' \ 
 
(f.'Lo.'ol^ 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Presented bpPvo^ ?S7S . VJ^u CaAx <Sj \ A ,^ -X , 
 
 Dhnsion 
 Section 
 
[/•AV( /, / // / .\ / ) -I III ■ I W.S. ] 
 / 
 
 a'review 
 
 -Ol- 
 
 Professor Briggs^s 
 
 NAUGURAL ADDRESS, 
 
 BY SIXTUS. 
 
 i\h\V '^ < il' k : 
 
 CHARLHS L. WEBSTHK & CO. 
 1 891. 
 
/ 
 
 A REVIEW 
 
 -OF- 
 
 Professor Briggs's 
 
 INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
 
 BY SIXTUS. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 CHARLES L. WEBSTER & CO. 
 
 1891. 
 
Copyright, 1891, 
 
 BV 
 
 CHARLES L. WEBSTER & CO. 
 (All rights reserved. ) 
 
 PRESS OF 
 
 jENiaNS & McCOWAN, 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
A REVIECVS^ 
 
 Professor Briggs's Inaugural Address. 
 
 In the month of January of the present year, 
 Professor Charles A. Briggs delivered an ad- 
 dress on the occasion of his inauguration in the 
 chair of Biblical Theology in the Union Semi- 
 nary of New York. . This address, which has 
 since been printed and published, has already 
 excited a considerable amount of comment and 
 criticism. The occasion upon which it was de- 
 livered gave additional importance to the state- 
 ment of doctrine which Professor Briggs then 
 made. The professorship is a new one. Pro- 
 fessor Briggs is the first one to hold it. 
 
 The audience, assembled to hear what we 
 may call the " programme" of instruction, was 
 a large and distinguished one. Besides the 
 Seminary Faculty and graduates, the students 
 and their friends, there were present represent- 
 atives of the Episcopal Seminary of New York, 
 of the Congregational Seminary of New Haven, 
 and many others well known in the religious 
 
A REVIEW OF 
 
 world. Indeed, one may regard it as a hopeful 
 sign of Christian unity that the Protestant 
 Episcopal Bishop of New York should have 
 kindly written a letter in which Professor 
 Briggs was said to be beloved on account of 
 his failings. For this will lead many to the 
 belief that even if there be a danger, as some 
 suspect that there is, of a schism in the Presby- 
 terian Church, by reason of the prevalence of 
 radical doctrine, some erring souls, after leaving 
 the Presbyterian fold, may find a place among 
 the "dearly beloved brethren" who have an 
 elastic creed and the " historic episcopate." 
 
 The chair of Dogmatic Theology, left vacant 
 by the resignation of the venerable Professor 
 Shedd, has not yet been filled. But in the 
 meantime, the seminary is not without an in- 
 structor who is ready to discuss some of the 
 more important questions of doctrine in a man- 
 ner so easy and fluent as to captivate, if not to 
 convince, many of his hearers and readers. 
 
 As a theologian as distinguished from a lit- 
 erary critic of the Bible, Professor Briggs has a 
 reputation founded on a short treatise of theol- 
 ogy, entitled "Whither?" This appeared to 
 many to be an argument to show that what the 
 Presbyterian Church teaches now is not what 
 Presbyterian doctrine really is. The inference 
 implied was, that while Presbyterians were be- 
 
PROF. BRIGGS S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 5 
 
 lieving something new and unpresbyterian, 
 they might as well believe in the doctrines dis- 
 seminated by what are often known as the 
 " new theologians." Vague speculations, hints, 
 and criticisms have for some time past awaken- 
 ed a curiosity concerning the doctrines really 
 taught at the Union Seminary. The address 
 of Professor Briggs has thrown some light on 
 this subject, and w^e are enabled to form an 
 idea of the doctrines which have been so w idely 
 criticised. 
 
 vSome of the professors at Union Seminary 
 have an interesting reputation for their definite 
 teaching, and their intellectual grasp of Pres- 
 byterian theology. President Hastings, for 
 example, has never been accused of undermin- 
 ing old doctrines or of setting up new ones. 
 His occasional articles in the religious news- 
 papers, and his lectures on rhetoric at the 
 seminary, have never been looked upon as 
 dangerous to the orthodox faith of his readers 
 and hearers. Professor Brown is well known 
 as a learned orientalist and a bold critic, but 
 he has been but little criticised by conservative 
 people. The other members of the faculty 
 have escaped suspicion, while the burden or 
 honor of such suspicion has rested upon Pro- 
 fessor Briggs. There have been rumors of his 
 inclination toward Rationalism, and what Car- 
 
6 A REVIEW OF 
 
 dinal Newman once called "Germanism." But 
 every one has felt that with some of the con- 
 servative clergy on the Board of Directors, no 
 danger was to be apprehended from Professor 
 Briggs's opinions. 
 
 Indeed, on reading the pamphlet which con- 
 tains his address, we are obliged to confess that 
 it contains nothing very new or startling. The 
 only thing that is new and startling is that such 
 doctrines should be taught by a professor in a 
 Presbyterian seminary. Most Presbyterian 
 laymen are very intelligent with respect to the 
 '* faith that is in them." But not all laymen can 
 be experts concerning such doctrines as those 
 of the Higher Criticism. Inspiration, and the 
 Future State. When they are in doubt, they 
 often seek aid from their pastors, or, if the 
 question be one of great moment, they may go 
 for definite information to the instructors in the 
 theological seminaries. Every Presbyterian 
 layman knows that unless a man subscribe to 
 the Westminster standards he cannot be a 
 clergyman of the Presbyterian Church, and he 
 supposes that the clergy are honest enough to 
 mean what they say when they so subscribe. 
 Assuming that Professor Briggs's teaching is 
 accepted by the students who attend lectures 
 at the Union Seminary, it becomes a matter of 
 no small importance to laymen who may here- 
 
PROF. JiKlGGS S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 7 
 
 after enjoy the ministrations of these younjj 
 brethren, to know in what way Professor Briggs 
 interprets the standards. Our Presbyterian 
 brethren tell us that " Revision is in the air," 
 and it seems to us that the air is so agitated 
 that men are driven about by every wind of 
 doctrine. No one knows as yet just what the 
 result of revision will be, but Professor Briggs 
 has contradicted what the Confession teaches 
 on several important points. We do not care 
 to do more than to suggest that he is in a 
 dilemma, for if we were to state the dilemma, 
 we should find heresy at one horn, and disin- 
 genuousness at the other. 
 
 The title of Professor Briggs's inaugural ad- 
 dress is " The Authority of the Holy Script- 
 ures," and he could not have chosen a more 
 suitable subject. To a Presbyterian the matter 
 is a vital one. If the authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures be assailed, then Presbyterian doc- 
 trine is assailed. 
 
