^3w * MHctrfy BX 9193. B5 L34 1893 The trial of Dr. Briggs THE TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS THE TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY & Calm ffiebfcfo of tfje Cage A STRANGER WHO ATTENDED ALL THE SESSIONS OF THE COURT NEW YORK ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH AND COMPANY (incorporated) 182 Fifth Avenue Copyright, 1803, By Anson D. P. Randolph am> Company (IKCUUrOUATKD). JonN Wilson and Son, Camuhidce, U.S.A. PREFACE. WHILE the writer of the following review believes that the majority of the members of the General Assembly at Washington were mistaken in their opinions of the views of the Rev. Professor Briggs, D. D., he at the same time cherishes sincere respect for the Assembly as the supreme court of a church of Jesus Christ. He believes that the circumstances surrounding the trial of Dr. Briggs were of such a nature that error on the part of the court was unavoidable, and that it is therefore no reflection upon the court to point out wherein it may be shown to have erred. In doing this he has sought to avoid any word that might be regarded as disrespectful either to the Assembly as a whole or to any of its members. He has at the same time sought to be strictly im- partial and overlook no important point, whether favorable or unfavorable on either side. He has not written in a contentious spirit, but dis- passionately in the interests of truth and peace. Believing that the truth has not been apprehended, by reason of obscurities by which it has been clouded VI PREFACE. to the minds of those standing nearest to the consid- eration of it, he has felt called upon by the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed as a stranger and a lover of the truth, to contribute his share toward dispelling those obscurities that, if possible, Christian brethren now unhappily at variance may be helped to see eye to eye. Believing that peace can be established only on the basis of purity of doctrine, and that doctrines which have appeared to be heretical can be seen in their true light only by a careful reconsideration of the questions at issue in the light of all the evidence and arguments presented on both sides, the writer of the following review has undertaken this task, praying that the Holy Spirit, whose guidance has been sought in the accomplishing of it, may make use of the fol- lowing pages as a help toward promoting the peace of Jerusalem and the prosperity of Zion. This only need be added : Neither the Rev. Dr. Briggs, nor any other minister or member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States has had any knowledge of the writing of this review. The writer has assumed the sole responsibility for the writing of it, and for every sentiment it contains, and has withheld his name that the views presented may be judged according to their merits, apart from the influence of any name whether obscure or the reverse. R. J. L^Jaak/ August, 1893. CONTENTS. PAGE PREFACE v CHAPTER I. Introductory 9 CHAPTER II. Attitude of Dr. Briggs 12 CHAPTER III. Attitude of the Assembly 20 CHAPTER IY. Attitude of "a Stranger" 33 CHAPTER V. First Charge: The Reason a Fountain of Divine Authority 39 CHAPTER VI. Second Charge : The Church a Fountain of Divine Authority 60 viii CONTENTS. CHAPTER VII. Third Charge : Inerrancy of Scripture 84 CHAPTER VIII. Fourth and Fifth Charges: Authorship of the Pentateuch and The Book of Isaiah . . . iub CHAPTER IX. Sixth Charge : Progressive Salification after ^ Death CHAPTER X. .The Rejected Charges": Messianic Prophecy and Second Probation .....•••« CHAPTER XL . • 159 Decisions and Protests CHAPTER XII. _ . 180 The Wrong and its Remedy ....•• CHAPTER XIII. 193 Closing Summary A REVIEW OF THE TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. AS I happened to be on a visit to the American Republic and its Capital during the meeting of the Presbyterian General Assembly in May last, I availed myself of the opportunity of being present at all the sessions of the Briggs Trial. I had never seen the Rev. Dr. Briggs and had taken but little interest in his case. I had read his inaugural in the quiet of my study shortly after its first appear- ance, but only laid it aside as the utterance of a scholar who seemed to have no hesitation about leaving the beaten track and extending his investigations into fields which are commonly regarded as the peculiar domain of heterodoxy. I was aware that some of the writings of the author of the address were regarded by many as heretical in their tendencies if not in their teaching, and my read- ing of the inaugural gave me additional insight into the reasons for this opinion. 