing but what Dr. Briggs had previously taught and
published in his books on "Biblical Study," "Messianic Prophecy,"
and "Whither?" as well as in several articles in the late "Fresby-
teran Review." Nor is there anything in the inaugural which would
disqualify him for a theological professorship in any university of
Europe. On the contrary, in Germany Dr. Briggs would be cla

* A third edition lias just been published, December, 1891, by Charles Scrib-

York, which contains also notes and explanations, the charges of

. the response thereto b tl Presbj tery of Now York; 160 pages.

OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE. 627

with the conservative and orthodox rather than with radicals and
rationalists. He is, in fact, a Calvinist in everything except the ques-
tions of higher criticism, where he adopts the opinions of the school of
Ewald and Wellhausen, though not without some modifications, and
with a distinct disavowal of rationalism. He goes no farther than
Delitzsch in his last concessions. But he stated his views on the
authority and inspiration of the Scriptures and the higher criticism
in such a defiant and exasperating tone against what he called
" bibliolatry," that the inaugural address sounded like a manifesto of
war and aroused at once a most determined opposition on the part of
the conservative and orthodox press. Even some of his best friends
deemed it unwise and uncalled for. It is this aggressive style and
manner which brought on the fight. The inaugural created a sort
of panic, as if the Bible were in danger and the way opened for the
teaching of downright rationalism in a leading institution of the
Presbyterian Church.

It was under the influence of this panic that more than seventy
Presbyteries overtured the General Assembly held at Detroit in May,
1891, to veto his appointment or transfer to the new chair.

The Union Theological Seminary, founded in 1836, was originally
independent, while the Princeton Seminary was in the power of the
General Assembly which elected both the professors and the directors.
But under the influence of the reunion enthusiasm in 1870, the Union
nary voluntarily surrendered a part of its independence, and
secured to Princeton a much desired measure of freedom by giving to
the General Assembly the veto power on the appointment of new
professors; not meaning, however, that the veto should cover mere
transfers of a professor, already a member of the Faculty, from one
department of teaching to another. Such transfers occur frequently
(I know of three in my own case), sometimes in the middle of a term,
in consequence of sickness or of death, and belong to the internal
administration of an institution whose directors and faculty are better
able to judge than a General Assembly composed of delegates from
all parts of the country and changing every year. The directors of
the Seminary, at a meeting held shortly before the meeting of the
General Assembly, recorded their views on this subject.

The Assembly, ignoring this difference, ignoring also the pub-
lished statement of the faculty of the Seminary, and the categorical
orthodox answersof Dr. Briggs to specific questions of the directors, ex-
ercised the veto power with an overwhelming majority of seven to one,

628 OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE.

and virtually deposed Dr. Briggs without giving him a hearing and
without even assigning a reason. At the same time the Assembly ap-
pointed a committee of conference with the directors of the Seminary;
as if, after all, the Assembly might have erred in its action in the case.
The proper order undoubtedly would have been to confer with the
directors first, and to act afterwards on the result of the conference.
This might have led to a peaceful settlement. This was the course
proposed by Dr. Worcester, of Chicago (since called to the chair of
Systematic Theology in the Union Seminary), and advocated with
such sound arguments that, in the opinion of some, it would have been
adopted if the vote had been taken at once. The specious plea of the
advocates of immediate action was " now or never." It is the same
plea which induced the General Assembly of 1837 to take advantage of
an accidental majority in favor of the exscinding act. In a representa-
tive body, like the Assembly, the majority changes with the constitu-
ency.

It is but just to add that the action of the Assembly, whether
right or wrong, was taken under the sincere conviction of actual dan-
ger of unsound doctrine, and without any personal ill-feeling against
Dr. Briggs, whose learning and piety were freely acknowledged by
his most decided opponents. In this respect the Assembly differs very
favorably from former Assemblies in similar cases. Christian courtesy
and good manners have evidently made progress and have moderated
the odium theologicum and the rabies theologicum, from which the great
and good Melancthon prayed to be delivered.