 We observe, however, that at the very begin- 
 ning of his discourse, Professor Briggs touches 
 on various philosophical questions, and handles 
 them in a way which shows a very mistaken 
 conception of the history of philosophy, as well 
 as of philosophical procedure. Indeed, we are 
 by no means surprised at his frequent ani- 
 madversions on dogmatic theology, when we 
 
8 A REVIEW OF 
 
 find throughout the address so many evidences 
 of logical inconsistency, logical errors, and — if 
 we may be permitted to say so — philosophical 
 ignorance. He tells us with great candor that 
 " Logic and syllogism, system and method 
 need constant criticism, verification, and revis- 
 ion."* Such things seem to him to be a cause 
 of obscurity and vexation. And he breaks out 
 into an almost feminine expression of emotion 
 as he contemplates systematic theology : " Oh, 
 when will men learn that the Bible means ex- 
 actly what it says ! " * 
 
 The professor deals very impatiently with 
 the scholasticism of the mediaeval theologians, 
 as well as that of the Reformers. But what- 
 ever may have been the faults of those writers, 
 it is certain that in their works there is no such 
 display of confused, contradictory, and illogi- 
 cal thought as we have found in the pages of 
 this pamphlet. In saying this, we mean no 
 disrespect to the author, for it is seldom that 
 one who has spent his life in the study of lan- 
 guage, Hebrew texts, and manuscripts, and 
 German commentators, can be expected to show 
 great proficiency in dialectic and philosophical 
 discussion. 
 
 We leave to others the diverting task of 
 comparing Professor Briggs's opinions with the 
 
 * p. 49- 
 
PROF. HRIGGSS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 9 
 
 Standards which he has solemnly promised to 
 support. In another place we shall have occa- 
 sion to allude to this, but, for the present, shall 
 content ourselves with a consideration of some 
 of the more philosophical aspects of his position. 
 It may be only fancy, but we have an impres- 
 sion that we have read a great deal of what 
 Professor Briggs teaches, expressed in a much 
 more clever manner by Spinoza, Voltaire, and 
 certain of the Tubingen theologians; but inas- 
 much as it is the fashion to call this kind of 
 thought the " new " theology, as if it had some- 
 how been born on the corner of Park Avenue 
 and Sixty-ninth Street, we prefer to treat it as 
 a theological novelty. 
 
 In spite of his impatience of scholastic 
 methods and of scholastic dogmas. Professor 
 Briggs entertains certain views with regard to 
 the principles of religious thought, which lead 
 him, whether he will or not, into the very heart 
 of that theological country which he affects to 
 despise. This is evident at the outset, where 
 he refers with such solemnity, but with such 
 inadequate comprehension of its significance, to 
 the test of truth. 
 
 " Probability might be the guide of life in the 
 eighteenth century, and for those who have in- 
 herited its traditions, but the men of this time 
 are in quest of certainty. Divine authority is 
 
lO A REVIEW OF 
 
 the only authority to which man can yield im- 
 plicit obedience; on which he can rest in loving 
 certainty and build with joyous confidence." * 
 
 Now this temper, this quest after certainty 
 in the philosophical sense of the term, has been 
 characteristic of almost every philosopher from 
 the time of the Sophists to the present day. 
 And it is this temper which has more than any- 
 thing else been productive of infidelity and 
 absolute skepticism Professor Briggs does 
 not say that such a tendency is to be com- 
 mended, but from the context it appears that 
 such is his opinion. This demand for certainty, 
 we might almost say for apodictic certainty, 
 was fully as characteristic of the seventeenth 
 and eighteenth centuries as of the nineteenth. 
 
 No one who has read the Meditations of Des- 
 cartes can have failed to notice that impressive 
 mental struggle and conflict through which he 
 passed, before he found that the only and ulti- 
 mate certainty was the fact that he doubted, 
 and that on the foundation of doubt itself he 
 might rear his dogmatic system. The same 
 characteristic is to be found in the philosophy 
 of Pascal. And if we pass from the seven- 
 teenth to the eighteenth century, which, ac- 
 cording to Professor Briggs, was satisfied with 
 probability as the guide of life, we are confront- 
 
 * p. 24. 
 
PROF. BRIGGS'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. II 
 
 ed by the Encyclopaedists in France, by the 
 leaders of the Aufklaerung in Germany, and in 
 Great Britain by David Hume. It is indeed 
 characteristic of the scholastic mind to seek 
 after certainty, but Professor Briggs seems to 
 think that he can reach certainty by means of 
 his inductive methods. On the contrary, any 
 one who knows anything at all about induc- 
 tion knows that it never gives apodictic cer- 
 tainty. It can give nothing more than prob- 
 ability. There is, indeed, a spurious so-called 
 induction per simplicein enunierati oneni, which 
 gives certainty, but logicians have long since 
 ceased to regard it as a legitimate form of the 
 inductive method. Wherever men have insist- 
 ed on certainty, and have remained unsatisfied 
 with a high degree of probability, there absolute 
 skepticism has taken root on a congenial soil. 
 But we decline to agree with Professor Briggs 
 that this is a characteristic of the nineteenth 
 century. It is a defect of the historic sense 
 which leads so many superficial writers to claim 
 for this century peculiarities which have be- 
 longed to many other centuries, and which, as 
 in this case, do not belong to the nineteenth 
 century at all. 
 
 Assuming, however, that certainty is to be 
 reached, and assuming that we have a source 
 of divine authority, let us examine this source 
 
12 A REVIEW OF 
 
 more specifically. According to Professor 
 Briggs, it is threefold: "There are historically 
 three fountains of divine authority — the Bible, 
 the Church, and the Reason." * 
 
 If this be so, it might be natural to suppose 
 that all three were equally authoritative, for 
 they are all fountains which flow from God. 
 It must not be supposed that all three teach 
 identical doctrines. All that the professor 
 means, we apprehend, is this, that each author- 
 ity is divine in its own sphere. They are all 
 means which lead to one end, and that end is 
 God. 
 
 Now this position we hold to be utterly un- 
 tenable. It is untenable specifically for the 
 Presbyterian, but from a broader and more 
 philosophical point of view, it is untenable for 
 any one who does not follow Professor Briggs 
 in his disregard of the rules of logic. It is 
 of course highly desirable that Reason and 
 Revelation should be in harmony with one an- 
 other, and if both are sources of divine author- 
 ity, that the autonomy of each should be pre- 
 served, but a little attention to historical facts, 
 combined with a little more attention to the 
 principles of disjunctive reasoning, might have 
 led Professor Briggs away from the position in 
 which he has balanced himself in such an 
 
 * p. 24. 
 
PROF. BRIGGS S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 1 3 
 
 amusing manner. He is apparently uncon- 
 scious of this, for, speaking of the three sources, 
 he says, "They are, they always have been, and 
 they always will be harmonious." * But if that 
 be true, then why does he say on the same 
 page, " They ought to be complementary; there 
 ought to be no contradiction between them. 
 It is my profound conviction that we are on the 
 threshold of just such a happy reconciliation."* 
 Let us examine his position more closely. 
 