10 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. As time passed and the question of the orthodoxy of the views of Dr. Briggs came before the Detroit Assembly, and a year later the Portland Assembly, and as this question was once and again considered by the Presbytery of New York, I, in common with others, gained a general knowledge of the question through the religious and secular press, but not such information as enabled me to come to a definite con- clusion as to the merits of the case. The questions raised seemed to be such as could be settled only by a careful, critical study of them. I knew, however, that in the Presbyterian Church in the United States there was no scarcity of scholars capa- ble of giving those questions the best consideration ; and I hoped to have the privilege, at the Washington Assembly, of hearing the views of so scholarly a man as Dr. Briggs set forth by himself, and of hearing the replies of other scholars so clearly presented as to set the church, if not the world, at rest regarding the question of Dr. Briggs' agreement or want of agreement with the standards of the Presbyterian Church. The occasion seemed to afford an excellent oppor- tunity for doing this. Many of the five or six hun- dred commissioners composing the Assembly were men of learning, and all of them were earnest and conscientious men. The promptness and general skill and fairness of the moderator could not easily have been excelled. The apparent equanimity of all the members of the court seemed also to be peculiarly favorable. INTRODUCTORY. 11 I felt, at the opening of the proceedings, that if Dr. Briggs failed to prove that his views were Scriptural and orthodox, it must be either because they were not, or because he would fail to make the best use of his opportunity, or else because of something operating on the minds of his auditors to prevent them from giving due weight to his statements. I felt, on the other hand, that if the opponents of the views of Dr. Briggs failed to prove to the satisfac- tion of all that his views were unscriptural and heret- ical, it must either be because they were not, or because those opposing them would not make the best use of their opportunity, or else because of something operating upon the minds of their hearers to prevent them from giving due weight to the statements and arguments presented. As the case proceeded, however, I found that the occasion was not so auspicious as it at first sight seemed. That Dr. Briggs did not succeed in convincing the majority of the Assembly that his views were orthodox, it is unnecessary to say ; and it is equally true that his opponents did not succeed in convincing the whole Assembly that his views were at variance with the Westminster standards. More than one hundred of the commissioners held that his views were not at variance with any essential doctrine, nor in any re- spect such as to warrant his suspension from the office of the ministry. Many of the disinterested spectators were of the same opinion, and there appear to be thousands throughout the church whose minds are still in doubt. 12 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. CHAPTER II. ATTITUDE OF DR. BRIGGS. THAT Dr. Briggs did not succeed in persuading the Assembly to sustain the New York Pres- bytery's verdict of acquittal, was not due to any failure on his part to make the best use of his opportunity. From the first moment of his appearance in the court until near the close of the proceedings, when fatigue compelled him to withdraw, he was intent upon the case. He listened to the statements and arguments of his opponents hour after hour, occa- sionally checking seeming departures from the right line of procedure, with the earnestness of one who realized that his ecclesiastical life was at stake and that great principles were involved. When it came his turn to speak, his appearance was a surprise to some who had formed their im- pressions of him from current rumor. Those who had formed the opinion that he was not a deeply con- scientious man had to reverse that opinion. Those who had received the impression that he was not a thoroughly devout student of the Word of God had to dismiss that impression. They saw before them a man whose utterances and whole bearing commended ATTITUDE OF DR. BRIGGS. 13 him to them as a Christian scholar, a reverent student of the Word of God, a devout seeker after truth. He had evidently spent much of his time among books, and students, and ideas, where he had his course of study and reasoning for the most part in his own hands, and it was, perhaps, partly on this account that he seemed to find it difficult to bear patiently at times with the opposition of those who seemed unable either to understand or accept his views. It was evident that the opinions he held were not lightly entertained. They were based upon what he saw to be incontrovertible facts. They had been closely reasoned out in the light of Scripture and of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. He claimed that while some of them were not directly taught in the Westminster standards, they were not contradictory of anything in those standards. They might be extra-confessional but were not contra-con- fessional. He frankly admitted having used the lan- guage of all the quotations that were