It so happened that a Princeton Professor of Theology, the learned
and venerable Dr. Green, was Moderator of the Detroit Assembly,
and that the president of Princeton University, the Kev. Dr. Patton,
was chairman of the committee on Theological Seminaries, which
proposed the exercise of the veto power and is immediately responsi-
ble for the whole action.

Under these circumstances the affair unfortunately assumed the
aspect of a conflict between Princeton and Union, the two leading in-
stitutions of the American Presbyterian Church, which have hereto-
fore labored on different lines within respectful distance, yet on cordial
terms of friendship and co-operation in the service of the same church.

The directors of the Union Seminary, insisting upon their distinc-
tion between a new appointment and a transfer, and being satisfied
with the general soundness as well as the scholarship and teaching
ability of Dr. Briggs, who was known to them from seventeen years'

OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE. 629

experience, disregarded the veto of the Assembly and adhered to their
former action. The Assembly had, wisely or unwisely, acted on its
own interpretation of the agreement of 1870, and the directors felt
that they had the same right to act on their interpretation of the
agreement which they themselves had proposed.

A meeting of the Assembly's Committee of Conference with the
Directors of the Seminary was held last November, and another one
will be held next January. Time will show whether they will come
to an agreement or compromise of the delicate question which involves
the further relation of all the Presbyterian seminaries to the General
Assembly.

Before the meeting of the Assembly at Detroit the Presbytery of
New York, the largest in the country, had taken Dr. Briggs in hand
under the influence of the panic created by his inaugural, and re-
solved, April 13, 1891, to try him for heresy as a member of that
Presbyteryr A committee of prosecution was appointed consisting of
three clergymen and two laymen.* This committee reported to the
Presbytery on October 5, 1891, and charged Dr. Briggs with teach-
ing and publishing in said inaugural address " hurtful errors which
strike at the vitals of religion and conflict irreconcilably with and are
contrary to the cardinal doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures and
contained in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church." Two distinct
charges were brought against him: one that he denied the funda-
mental doctrine of the infallibility and the sufficiency of the Scriptures
as the only rule of faith and practice ; and the other, that he taught
progressive sanctilication after death.

The first and principal charge was formulated under several speci-
fications as follows. Dr. Briggs is charged with teaching:

1. That "there are historically three great functions of divine
authority — the Bible, the Church, and the Reason; " thus making the
Church and the Reason each to be an independent and sufficient foun-
tain of divine authority. (The last clause is an inference of the com-
mittee not justified by the address, and expressly denied by Dr. Briggs.)

2. That some (like Cardinal Newman) may obtain the saving
knowledge through the Church.

3. That others (like James Martineau) may find the knowledge of
God through the Reason.

4. That the temperarnen-ts and environments of men determine
which of the three ways of success to God they may pursue.

*Tlie Rev. Drs. Birch, Lampe, and Sample, unci Elders John J. Stevenson ami
John J. McCook.

G30 OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE.

5. That he " makes statements in regard to the Holy Scriptures
which cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of the true and full
inspiration of those Scriptures as the 'word of God written.' "

6. That he " asserts that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch,
and that Isaiah is not the author of half of the book which bears his
name."

7. That he " teaches that predictive prophecy has been reversed
by history and that much of it has not and never can be fulfilled."

The second charge is that Dr. Briggs teaches " a doctrine of the
character, state, and sanctilication of believers after death, which irre-
concilably conflicts with and is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and
the Standards of the Presbyterian Church."

These charges and specifications were sustained by quotations from
Dr. Briggs's inaugural address and controverted by a mass of Bible
passages (mostly irrelevant, and all from King James's version, even
where it is decidedly wrong) and by whole sections of the West-
minster Confession of Faith, including the twice repeated list of all
the canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments. The report
covers forty-five pages in print, and is one of the curiosities of Ameri-
can theological literature.