 One of the stock examples in elementary 
 text-books of loofic is that illustration of the 
 fallacy of "equivocation," which occurs so 
 often in discussions concerning the Church. 
 The Church is said to be a source of divine 
 authority which does not contradict the re- 
 ligion of the Bible or the religion of Reason. 
 But what Church is this of which Professor 
 Briggs speaks ? We have searched his pam- 
 phlet from beginning to end for light on this 
 subject, and have failed to find a satisfactory 
 answer. Undoubtedly he has a satisfactory 
 answer, as he is in quest of certainty. It would 
 appear that the late Cardinal Newman f was a 
 man who found God through the Church, in 
 which case the Latin Church is meant. But the 
 Bible as understood by Professor Briggs is con- 
 tradictory to Catholic doctrine. And the Re- 
 * p. 64. t p. 25. 
 
14 A REVIEW OF 
 
 formed doctrine, that is, the doctrine of the Re- 
 formed communions, is contradictory to the 
 doctrines of the Church of the Middle Ages. 
 But we should probably be told that Professor 
 Briggs refers only to " Institutional Chris- 
 tianity " when he speaks of the Church. 
 Doubtless this is true. But we see no reason 
 for calling " Institutional Christianity " the 
 Church, as if the former were a coherent, 
 harmonious body of doctrine. What kind of 
 Institutional Christianity are we to look for ? 
 
 Shall we sit at the feet of the Nicene Fa- 
 thers, or of the Tridentine Doctors, or of the 
 Westminster Divines ? Is it the Latin, or the 
 Greek, or the English Church, or the Presby- 
 terian Church, or the so-called Protestant 
 Church which is the fountain of divine au- 
 thority ? We should probably be told that it 
 is no one of these, but all of them. But if 
 they differ with one another, how are we to 
 decide which doctrines are to be accepted and 
 which rejected ? The Church contradicts it- 
 self. Indeed, Professor Briggs intimates that 
 this source of authority has been a barrier to 
 Revelation, a barrier between man and God. 
 It is difficult not to smile at the absurdity of the 
 author, telling us on one page that the Church 
 is a source of divine authority, and on an- 
 other page intimating that it is really an ob- 
 
PROF. BRIGGS S INAUGURAI, ADDRESS. I5 
 
 stacle which separates man from God. But 
 little harm is done, for we submit that it is ut- 
 terly impossible to tell what he means by the 
 term " Church." We have heard a great deal 
 of this kind of talk from the High-Church 
 Episcopalians, who are fond of telling us what 
 the " Church" teaches, meaning, by " Church," 
 either the Church of the first four centuries 
 which somehow speaks ambiguously, or the 
 Book of Common Prayer, or the British Parlia- 
 ment, or the Tractarian waiters, or the equivo- 
 cal Thirty-nine Articles. The only conclusion 
 that we have been able to reach is that Profess- 
 or Briggs would have us accept the teaching 
 of the Church, whatever that may be, only in 
 so far as it is in agreement with the Bible and 
 the Reason. The authority of the Church ap- 
 pears thus to be secondary to that of the Bible 
 and the Reason. But if it is a source of divine 
 authority, that is absurd. 
 
 This way of looking at authority is analogous 
 to what sometimes happens in the family. 
 The child should obey his parents. But if 
 the father commands one thing, and the mo- 
 ther commands the opposite, the child is in- 
 clined to say : " I shall do as I please." 
 
 According to Professor Briggs, God is made 
 known through the Reason.* When any one 
 
 * p. 26. 
 
1 6 A REVIEW OF 
 
 Speaks of the "Reason," after the stormy 
 philosophical controversies of the last two 
 centuries, it is imperative that some clear 
 definition of the Reason should be ofiven. 
 The professor says he speaks of the Reason, in 
 a broad sense, " to embrace the metaphysical 
 categories, the conscience, and the religious 
 feeling"."* We are disposed to doubt whether 
 this is a broad sense in which to use the term. 
 But, taking it for what it is worth as a defini- 
 tion, we are left in great perplexity as to what 
 is meant. The term Reason is often used as 
 antithetical to Nature, or as distinguished from 
 Revelation. Either of these two senses we 
 should regard as a broad sense of the word. 
 But what does Professor Briggs mean by the 
 metaphysical categories ? There are many 
 points in this address which we do not care to 
 touch upon, involving, for example, questions 
 of exegesis with which we are not familiar, but 
 it does not do for even a Hebrew scholar like 
 Professor Briggs to make excursions into the 
 field of systematic philosophy without being a 
 little more sure of his ground. He would 
 doubtless be astonished if any one were to 
 speak to him of the Pentateuch " written by 
 the minor prophets," but such a mistake would 
 be no worse than to use Reason as synony- 
 
 * p. 26. 
 
PROF. BRIGGS'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 1 7 
 
 mous with the metaphysical categories. Indeed 
 one is tempted to ask what is meant by the 
 "metaphysical categories?" Does he mean 
 the metaphysical ideas of the Reason, or the 
 categories of the understanding ? The only 
 metaphysical categories that we know of are 
 those of Aristotle's Organon, and systems 
 founded on it, and there is still some dis- 
 pute as to whether the First Book of the Or- 
 gaiioii is to be regarded as a part of the Stag- 
 irite's philosophia prima. But if the Rea- 
 son is identical with the categories, and also 
 the same with the conscience and the religious 
 feeling, then the professor is simply talking 
 nonsense. There is no other name for it, or 
 we would gladly use it. It is nonsensical and 
 nothing else, to say that divine authority rests 
 in the metaphysical categories, if it at the same 
 time lies in Reason which is one with con- 
 science and religious feeling. But according 
 to Professor Briggs, this is the " Holy of Holies 
 of Nature." ''^ If by metaphysical forms or 
 categories. Professor Briggs means the Cate- 
 gories of the Kantian Analytic, then it must 
 be answered that according to Kant, the form 
 without the matter, i. e., without experience, is 
 empty. It is difficult to determine whence the 
 Reason can get any religious experience to fill 
 
 * p. 26. 
 
1 8 A REVIEW OF 
 
 these empty categories without the Bible and 
 the Church. 
 
 " The vast multitude of men are guided by 
 God through the forms of the Reason, without 
 their having any consciousness of His presence 
 or guidance. There are a few who are able to 
 rise by reflection into the higher consciousness 
 of God. These few are of the mystic type of 
 religion ; the men who have been the prophets 
 of mankind, the founders of religions, the 
 leaders of Revivals and Reformations, who, 
 conscious of the divine presence within them, 
 and certain of His guidance, lead on confidently 
 in the paths of divine Providence." * 
 
 This tendency is likely to be prevalent after 
 the pressure of a too formal Metaphysic. The 
 claim ordinarily made by mystics is, that they 
 have the power to rise in a kind of ecstasy to a 
 direct apprehension of God and divine truth, 
 unchecked by the limits of human thought. If 
 there is a new Master Eckhardt or a new Fene- 
 lon at the Union Seminary, we have as yet 
 failed to discover him, but it is possible that the 
 existence of such a reactionist against the ordi- 
 nary forms of rational procedure may be an ex- 
 planation of the unintelligible doctrine which 
 Professor Briggs sets forth. Some hint as to 
 his meaning is perhaps given where he couples 
 
 * p. 26. 
 