made from his writings, but in some cases he strongly repudiated the meaning that had been put upon his words, and the inferences that were drawn from them. He was deeply stirred at the omission by the prosecution, and the overlooking by the court, of explanatory state- ments and qualifying phrases which seemed to him to be of vital importance ; and from his point of view those statements and phrases were indeed vital. No disinterested observer could for a moment accuse him of anything like quibbling, or of not fairly meeting 14 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. each issue as it arose. To a stranger he appeared to be frank and candid in the highest degree. He seemed to be totally unacquainted with the art- which some men seek to win favor, and outwit their opponents. He appeared to disregard the that may be made of the tricks of oratory in appealing to a jury, and to rely solely on a plain statement of the facts of his position, and upon the lines of real ing which had led him to the conclusions he had reached. His explanations of his positions seemed lucid and his logic accurate. One of the most venerable of his opponents, the Rev. Dr. Duffield of Princeton, paid him the following tribute : — u Dr. Briggs undoubtedly is a man of rare scholarship, — a man who has received honors from European ul: sities, and who deserves the respect and the kind treatment of his Christian brethreD. And. if Dr. Briggs will par- don me for saying it, if Dr. Briggs' logical faculty were equal to his scholarship, I know not his peer in the in- tellectual world, certainly of Arnerk To a stranger the value of this high tribute was enhanced by the fact that it was exceedingly difficult to detect any flaw in his logic. He seemed aim too good a logician. He relied too much upon logical syllogisms, and made use of them in some install in his defence before the Assembly, when a less strictly intellectual process might have served his pur; better. I would say that he sometimes appeared to forget that u those root truths upon which the founda- ATTITUDE OF DR. BRIGGS. 15 tions of being rest are apprehended, not logically at all, but mystically ; " but I am forbidden by the recol- lection that some of his opponents accused him of mysticism. Nor can I appropriately quote here these other words of Principal Shairp : " When once awakened the spiritual faculty far outgoes all systems, scientific, philosophical, or theological, and apprehends and lives by truths which these cannot reduce to sys- tem." These words would be inappropriate inasmuch as the spiritual faculty in the case of Dr. Briggs was evidently far from being dormant. It was normally awake and keenly sensitive. His intimate friends testified to the earnestness and sincerity of his Chris- tian life, and his opponents joined them in this testi- mony. They never once charged him with insincerity, nor as much as hinted that his heart was not right toward God. From all that he himself said, either incidentally or directly, regarding God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, it was mani- fest that he was a devout believer in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It was equally evident that he was an ardent lover of the Lord Jesus, and held firmly to the great doctrine of the Atonement. ' He did not parade his piety, it is true, yet it was apparent to all who saw and heard him for the first time that he was what his friends and opponents alike declared him to be, not only a great scholar but a good man.' After carefully observing his attitude of mind, and listening attentively to all his utterances in his defence, I was not surprised when told privately that in matters of morals " he is a Puritan of the Puritans." 16 TRIAL 01 DB. BRIGGS. Hearing such testimony borne regarding the ao ed, and observing that this testimony was con- firmed by all his utterances and his whole bearing, it was scarcely possible tor a disinterested stranger to help wishing in the early stages of the proceedings, that the trial should not go on, hut that the request of Dr. BriggS and his friends should be complied with, and the case- be allowed to take the- usual course and he first dealt with hy the court of next higher jurisdic- tion after the Presbytery, the Synod of Sew York. The attitude of Dr. BriggS may perhaps he best set forth hy the following quotations from the close of his two main arguments before the Assembly. Jn clos- ing his five hours' argument upon the question of procedure, lie spoke as follows : — "Mr. Moderator and brethren, the appellant in the opening argument, as I have already intimated, entered into the merits of the appeal. I .shall not attempt to go into that merit nv pt bo i' pages 11, 211, and 221; Dr. Griggs' 'Biblical Study/ pages 161 and 243; Dr. Briggs' 'Who Wrote the Pentateuch? ' or parts thereof, as follows: pages 23, 25, 28, 29, 75, 79, 101, 106, 124, 157, 158, 159, and 162; Dr. Briggs' 26 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGG& 