Dr. Briggs responded to these charges before a special meeting of
the New York Presbytery on November 4, 1891, in a masterly legal
and logical argument and, at the same time, in a tone of moderation
which charmed his friends and disarmed his enemies. There is not
an offensive nor discourteous word in the whole paper; lie spoke fortiter
in re, suaviU r in medo. lie made a manly and Christian confession of
deep regret if he "had in anyway, directly or indirectly, been the
occasion of disturbing the peace of the Church," or if he "had given
pain and anxiety to his brethren in the ministry, or to the people of
Christ's church, by any utterances in the inaugural address." This
tone and confession more even than the ability of the defence made
convert . and accounts for the result which was a virtual vindication
by a majority nearly of two-thirds (94 to 31). The resolution of the
IV' sbytery is as follows:

" Resolved, That the Presbytery of New York, having listened to the paper
<>f the Rev. I diaries A. Briggs, D.D., in the ease of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America against him, as to the sufficiency of the charges
and specifications in form and legal effect, and withoui approving of the positions
stated in his inaugural address, at Hip same time desiring earnestly the peace
and quiet <>f the Church, and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs
touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Standards, and

OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE. G31

of his disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words, deems it best to
dismiss the case, and hereby does so dismiss it."

The Presbytery did not indorse the views of Dr. Briggs, but ac-
cepted his explanation and declaration of loyalty to the Holy Scrip-
tures as sufficient to justify a dismissal of the trial. This is all that he
and his friends could reasonably expect and desire. We would like
to hope that this agitation might stop here, and that peace and good
will between brethren be restored.

But the controversy is not yet closed. The committee of prosecu-
tion, which claims to be an independent party, has appealed from the
decision of the New York Presbytery to the General Assembly which
will meet next May, and may either try the case or dismiss it or send
it back to the Presbytery for a new trial. We must wait the issue.
In the mean time, Dr. Briggs, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Vincent are deliv-
ering lectures on the points of this Bible controversy before crowded
audiences in the Church of the Convenant, in New York.

The response of Dr. Briggs is, technically, only an objection to the
sufficiency of the charges and specifications " in form and in legal
effect," as required by the Presbyterian Book of Discipline; but, in-
directly, it is an explanation and defence of his inaugural address and
is sufficient to free him from the charge of heresy.

1. Dr. Briggs reasserts his doctrine of the three sources of divine
authority — Scripture, Church, and Beason ; but denies that he
meant to co-ordinate them, as charged. He always taught and still
teaches the cardinal Protestant doctrine that the Bible is the only
infallible rule of faith and practice. "The Reason," he says, "is a
great fountain of divine authority, and yet not an infallible rule of
faith and practice. The Church is a great fountain of divine author-
ity, and yet not an infallible rule of faith and practice. The Bible is
a great fountain of divine authority, and is the only infallible rule
.in< I practice."

The Bible is the shibboleth of Protestants, but is much higher
than Protestantism; Church is the shibboleth of Romanists, but it
is much higher than Romanism; the Reason is the shibboleth of
Rationalists, but it is much higher than Rationalism; The Bible, the
Church, and the Reason are one in God, the one supreme Source of
all truth and authority.

2. As to questions raised by the higher criticism concerning the
authenticity and canonicity of the several books of Scripture, they are
extra-confessional and of modern date. They did not exist for the

632 OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE.

Westminster Assembly which framed the Confession. They are per-
fectly legitimate and unavoidable in the theological class-room, and
must be decided by the slow process of Christian scholarship. Dr.
Briggs accepts — perhaps too hastily — the views of the liberal wing of
the German critics concerning the post-Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, the post-Isaian origin of more than one-half of the proph-
ecies under the name of Isaiah; but he nevertheless believes in the
inspiration and authority of these portions of the Old Testament as
fully as if they had been written by Moses and Isaiah. The authority
of Scripture depends upon God and their intrinsic value, not upon
man and the authority of the church. Several portions of the Bible
— as the Book of Job, the " Orphan Psalms " so-called, and the Epistle
to the Hebrews — are anonymous, and no scholar has been able or ever
will be able to settle the question of their human authorship, but they
are as much inspired and canonical as any other book.