PROF. BRIGGS S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. I9 
 
 the term " Reason " with what is known in some 
 quarters as the " Christian consciousness ;" and 
 we may notice for a moment the position of 
 those who attach value to this vague term, 
 borrowed, we believe, from Schleiermacher, and 
 misunderstood by many American writers on 
 theology. 
 
 Consciousness is a name given by psycholo- 
 gists to the source of immediate knowledge. 
 No one would pretend that consciousness with- 
 out inference, and without the activity of other 
 more complex mental powers could solve the 
 problems of textual criticism, or of canonical 
 authenticity. If so, why all this study ? why 
 torture one with the discipline of research and 
 linguistic specialties, if we have an immediate 
 power which enables us to penetrate through 
 the words to the very concept of divine revela- 
 tion? We are not aware that the adjective 
 " Christian " adds anything to the mediateness 
 of consciousness. But everybody knows that 
 Christian consciousness is only another name 
 for the Reason, and that the appeal to Christian 
 consciousness isonly rationalism poorly disguis- 
 ed by a silly use of the philosophical vocabulary. 
 
 We do not suppose that any one would claim 
 that the Christian consciousness was the source 
 of any particular knowledge, but only a source 
 of religious knowledge in general. To be con.- 
 
20 A REVIEW OF 
 
 scious at all, one must be conscious of some- 
 thing. We may therefore ask, first. Of what is 
 the Christian conscious ? and secondly, Who are 
 they who have this consciousness ? 
 
 It has become almost an axiom of philosophy 
 that the matter of all our knowledge is given 
 through experience. This would imply that 
 the matter of Christian consciousness, which is 
 a kind of knowledge, is given through expe- 
 rience. To deny this is to accept the teaching 
 of the mystic that the soul in religious knowl- 
 edge transcends the bounds of ordinary knowl- 
 edge, and possesses ecstatic knowledge of super- 
 natural truth. But even ecstatic knowledge, if 
 there be such a thing, is the result of ecstatic 
 experience. The Catholic affirms that the mat- 
 ter of all religious knowledge comes through 
 the teaching of the Church, and this is certainly 
 the result of experience. The religious Prot- 
 estant, that is, the Protestant Christian, has 
 usually claimed that the matter of religious 
 knowledge comes through the teaching of the 
 Bible, which is a source of experience. 
 
 This Christian consciousness is not a critical 
 faculty, for criticism is a function of the Rea- 
 son, not of consciousness. We are asked to 
 regulate our objective authorities, the Church 
 and the Bible, by this uncritical faculty. But 
 the Reason, which is the critical faculty, is itself 
 
PROF. BRIGGS'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 2 1 
 
 limited by the teaching of the Bible and the 
 Church. The Christian consciousness will thus 
 vary from age to age, according to the rational 
 attitude of the people. It may even contradict 
 itself. The test of religious truth seems to be 
 its harmony with the Christian consciousness. 
 Professor Briggs seems to see this absurdity, 
 for he proceeds to point out that it is wrong to 
 suppose that the Bible is the only rule of faith. 
 He holds, as we have seen, that the Church and 
 the Reason are sources of divine authority. It 
 requires no ecclesiastical trial to demonstrate 
 to any one who can read English that half an 
 hour before he made this statement. Professor 
 Briggs solemnly declared : " I believe the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to 
 be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of 
 faith and practice." The word " only " is sig- 
 nificant, and the Church, the Reason, the Chris- 
 tian consciousness, the religious feeling, and the 
 " metaphysical categories " are not mentioned. 
 At a trial for heresy before an ecclesiastical 
 court, there would doubtless be some way of ex- 
 plaining away this evident contradiction. We 
 have always noticed that men of heterodox 
 opinions, who delight to astonish their conserv- 
 ative brethren and shock their conservative 
 sisters by theological novelties before their 
 orthodoxy has been officially condemned, 
 
22 A REVIEW OF 
 
 assume the attitude of an innacent martyr 
 when their statements are repeated before the 
 court of a church. But whether Professor 
 Briggs's doctrines are in harmony with the 
 Confessio7i of Faith or not, what is the result 
 of having three sources of divine revelation ? 
 The result is this, for history shows that these 
 three sources, so ]far from being in harmony, 
 have often been in deadly conflict: Sooner or 
 later, doctrines of the Bible may be found to 
 contradict those of the Reason, or doctrines of 
 the Reason may be found inconsistent with 
 those of the Church. Then the arbitration of 
 the question will be doubtless left, by those who 
 follow Professor Briggs, to the Christian con- 
 sciousness. 
 
 In order that we may have no obstruction in 
 the way of reaching the doctrine taught in the 
 Bible, Professor Briggs has been so obliging as 
 to destroy some of the barriers which stand in 
 the way of our approach, and apparently, lest 
 any one should be tempted to erect these bar- 
 riers again, he has, if we may say so, dug- a 
 number of ditches about the Word of God, 
 which are quite as obstructive as the barriers or 
 fences which he thinks have been removed. 
 
 " The first barrier that obstructs the way to 
 the Bible is superstition."* 
 
 * p. 30- 
 
PROF. BRIGGSS WAUGURAL ADDRESS. 23 
 
 We have not found that kind of superstition 
 very comnion to which Professor Briggs objects 
 in the following passage of his address : 
 
 " But superstition is no less superstition if it 
 take the form of Bibliolatry. It may be all 
 the worse if it concentrate itself on one thing. 
 But the Bible has no magical virtue in it, and 
 there is no halo enclosing it. It will not stop a 
 bullet any better than a mass-book. It will not 
 keep off evil spirits any better than a cross. It 
 will not guard a home from fire half so well as 
 holy water. If you desire to know when and 
 how you should take a journey, you will find 
 a safer guide in an almanac or a daily news- 
 paper. The Bible is no better than hydromancy 
 or^witchcraft, if we seek for divine guidance by 
 the chance opening of the book. The Bible, as 
 a book, is paper, pirint, and binding — nothing 
 more."* 
 
 Doubtless, many of those at the inauguration 
 exercises were much amused by these flashes 
 of epigrammatic wit, and charmed as much by 
 the delicate good taste of the comparisons, as 
 they were grieved that people could be found 
 so superstitious as to revere the paper, ink, and 
 binding which are needed for presenting the 
 Word of God to the use of men. Everybody 
 will admit that the Bible can be misused. There 
 
 * p- 30- 
 
24 A REVIEW OF 
 
 is, of course, nothing inherently sacred in the 
 paper, the binding, or the ink. All such ven- 
 eration vanishes when the sentiment which 
 prompts it is analyzed. But what is the object 
 of this attack on a harmless feeling of reverence 
 for these things ? We shall soon see. In the mean 
 time it may be said that some men have been 
 found so foolishly sentimental as to preserve 
 portraits of their father or their mother after 
 the latter are dead and gone. They even have 
 been known to go so far in their silly sentimen- 
 tality as to carry such counterfeit presentments 
 in their pockets, and would be ill pleased to 
 have the sentiment which prompts them to do 
 this, roughly analyzed. Sometimes people 
 carry about with silly affection old letters, 
 which they keep with reverence, and would 
 not care to have mockingly alluded to. 
 