'Who Wrote Isaiah?' pages 135, 137, and 138: Dr. article in the ( Presbyterian Review 5 for April, " The appellant will also use in its argument portions of pages 1 and 1 nan's -Apologia pro Vita Sua, in the volume submitted in evidence by the appellant marked D. "The appellant will also use portions of book i. chapl i. and ii., book ii. chapter ii., and book iv. chapter ii., of Martineau's 'Seat of Authority in Religion/ in the volume introduced in evidence by the appellant marked E; 'An dover Review, 5 vol. xiii. page 59; BLuenen's • Prophets and Prophecies in Israel 5 (1877), pages 143-449. •• J shall not take the time of the court to read any of ■- citations at this time; but they may be read, and will be referred to from time to time during the argument. In this way the appellant hop< pects to use but little more than one-half of the time assigned to it. Dr. Lampe will now present the appellant's opening argument/ 5 Note also the following statements by Dr. Briggs, as indicating the vastness of the mass of evidence which it was necessary for the court to consider, in order to have an intelligent acquaintance with his position. " 1 wish to make a few preliminary statements for the information of the house, and the gentlemen of the pi and the stenographer. I waive the reading of the records, although I feel very deeply that the records contain my defence i: fulness, including the printed document called the de- fence, also the volume entitled the 'Higher Criticism of ATTITUDE OF THE ASSEMBLY. 27 the Hexateuch,' which is a part of the defence, and the volume on ' The Bible, the Church, and ' the Reason, ' which was submitted to the Presbytery of New York as a part of the evidence, and also all of the evidence which I submitted to the Presbytery of New York in the trial. But the reading of all that defence and all that evidence would consume a great many hours, and I have taken it for granted that this defence and the evidence having been sent by mail to every commissioner of this assembly, I might take it for granted that as honorable men they had read it, and it would only be necessary for me in argu- ment to call attention to what I regarded as the essential parts thereof. " Second, I have endeavored to save the time of the house as far as possible in my argument. Therefore I have gone over it and I have cut it up and readjusted so many parts of it as that I can answer the question of the stated clerk that not even the copy which is in my hands can really be relied upon as giving to the stenographer the argument which I am now to make. Because it is neces- sary, under the peculiar circumstances in which I am now placed, to make some portions of my argument purely extempore. "Let me say, in the third place, that there are so many of these specifications of error which concern purely the Presbytery of New York, that I feel it is a serious burden that it should be laid upon me to defend the presbytery. I wish that the commissioners of the presbytery had more time to defend the presbytery with reference to these matters." In addition to all this, Dr. Briggs found it neces- sary to bring a number of volumes before the court, 28 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. from some of which lengthy extracts were read in his defence, and one of which he was so questioned regarding that he said that in order to answer fully, he would require to read the whole chapter referred to, and offered to Lend the volume to his questioner. Besides all tins, the minds of the commissioners wen; further distracted, by the multiplicity of techni- cally arranged matters, which all required separate consideration, — such as the first ground of appeal with twelve specifications under it ; the second ground of appeal with its three specifications; the third ground of appeal with its two specifications; the fourth ground of appeal with its six specifications; the fifth ground of appeal with its eleven specifications. After days had been spent in considering all these matters seriatim which required the commissioners to give close attention, forenoon, afternoon, and even- ing, to addresses ranging from three to five hours in length, then came the consideration of the original and amended charges, extending over a still longer number of days, and requiring the attention of the commissioners, forenoon, afternoon, and evening, to addresses ranging from four to seven hours in length. No wonder that at one stage of the proceedings, when Dr. Briggs was presenting some of his most impor- tant evidence, a commissioner should have moved that tie- Assembly take an extended recess, as about half a dozen commissioners near him were fast asleep. So complex and comprehensive was the matter to be considered, so voluminous was the evidence, and ATTITUDE OF THE ASSEMBLY. 