8. As regards sanctification after death, Dr. Briggs denies that he
holds the Eoman doctrine of purgatory, or the Andover hypothesis of
a future (falsely called a second) probation. lie simply teaches the
progressive sanctification of believers, as distinct from immediate and
absolute sanctification, after death ; that is, he holds that believers
enter the middle state guiltless and sinless, yet not so perfect as to
leave no room for continued growth in knowledge and every grace.
Surely there can be no reasonable objection to such a view. It may
not be quite consistent with the teaching of the Westminster standards,
but the far more important question is whether it is scriptural and
true. Modern scholars are agreed that the eschatology of the Protes-
tant Reformers and Protestant Confessions is undeveloped, negative
rather than positive, and stands in need of improvement. They
denied the papal doctrine of purgatory, but they gave us nothing better
in the place. They ignored the middle state .between death and resur-
rection, and identified the state immediately after death with the final
state after the resurrection.

This defect has affected even the Protestant versions of the Bible
which confound the Greek and Hebrew terms for the middle state, or
the spirit world, the region of the departed (Hades and Sheol), with
hell or the state of torment (Gehenna). Hence the awful word " hell "
occurs twice as often in the authorized version of the English Bible as
in the Gre< k and Hebrew original. The revised version has corrected
this mischievous error.

The authority of the Protestant Confessions of Faith is limited by

OTHER HERESY TRIALS AND THE BRIGGS CASE. 633

the cardinal Protestant doctrine of the supreme authority of the Bible.
They are not norma uormaus, but norma normala. They are not rules
of faith, but rules of public teaching. They are not infallible, and
may be corrected and improved by better statements of divine truth,
which must ever be the first and last aim of a theologian. Amicus
Augustinus, amicus Calvinus, sed mag is arnica Veritas.

The Presbyterian Church is just now engaged in a revision of the
Westminster Confession and will undoubtedly eliminate from it cer-
tain obsolete and obnoxious features, as divine foreordination of sin and
death, the limitation of the atonement to the elect, and the anti-popery
clauses, and will put in a distinct declaration of the general love of
God to all mankind and the sincere offer of salvation to every creature
made in his image. This will be a serious modification of high Cal-
vinism, though not of the Reformed system in the wider historical
sense. The church has a perfect right to make such changes in obedi-
ence to the advance in liberal scholarship. She changed the Confes-
sion even more radically a hundred years ago in all those articles
which assumed the union of Church and State and made it the duty
of the civil government to protect orthodoxy and to punish heresy.

This is not an opportune time to stop the legitimate progress of
theological investigation and science. Surely, the great Presbyterian
Church of the United States should have room and to spare for such
scholars as Dr. Briggs. She is orthodox and conservative enough, and
can afford to be tolerant and liberal without running any risk. She
has too much intelligence, good sense, and solid piety to be thrown
off her balance. Christian scholars who combine faith with learning
and critical ability are rare and now more needed than ever, to
disentangle the Scriptures from traditional embarrassments such
as the theory of a literal inspiration or dictation, and the absolute
inerrancy of the original autographs which nobody has ever seen
or will see— for they are irretrievably lost. These are human fictions
contradicted by undoubted facts, and make it impossible to defend
the Bible against the objections of critics, historians, and scientists.
The Bible is independent of all human theories of inspiration and
stands upon the impregnable rock of truth. It is not a manual
of geology, or biology, or astronomy, or chronology, or history, or
science. Even the Pope of Home docs not claim infallibility in any
of these departments. The Bible is a book of religion, a rule of
faith and duty, no more, no less; and as such it can and will main-
tain its authority and power to the end of time. y/

Philip Schaff.

Date Due