 What are these portraits and letters ? The 
 Professor Briggses of our social life would tell 
 us that these are only bits of glass, or of card- 
 board, or of paper, or lines which time has faded, 
 or which may have been blotted by tears. We 
 should not care to have the Bible made a mere 
 charm or fetich for the ignorant. But this par- 
 agrapher's smartness with which the professor 
 treats the subject, has no relevance to the rev- 
 erent handling of the Holy Scriptures, nor — 
 and this is the point which we would emphasize 
 
PROF. BRIGGS S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 25 
 
 — has it any relevance whatever to the question 
 whether or not the Bible is originally inspired. 
 If by Bibliolatry be meant reverence for the 
 words of Scripture, whether printed, written, 
 or spoken, let us be Bibliolaters, without add- 
 ing to this the worship of the Human Reason, 
 and of that curious 'Church of which Professor 
 Briggs speaks. Is Bibliolatry the only form of 
 idolatry which has been prevalent among Prot- 
 estants? We object to these strangely con- 
 structed terms, but it will occur to some that 
 there is Ecclesiolatry and Noolatry as well as 
 Bibliolatry in the Union Seminary. We cheer- 
 fully pass by these pleasantries of Professor 
 Briggs, which are not to be taken seriously. 
 By all means, let him have his sorry jests at 
 the expense of a few aged women and some 
 eccentric persons, who are wont to treat the 
 Bible as a lamp to their feet. We are dealing 
 with the logical aspects of his address, and de- 
 cline to be led astray by this fallacy which can 
 be detected by a junior at any of our American 
 colleges. Let us consider the doctrine of in- 
 spiration. 
 
 Professor Briggs rejects the doctrine of verbal 
 inspiration. 
 
 " The second barrier keeping men from the 
 
 Bible is the dogma of verbal inspiration 
 
 No such claim is found in the Bible itself or in 
 
26 A REVIEW OF 
 
 any of the creeds of Christendom. And yet it 
 has been urged by the common opinion of 
 modern evangehcaHsm that there can be no in- 
 spiration without verbal inspiration 
 
 There are those w^ho hold that thought and 
 language are as inseparable as body and soul. 
 But language is rather the dress of thought. A 
 master of many languages readily clothes the 
 same thought in half-a-dozen different lan- 
 guages. The same thought in the Bible itself is 
 dressed in different literary styles, and the 
 thought of the one is as authoritative as the 
 thought of the other. The divine authority is 
 not in the style or in the words, but in the con- 
 cept, and so the divine power of the Bible may 
 
 be transferred into any human language 
 
 We force our way through the language and 
 the letter, the grammar, and the style, to the 
 inner substance of the thought, for there, if at 
 all, we shall. find God."* 
 
 This passage shows that it has been hardly 
 wise for Professor Briggs to claim as much as 
 he does for the inspiration of the Bible. But he 
 is apparently utterly unable to estimate the log- 
 ical consequences which follow from his reck- 
 less and often contradictory statements. His 
 contempt of the logicians has been carried so far 
 that he is exposed to a cross-fire from the 
 
 * p- 31. 
 
PROF. BRIGGSS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 27 
 
 supernaturalists, on the one hand, and from 
 what he calls the "victorious army of critics," 
 on the other hand. 
 
 And so the divine authority or inspiration is 
 to be found in the concept, not in the words ? 
 We are much amused at the engaging frank- 
 ness with which Professor Briggs gives expres- 
 sion to a doctrine which depends for its validity 
 on the conclusions of that very scholasticism 
 which he affects to despise. This may not be 
 fully appreciated by Professor Briggs, but will 
 •be well understood by those who have some 
 knowledge of the difficult question of the rela- 
 tion of thought to language. The words of the 
 Bible are not inspired, but the concept is in- 
 spired. Let Professor Briggs turn for a while 
 from his study of Lessing, Kuenen, Wellhausen, 
 Weiss, and other German critics, and let him 
 read Prantl's Geschichte der Logik, or any text- 
 book which deals with the history of the con- 
 cept, and he will find that he has made his 
 doctrine of inspiration depend on a logical 
 theory which has been long since abandoned 
 by every competent logician. 
 
 We do not maintain that men cannot think 
 without language, although that is the prevail- 
 ing opinion among men of science at the pres- 
 ent time. But we do maintain that the only 
 way in which the knowledge of a concept, 
 
28 A REVIEW OF 
 
 whether it be inspired or not, can be made 
 known is by the use of language. If a concept 
 cannot be expressed in language, it must re- 
 main forever unknown. It is therefore a matter 
 of no consequence that the Bible has been 
 fenced in by all kinds of creeds and dogmas ; 
 for even if the fences were pulled down the 
 inner substance would remain inaccessible. 
 
 Let us rather pray that we may have some- 
 thing of the mystic's insight, and, going out of 
 the Church in order to become Christians, like 
 those described by Professor Bruce,* may find 
 all the revelation of God in the Christian con- 
 sciousness. 
 
 Not only are the Holy Scriptures not inspired, 
 but, according to Professor Briggs, their authen- 
 ticity is doubtful. He does not even express 
 the opinion that they have divine authenticity, f 
 It is encouraging to find him, at this point, using 
 against his opponents a weapon of the logicians 
 whom he so much despises. He has, it seems, 
 caught some of the advocates of " authenticity " 
 in reasoning in circulo, just as he caught the 
 superstitious evil-doers using the Bible instead 
 of holy water in putting out their fires. It is 
 a pleasure to see how Professor Briggs seems 
 to revel in the idea that he has caught his op- 
 ponents napping. But all the while he seems 
 
 * P- 41. t pp. 32. 33- 
 
I'KUF. BRIGGSS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 29 
 
 quite unconscious of the fatal defect in his own 
 argument. Let us sum up his doctrine, and 
 our objection will be proved. 
 
 The concept is inspired. But we do not 
 know who wrote some of the books of the 
 Bible We know that Moses and David did 
 not write just the books which the New Testa- 
 ment on the authority of Christ and the Apos- 
 tles says that they did. How, then, shall we tell 
 what is inspired, and what is not ? By the 
 Higher Criticism, that is, by Reason and the 
 Christian consciousness, perhaps by the relig- 
 ious feeling. These are, according to Professor 
 Briggs, sources of divine authority. Indeed the 
 metaphysical categories are inspired, whatever 
 they may be. And the concept is inspired, 
 whatever that may be ; but the inspired concept 
 is incommunicable because the language is not 
 inspired. We leave it to any candid and logi- 
 cal person to say whether this kind of reasoning 
 is anything but a fallacy of the most shallow 
 kind. Truly Professor Briggs has been too much 
 occupied with Hebrew grammar, or with the 
 literature of Tubingen to speak ex cathedra on 
 logical subjects. 
 