29 so extended was the argument, that it was simply impossible for the vast majority of the commissioners to follow the case closely and give due weight to all the statements and explanations made. Had there been time in the intervals between sessions to read the evidence as it appeared from day to day in the official report of the Assembly, it might have been otherwise, or had the commissioners been in possession of the volumes referred to in evidence, but even this was not the case. Strange as it may seem, though all the charges against Dr. Briggs were based upon his inaugural address, not a copy of that address was to be found in the Assembly. A commissioner proposed s to have copies of it introduced, that the quotations might be read in their connection, but the Assembly paid no heed to the proposal. The commissioners probably felt that they had enough to perplex them in the documents already in their hands, and in the long and elaborate addresses to which they must try to listen, and that the original and fundamental docu- ment would only add to their perplexity. It was evident that in undertaking to investigate all the im- portant doctrinal statements and principles before them, in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, in the few days at their disposal, they had undertaken an impos- sible task. They might go through the forms of a judicial investigation with all possible patience, but they could not attain the true ends of such an investigation. It must be admitted that all this operated to the disadvantage of Dr. Briggs. The charges that had 30 TRIAL OF DB BBKH boon made against him were simple, strong, and easily remembered. The newspaper articles and popular rumors respecting those charges, and his alleged jy in general, had impressed the charges deeply upon the minds of all ; and unless*, in his defence, he could succeed in effacing that impression by what he had the opportunity of saying only once and that to a wearied audience, the impression would remain. So numerous wore the points to be discussed, and the statements to be refuted, that long before the defend- ant had finished his argument the explanations lie- had made in the early part of his defence, which occupied -. must have been obscured if not effaced by the consideration of other matters of a different doctrinal nature. Dr. Briggs himself saw this danger, and at the opening of Ids defence sought to guard the Assembly against it as follows : — "The peril of the .situation is this, brethren, — I ask you to guard your gainst it as judge* of this court, — that when it comet to a rote and you are weary with the long discussion of the parties, and the debate, yon .-hall not rush on without thought, and sustain one specification after another without giving it the due consideration that it require It was significant that when the vote was taken all of the thirty-four specifications were sustained except two, and that these two, containing a charge of preju- dice against certain well-known members of the Sr. Briggs for holding those views; that if they did they would condemn many of the most esteemed and orthodox ministers, living and dead, of the American church, not to speak of minis- ters equally loyal to the truth in the church to which 1 have the honor to belong, and in other branches of the great Presbyterian Church throughout the world. This impression was deepened os I listened to the closing argument of Colon'. 1 McCook, in which he did not attempt to refute the statements and arguments of Dr. Briggs, but contented himself mainly with reit ating statements which to an unbiassed onlooker, the address of Dr. Briggs had wholly disproved. In any particular in which Colonel McCook did reargue 1 lie- case, his reasoning seemed strangely fallacious. Take the following as an example. \h\ Briggs had been charged with heresy for having used certain words which appeared to teach heresy. In his defence he showed that a wrong construction had been put upon his words and explained their real meaning, and the sense in whicb they were used. Other words of his which he acknowledged had he-en correctly under- stood, he showed did not teach any doctrine contrary to the Westminster standards, hi his reply Colonel McCook reasoned as follows: — "When the sufficiency in form and legal effect of the charges and specifications i- sustained, it has been decided that if the accused uttered the word-; found in the specifi- cations, he is guilty of an offence. Otherwise he would not he put on his defence." ATTITUDE OF "A STRANGER." 37 It was plain that Colonel McCook had quite mis- taken the meaning of sustaining the " sufficiency in form and legal effect " of charges and specifications ; he regarded it as equivalent to sustaining the charges and specifications themselves. He accordingly rea- soned as follows : — "What then remained for the Prosecuting Committee to prove ? Simply that the accused had written such and such words. The merits of the case refer simply to the question of fact. But the fact was admitted by the accused that he had written the words quoted in the spe- cifications. The proof was complete. The verdict (of the Presbytery of New York) should have been guilty, and the charges and specifications should have been sustained. The case on its merits is a jury case. It is a question of fact not of law. The peculiarity of the case before you is that the utterances of the accused relied upon by the prosecuting committee to sustain the charges have all been admitted by him. Did he utter them or not? That was the question on its merits. There was no question of fact but that. The facts were admitted and the only course left to the court was to bring in a verdict of guilty." I was impressed at once with the strangeness of these statements by Colonel McCook, and with the re- markable confirmation they furnished of the impres- sion I had reluctantly received from all the preceding arguments of the prosecution, namely, that they were calculated to " make a man an offender for a word," — to condemn him for his language, not as he under- stood it and intended it to be understood by others, but as the prosecution saw fit to interpret it, — to 38 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. condemn him upon the accusation simply, and not upon the evidence. From this time onward I found myself no longer neutral as an onlooker. I was, both by conviction as to the merits of the case, and from a sense of fairness, on the side of the accused. This may possibly have had some influence upon my opinion of the views and arguments subsequently presented by members of the court. Be this as it may, those who spoke as representing the views of the minority appeared to see the case from the same point of view with myself, and to reason correctly, while the representatives of the majority seemed to view it from a wholly different standpoint and to reason accordingly. Having had an opportunity, since the close of the Assembly, of reviewing at leisure the official report of the Assembly with other necessary documents, I have found that the impressions formed during the trial were not only correct, but that they have been much deepened by a careful perusal of all the argu- ments and evidence presented before the court : and I cannot but believe that, upon a calm review of the whole case, in a similar way, all thoughtful and unprejudiced persons would be convinced that in condemning and suspending the Rev. Professor Briggs, the Washing- ton Assembly inadvertently committed a grave mis- take, — a mistake which some who voted with the majority will soon be ready to acknowledge, and which the great American Presbyterian Church will not allow to remain long uncorrected. FIRST CHARGE. 39 CHAPTER V. FIRST charge: the reason a fountain of divine AUTHORITY. THE first charge preferred against Dr. Briggs was, that he taught, " that the reason is a fountain of divine authority which may and does savingly en- lighten men, even such men as reject the Scriptures as the authoritative proclamation of the Will of God, and reject also the way of salvation through the medi- ation and sacrifice of the Son of God as revealed therein." This is a statement of Dr. BrioW alleged DO O teaching made by the prosecuting committee. He never made such a statement himself. He repudiated the above statement as being wholly wrong. What he said in his inaugural was that " there arc histori- cally three great fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason." From this statement of fact on the part of Dr. Briggs, and from arguments and illustrations connected witli it in his inaugural, the prosecuting committee framed the above charge. Dr. Lampe on behalf of the prosecut- ing committee opened his argument in support of this charge with the following assertion, which notwith- standing his knowledge of Dr. Briggs' disavowal of it, he regarded as a valid inference : — 40 TRIAL OF DR. BR JOGS. "The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, then, are equal in being great fountains of divine authority. The quality of divinity and the right of divine authority be- long alike to all three ; as such each can be to man an infallible guide of life, and speak to him with eternal and immutable certainty, so that he can yield to each implicit obedience, rest on each with loving certainty, and build with joyous confidence." This is, at the outset, a remarkable distortion of the views of Dr. Briggs, arising from a refusal to accept his explanation of the meaning of a single word, and a consequent failure to understand the scope of his argument. Dr. Briggs never said, and does not hold that the Bible, the Church, and the Reason are equal. He strongly maintains the very reverse of this. Over and over, again and again, in language as clear and explicit as a man could use, has he denied this equality of the Bible, the Church, and the Reason. lie has repeatedly denied it in his published writings, and he denied it again and again on the floor of the General Assembly. When he found that his language in the inaugural had been misunderstood he hastened to correct this misunderstanding in the appendix to the second edition of the inaugural in these words : — u I did not say, and I did not give any one the right to infer from anything whatever in the inaugural address or in any of my writings that I co-ordinated the Bible, the Church, and the Keason." FIRST CHARGE. 