 Professor Briggs rejects the doctrine of the 
 inerrancy of the Scriptures, as well as that of 
 verbal inspiration. He reaches this conclusion : 
 
 '* But on what authority do these theologians 
 
30 A REVIEW OF 
 
 drive men from the Bible by this theory of in- 
 errancy ? The Bible itself nowhere makes this 
 claim. The creeds of the Church nowhere 
 sanction it. It is a ghost of modern evangeli- 
 calism to frighten children." The errors of the 
 Bible are " all in the circumstantials and not in 
 the essentials ; they are in the human setting, 
 and not in the precious jewel itself." " If we 
 should abandon the whole field of providential 
 superintendence so far as inspiration and divine 
 authority are concerned, and limit divine in- 
 spiration and authority to the essential contents 
 of the Bible . . . we should still have ample 
 room to seek divine authority where alone it is 
 essential, or even important, in the teaching 
 that guides our devotions, our thinking, and 
 our conduct." * 
 
 What, then, are the essential contents of the 
 Holy Scriptures ? Assuming that Professor 
 Briggs has shown the Word of God, as he 
 calls the Bible, to be uninspired, and not iner- 
 rant, which assumption, by the way, throws a 
 strange light on his conception of the truthful- 
 ness of God, we should like to know in what 
 way it is proposed to determine what parts of 
 Scripture are inspired, and what parts are purely 
 human. Is this a matter of opinion, or is it a 
 matter of principle ? 
 
 * pp. 35. 36. 
 
PRQF. UKIGUS S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 3I 
 
 If Reason does not make mistakes, and if 
 Reason is an avenue which leads us to God, if 
 the determination of what is divine truth rests 
 on the Reason or on Christian consciousness, 
 then the test of what is divinely inspired is in- 
 dependent of the Bible and of the Church. 
 The test of truth becomes subjective : we must 
 find out whether Revelation is agreeable to the 
 Christian consciousness. It seems to us that 
 such a Protagorean method, so far from bring- 
 ing us to the concept of revelation, raises a 
 new barrier not contemplated by Professor 
 Briggs. It is the barrier of human imperfec- 
 tion, the barrier of theological pretensions, and 
 in this instance, the barrier of Professor Briggs 
 himself. We fear that so seductive a reasoner 
 as Professor Briggs has been the means of 
 awakening in the minds of his followers, as 
 well as in his own mind, a new form of idolatry 
 almost as insidious as either Bibliolatry, or the 
 reverence paid to holy water. 
 
 When a critic with such tendencies ap- 
 proaches the subject of miracles, he becomes 
 apologetic and timid. For even the Christian 
 consciousness has revolted at times against 
 miracles. In such cases it is easy to discern 
 the real motive for all this rationalistic thinking, 
 the advocates of which fear to be logical lest 
 they should be formally accused of heresy. 
 
32 A REVIEW OF 
 
 This motive is a secret aversion to Supernatu- 
 ralism. One may see in the following passage 
 how the timidity of a secret unbeHever is 
 adroitly veiled in the hypothetical proposition 
 in which the doctrine of miracles is discussed: 
 
 " If it were possible to resolve all the miracles 
 of the Old Testament into extraordinary acts 
 of Divine Providence, using the forces and 
 forms of nature in accordance with the laws of 
 nature; and if we could explain all the miracles 
 of Jesus, His unique authority over man and 
 over nature, from His use of mind cure, or hyp- 
 notism, or any other occult power, still I claim 
 that nothing would be lost from the miracles 
 of the Bible."* 
 
 We commend this sentence to the super- 
 naturalists in the Presbyterian Church. Do 
 they believe it or not ? Whether it be a true 
 proposition or not, it is the expression of a form 
 of prevalent infidelity. If Professor Briggs 
 should say that one had no right to assume 
 that he meant any more than he says, we should 
 reply that we had pierced our way through the 
 language to the concept, and we claim that the 
 same Higher Criticism is legitimate when ap- 
 plied to the word of Professor Briggs which is 
 legitimate when applied to the Word of God. 
 
 One has only to compare this passage of his 
 
 * P- 37- 
 
PROF. BRIGGS'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. ;^T, 
 
 address with his previously stated doctrine of 
 miracles, to be aware of the self-contradictory 
 nature of his argument. 
 
 " Christian men may construct their theories 
 about the miracles of the Bible with entire free- 
 dom, so long as they do not deny the reality 
 of the events themselves as recorded in Holy 
 Scriptures." * 
 
 That is to say, all this previous caution is 
 unnecessary; for when it is recorded that the 
 fish swallowed Jonah, or that Elijah went up 
 by a whirlwind into Heaven, or that Jesus 
 turned water into wine, these miracles are to 
 be believed, however they may be explained. 
 
 In closing this part of his argument Profess- 
 or Briggs says: 
 
 " It is the teaching of God that men are anx- 
 ious to know; the theology of the Bible itself 
 is what they are craving. The teaching of men 
 and the theology of creeds and theologians no 
 longer content them. These all have their 
 place and importance, but they cannot take the 
 place of the theology of the Bible and the au- 
 thority of God."t 
 
 This is the kind of rhetoric which one is ac- 
 customed to hear in addresses by those devout 
 but ignorant men who wander about, calling 
 themselves by various names, claiming that the 
 
 * pp- 37. 38. + pp. 41. 42. 
 
34 A REVIEW OF 
 
 Bible is enough for them, and that they need 
 no Church, no creed, no symbols of faith. They 
 overlook the fact that the Bible enjoins all of 
 these. But these ideas are seldom expressed 
 by professors in institutions of learning. When 
 members of the clergy of an organized Church 
 hold such views as these, one is tempted to ask 
 why they remain in any Church at all. Indeed, 
 it would seem that Professor Briggs wished to 
 have the monopoly of strictly theological teach- 
 ing at the Union Seminary, for the words we 
 have just quoted apply as much to Dogmatic 
 Theology as they do to anything else. It will 
 strike many persons as extraordinary that pro- 
 fessors of Polemics and of Apologetics should 
 be retained in Presbyterian schools of the- 
 ology, when the doctrines to be attacked from 
 these chairs are in many cases those which 
 are not condemned when they are advanced 
 by the professor of Biblical Theology in New 
 York. 
 
 No one is obliged to remain in a Church 
 which requires of its clergy the profession of a 
 dogmatic creed. No one will be confined in a 
 dungeon, nor burned at the stake for heresy, 
 if he chooses to renounce the doctrines of any 
 religious body in Christendom. But we are 
 unable to understand the moral principles ac- 
 cording to which a man acts, who not only re- 
 
PROF. BRIGGS'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 35 
 
 mains in the Presbyterian ministry, holding 
 views like those of Professor Briggs, but who, 
 after subscribing to the narrowest and most 
 precise of all Protestant symbols, speaks with 
 such flippant disregard of the theology of 
 creeds and theologians. It is only the opinions 
 of men like Professor Briggs which make us 
 doubt the consistency of such a term as " Bibli- 
 cal Theology." 
 