41 He denied this misstatement of his teaching again in his cres on the Bible, the Church, and the Rea- son, in which he states directly that he has known of no one who " has made Bible, Church, and Reason co- ordinate, that is, on the same level, in the same order of equal independent authority." He uttered these sentiments on the floor of the Assembly with all the earnestness he could command. How, in the face of all these statements and explanations, the prosecuting committee could adhere to their statement to the con- trary, it is difficult to understand. It seems to be accounted for in this way : they regarded their own inferences which they drew from the language of Dr. Briggs as more trustworthy than Dr. Briggs' own understanding of his language. The same thing may be true of the next mis- statement in this opening utterance of Dr. Lampe ; namely, that " each [of the three, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason] can be to man an infallible guide of life." In his very next sentence Dr. Lampe admits that Dr. Briggs does not hold that the three are equal, or that each of them is an infallible guide. He discloses the fact that this is simply his own inference from Dr. Briggs' language. He says : " It does not in the least relieve the matter to say that the Bible differs from the other two fountains of divine authority in being in addition also an infallible rule of faith and practice." The following quotation from Dr. Briggs' argu- ment gives in a word his true position with respect to the Bible and the Reason : — 42 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. "Holy Scripture is that in which the Holy Spirit speaks, and He speaks bearing witness by and with the Word in the heart of the believer. The Holy Spirit speaks to the reason of the godly man through Holy Scripture, and gives him the ultimate decision in all matters of faith and practice. I never taught any other doctrine. If any one thinks that this doctrine conflicts with the doctrine that the reason is a great fountain of divine authority, he thinks wrongly and is apart from the true lines of logical reasoning. The Confession does not here say that the Holy Spirit does not speak in the reason apart from Holy Scripture, and, so speaking, speak with divine authority. It is that the Holy Spirit is the Supreme Judge. He is the Supreme Judge wherever, whenever, and in whatever form He speaks. The Con- fession is only concerned to teach that it is when speaking in the Holy Scriptures that He is the Supreme Judge, and that when so speaking the Church must yield alle- giance, whatever may have been the decrees of councils or opinions of ancient writers, and that private spirits must obey, whatever the doctrine of men may have been; in other words, that Church and Reason must yield to the Supreme Judge, the Holy Spirit, when speaking in Holy Scripture. I have not said that the Holy Spirit speaks the final word in the reason, to which the Church and the Bible must yield. I have not exalted the reason over the Bible. I am no rationalist. "It is the teaching of the Confession to which I sub- scribe that the Holy Spirit, when He speaks the infal- lible word in Holy Scripture, always speaks through the Scriptures to the reason, and by His inward work in the heart, in the reason, gives certainty, assurance, and infallible conviction of the truth and grace of God. FIRST CHARGE. 43 There is no conflict between reason and Scripture in such a sense. There can be none. The Holy Spirit unites them in an infallible bond of certainty. " It might be thought that, in view of this explana- tion by Dr. Briggs, the Prosecuting Committee would cease to contend that he teaches that the reason is a fountain of divine authority on an equality with the Bible, and admit that he teaches that reason must bow to Holy Scripture as the voice of the Spirit. Yet the prosecution adhere to their contention. They go farther, and deny that the reason can be a fountain of divine authority in any sense. In the face of all the explanations made by Dr. Briggs, they mistake the meaning of the word " fountain." They evidently think it an original source, which a fountain never is. There is always a great source of supply back of a fountain, by which it is fed. It is really only a channel between the original source and the outside world. It is in this sense that Dr. Briggs uses the word " fountain,'' as he repeatedly explained to the Assembly. He said : "I do not mean that there is any original divine authority in the human reason, or that there is any original divine authority in the Christian Church, but simply that they are channels, fountains, media, through which God's Holy Spirit speaks to men." At another time, in answer to a