 The teacher who has removed the bar- 
 riers surrounding the Bible, and the fences 
 which once stood about the inspired concept, 
 proceeds to show what the Bible really con- 
 tains, and while allowance must be made on 
 account of the brief time at the disposal of the 
 speaker at his inauguration, we are somewhat 
 surprised at the desultory harangue which ap- 
 pears under the head of '• the Theology of the 
 Bible." It makes, indeed, a very fair sermon, 
 and shows us that Professor Briggs's qualifica- 
 tions as a pastor are superior to his ability as 
 a logician. He appears to far better advantage 
 than in those passages where he is struggling 
 in vain to express with consistency strictly 
 theological opinions. 
 
 There are, however, several parts of the latter 
 half of his address, which we cannot pass over 
 without comment. 
 
 Professor Briggs is afraid that the Dogmatic 
 
36 A REVIEW OF 
 
 Theology of the Church has given men false 
 ideas of God and of the redemption. In order 
 to remedy this wrong, he proceeds to sum up, 
 in a rambling and illogical manner, what man 
 ought to believe about the chief doctrines of 
 the Bible. But any one so conscientious as he 
 is, so desirous of removing misconceptions of 
 Biblical truth from the minds of others, so dis- 
 tressed at the errors of traditional thought, and 
 at the wicked devices of theologians to per- 
 vert what the Bible teaches, should be more 
 careful in the treatment of doctrines the mean- 
 ing of which he fails to understand. As we 
 have said, this part of the address would make 
 a fair sermon, but we consider it a preposterous 
 synopsis of Biblical Theology to come from a 
 man of learning and piety. 
 
 There is first Professor Briggs's doctrine of 
 God. God is love."^ Professor Briggs pre- 
 sents this proposition as if it were his own 
 discovery, or as a reminder of something for- 
 gotten by the Church. Our own observation 
 has not led us to the conclusion that the great 
 danger of our day is the forgetting of the fact 
 that God is love. On the contrary, we were 
 under the impression that the great danger, the 
 great ethical danger, the great theological 
 danger, of our time was the forgetfulness of 
 
 *p. 47. 
 
PROK. BRIGGS S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. ^J 
 
 the fact thai God was just. We can hardly 
 believe that Professor Briggs, in spite of the 
 barriers and fences which he has torn down, 
 has yet attained to the inner concept of the 
 Bible, when he gives so partial and inadequate 
 account of the Infinite God. 
 
 In connection with this view of the love of 
 God, which is only one of the attributes of the 
 Infinite, is the doctrine of election, which Profess- 
 or Briggs discusses in a remarkable paragraph. 
 We mean that it is remarkable both as com- 
 ing from a Presbyterian professor of Theology, 
 and remarkable as a specimen of reasoning. 
 It makes one almost suspect that some peculiar 
 organon of logic is in use at Union Seminary, 
 when one finds such an example of reasoning 
 as this : 
 
 " Presbyterians have too often limited re- 
 demption by their doctrine of Election, The 
 Bible knows no such limitations. The Bible 
 teaches an election, but an election of love. 
 Loving only the elect is earthly, human 
 teaching. Electing men to salvation by the 
 touch of divine love — that is heavenly doc- 
 trine." * 
 
 " The Bible does not teach universal salva- 
 tion, but it does teach the salvation of the 
 world, of the race of men, and that cannot be 
 
 * P- 55- 
 
38 A REVIEW OF 
 
 accomplished by the selection of a limited 
 number of individuals from the mass."^' 
 
 There is an old principle: " Expi^essio tmius, 
 exclusio alterius." The word election means 
 choice, and this involves rejection. This was 
 a point strongly emphasized in the discussion 
 about a famous clause in the Westminster Con- 
 fession, in which, if we are not mistaken, Pro- 
 fessor Briggs took a leading part. Objection 
 was made to the term " elect infants," on the 
 ground that it implied that some infants are 
 not elect. There is much confusion in Profes- 
 sor Briggs's reasoning: " Loving only the elect 
 is earthly, human teaching.""' Does God then 
 save the non-elect ? If so, then does Professor 
 Briggs believe in universal salvation ? Evident- 
 ly he does, for we are told that the love of God 
 is the cause of man's election. We should be 
 pleased to know how it is that God can elect 
 to righteousness, and not reject to damnation, 
 unless, indeed, all men are elected. The di- 
 lemma is one which even Professor Briggs can 
 understand ; either he is a Universalist, or else 
 he is unable to reason correctly. We do not 
 pause to notice his account of the " Middle 
 State." It is highly imaginative, but. unfortu- 
 nately, the imagination is not a discursive or 
 reasoning faculty. We might ask. What is the 
 
 *P- 55- 
 
PROF. BRIGGSS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 39 
 
 difference between the salvation of the uni- 
 verse and the salvation of the world ? Pro- 
 fessor Briggs contradicts himself when he pro- 
 ceeds to explain that the salvation of the world 
 does not mean the salvation of the world, but 
 only of a great multitude. But he gives no 
 explanation of why the minority of the non- 
 elect are not elected, and we fear that he has 
 not yet learned to be a consistent Pelagian. 
 
 And before leaving this subject of the con- 
 ception of God and of redemption, we feel 
 bound to call attention to the fact that in 
 his synopsis of Biblical Theology Profess- 
 or Briggs makes no mention of the doctrine 
 of the Holy Trinity, of the deity of Christ, 
 except where he warns men against forgetting 
 the Redeemer's humanity, nor of the Person 
 and work of the Holy Ghost. Are these doc- 
 trines, then, not taught in the Bible ? It is 
 not fair to judge a writer by what he does not 
 say, but after reading Professor Briggs's ad- 
 dress one is inclined to suppose that he believes 
 in but one Trinity, consisting of the Bible (the 
 divine authenticity of which he has denied), 
 the Church (in which he has no very great 
 confidence), and the Reason (which in his own 
 case is a singularly untrustworthy and incon- 
 sistent guide). And in the entire address, 
 which touches upon so many parts of the the- 
 
40 A REVIEW OF 
 
 ological encyclopaedia, there is no mention 
 made of Christ's sacrificial death, and what it 
 means to the world. In Professor Briggs's 
 opinion this may not be an important doctrine 
 of Biblical Theology; but he becomes almost 
 lachrymose over the way in which Christians 
 have treated the resurrection, the enthrone- 
 ment, and other parts of the exaltation of 
 Christ, and exclaims: " Oh, how these have been 
 neglected ! "^' But the truths of which he 
 speaks have not been neglected, if we may 
 judge by the standards of the Church to which 
 Professor Briggs belongs, unless, indeed, he 
 has torn down a part of that barrier called the 
 Weshiiins^er Confession, which treats of the 
 exaltation of Jesus Christ, of His resurrection, 
 ascension and reign of grace forevermore. On 
 the other hand, after reading the address, and 
 finding no emphasis laid upon the privations, 
 poverty, passion, and atoning death of the Re- 
 deemer, many will feel inclined to reecho the 
 professor's words : " Oh, how these have been 
 neglected ! " These great truths, which are so 
 evidently set forth in the Scriptures from the 
 days of the first paschal feast to the time of 
 the great doxologies of the Apocalypse, are by 
 no means the least important part of " Biblical 
 Theology." 
 
 *p. 6i. 
 
PROF. BKIGGSS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 4I 
 
 Professor Briggs follows most infidel writers 
 of our day, in calling the Christian Church to 
 account for its lack of conformity to the teach- 
 ings, the ethical teachings, of Jesus. The reproof 
 is always needed in this world of sin and sor- 
 row. But such reproof does not come with 
 particularly good grace from one who has not 
 merely distorted the doctrines of the catholic 
 faith, but has cast doubts on the veracity of the 
 word of God, and on the teaching of the Sav- 
 iour, whose ethics he professes to admire. 
 
 How far the Presbyterian clergy and laity 
 generally will be in sympathy with the views 
 of Professor Briggs we have no means of 
 knowing. Nothing could better show his de- 
 fective apprehension of what his principles in- 
 volve than this sentence, which is to be found 
 near the close of the address : 
 
 " I have not departed in any respect from the 
 orthodox teaching of the Christian Church as 
 set forth in its official creeds."^' 
 
 If, after this statement, any one cares to de- 
 fend the professor's logic, he will also be com- 
 pelled to defend the professor's veracity. 
 
 Even if it should be claimed that the teach- 
 ing of Professor Briggs is not representative of 
 the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, the 
 fact remains that he is permitted to instruct 
 
 * p. 62. 
 
42 A REVIEW OF 
 
 theological students as to what they should 
 believe. It follows, therefore, that if his doc- 
 trine is erroneous, those who permit him to re- 
 tain his position are directly responsible for 
 his errors. In former days the power of the 
 Presbyterian Church was largely dependent 
 on the unity of its doctrine, and its strict de- 
 fence of its principles. In this it has differed 
 from the Episcopal Church, where the unity 
 has been chiefly a unity of liturgy and polity. 
 When it is said of a man, *' He is an Epis- 
 copalian," it is impossible to say beforehand 
 whether he would agree with the views of Mr, 
 Heber Newton, or those of the Ritualists. The 
 Presbyterian Church, in so far as we kno'w% 
 has no liturgy, unless those odd bits of chant- 
 ing and responsive reading which one hears in 
 some Presbyterian congregations, which re- 
 semble a badly mutilated version of the Epis- 
 copal prayer-book — unless those are to be called 
 a liturgy. Presbyterians have a system of 
 polity. They guard it very jealously, but do 
 not hold it essential that their clergy should 
 believe it to be jure divino. But while they 
 are coquetting with the Episcopalians with re- 
 gard to church union, and while they find the 
 acceptance of the "historic episcopate" a 
 stumbling-block, and a menace to their self-re- 
 spect, they permit teaching which is virtually a 
 
PROF. BRIGGSS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 43 
 
 surrender to the Universalists and Unitarians, a 
 leader of whom their chief apostle Calvin was 
 ready to burn at the stake. Just as the Ritual- 
 ists imitate the Catholics, so the Presbyterians 
 are borrowing an Episcopalian perruque to 
 cover the " baldness " of Presbyterian worship. 
 And while these brethren are engaged in these 
 inconsistent practices, Protestants seem to be 
 very uneasy at the advance of Rome, and 
 Presbyterians are uneasy over the patronizing 
 attentions of the Protestant Episcopal Bishops ; 
 and the questions are agitated, shall there be 
 more than one minister in each Presbyterian 
 Church, or, shall we have a quartette choir, or, 
 shall we have deaconesses ? Less attention is 
 paid to what were once called " essential doc- 
 trines," and so far as we can discern the signs 
 of the times, the Presbyterian Church is ap-' 
 proaching its former Universalistic enemies 
 with a flag of truce. We have no sympathy 
 whatever with those who feel alarm at such 
 teaching as that of Professor Briggs but do 
 nothing to prevent it ; and it is difficult to feel 
 respect for a Church which teaches one doc- 
 trine in its creed and symbols, and another 
 doctrine in its pulpits and theological semi- 
 naries. 
 
 Considerable interest has been awakened in 
 some quarters by the change in that clause of 
 
44 A REVIEW OF 
 
 the Confession of Faith, in which the pope is 
 referred to as " Antichrist." This change has 
 been regarded as the removal of a barrier be- 
 tween the Presbyterian and the Roman Cath- 
 ohc doctrine. But if there be a danger of 
 Presbyterians being led to look with friendly 
 eyes at the Latin Church, it is to be found 
 rather in attacks like this of Professor Briggs 
 upon the authenticity and authority of the in- 
 spired Scriptures. Hitherto the Presbyterian 
 has claimed that his Church is a standing an- 
 swer to the accusation that Protestantism is a 
 disintegrating force, and that the principle of 
 the private judgment leads logically to infidel- 
 ity. If statements and arguments like those 
 of Professor Briggs are permitted to go un- 
 challenged in the courts of the Presbyterian 
 Church, there will arise in the minds of many 
 Presbyterians an inclination to enter some re- 
 ligious body which still gives supreme author- 
 ity to the truths of revelation. Protestants 
 boast of their open Bible. Of what advantage 
 is an open Bible, if it be opened only that it 
 may be mutilated, and torn into as many frag- 
 ments as there are critics ? If Reason is to be 
 the chief arbiter of supernatural doctrine, many 
 will seek for a Church in which, even if the 
 Bible be closed to the laity, it is read with rev- 
 erence by the c lergy . Already we are being told 
 
PROF. BRIGGSS INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 45 
 
 by Professor Caftan, of Berlin, that there is too 
 much mediaevaUsm about the Protestant relig- 
 ion, and that the Church is but half reformed. 
 The future, we are told, is to give us a new 
 theology, erected on the broken fragments of 
 the old. In view of all this, there are many 
 who, while they are not willing at present to 
 accept the teaching of Rome with regard to the 
 infallibility of the pope, or the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation, and other teaching of the 
 kind, will eventually be glad to find a home in 
 a church which still holds to the religion of 
 supernatural revelation, which does not deny 
 the inspiration of the words of Holy Scripture, 
 and which is far less worthy to be called Anti- 
 christ than such communions as permit their 
 members to put in jeopardy not only the truth 
 of the words of Christ, but also that teaching 
 without which the Church of Christ becomes a 
 society of skeptics, with but little doctrine in 
 common except that of the being of God and 
 of the inestimable value of the Christian con- 
 sciousness. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ci 1«J ^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • a" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; «.- ,■;! 
 
 
 
 
 'X.AiLt^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
iii?:iiiii»iiii