request he had made that if any one had any question to ask he would send it up in writing, he received another question regard- ing his use of the word " fountain ; " in answering 44 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. which, before resuming his argument after recess, he said : — " 1 have just received a question in regard to the matter I have passed oyer, which, in accordance with my promise, I will first answer. "'Would you kindly give me your interpretation of the word fountain as you use it, and oblige?' "I thought I had done this, but it seems exceedingly difficult to make my meaning plain. I use 'fountain' not in the sense of the original source; because, as T have said, God alone is the original source. But I use 'foun- tain 5 in tbe figurative sense, as that out of which the waters flow, synonymous with 'channel' and 'medium.' God is the only original source. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason are channels, means of grace, by which God communicates His Divine authority to men. I hope I have made myself plain." On what ground tbe prosecution refused to accept these explanations, it is difficult to understand. The Prosecuting Committee make another mistake in tbe use of words. They seem to regard the Bible as an original source, an infallible source, instead of an infallible fountain issuing forth from God, the great Source of all light and life. Dr. Briggs called attention to this mistake, in his defence before the Assembly, as follows : — "It seems to me that Dr. Lampe and most of my critics make the serious mistake of confounding the Original Source of all authority with the fountain of authority. It seems to me that the prosecution make the Bible the infallible source of authority, instead of [regarding God FIRST CHARGE. 45 as] speaking through the Bible, as I do; and there- fore they do not understand ray position when I say that the Reason and the Church are fountains of divine authority." Mistaking the meaning of the figurative term " foun- tain," the Prosecuting Committee have been unable to understand how Dr. Briggs could hold that the Church and the Reason can be fountains of authority without being at the same time infallible guides, — rules of faith and practice like the Bible. Yet they should have had no such difficulty. They should have under- stood that the Bible is a great fountain of divine authority. — the medium through which God speaks to man ; and that as such a medium it contains within itself all that God has to say to mankind for their guidance ; and that the Church and the Reason are great fountains of divine authority, — media through which God's Spirit speaks to man, without containing within them all, or anything approaching to all that God has to say to mankind for their guidance. So mistaking the use Dr. Briggs makes of the fig- urative term "fountain" as applied to the reason, the Prosecuting Committee argue against the idea that the reason can be a fountain of authority at all. But a glance at their reasoning shows that they are arguing against the doctrine that the reason is a source of divine authority, and not simply a channel. If not they are themselves guilty of heresy, as Dr. Briggs has shown with great clearness. He shows that the Confession distinctly recognizes the reason as a great 46 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. fountain of divine authority. " The prosecution," he says, — " shut their eyes to seven chapters of the Confession — 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 26 — when they represent that my doctrine of the reason is erroneous. In their original charges they state that I ' strike at the vitals of religion ' in teaching that the reason is a great fountain of divine authority. I do indeed strike at the vitals of religion, but in a sense quite different from that in their minds; for this doctrine so strikes at the vitals of religion that there can be no vital religion without it." By means of argument based upon the Bible, the Confession, and the most sacred experiences of God's children, Dr. Briggs makes it plain that the reason is a necessary medium through which God speaks to man. But his argument is all lost upon his opponents, for their minds are full of a different idea, — namely, the idea that the reason is not of itself a source of divine authority. But Dr. Briggs, having announced the simple truth that the Spirit of God can and does speak to men through their reason, including their consciences and whole moral natures, and having shown that it is through the reason, in this broad sense, that the Spirit applies the Word of God savingly to the hearts and lives of men, goes further, and mentions that where there is no knowledge of the Word of God, nor ace to it, as in the case of the heathen, the Spirit of God can speak authoritatively to the human soul through the reason as it is exercised in consider- FIRST CHARGE. 47 ing such revelations of God as are within its reach. When the orthodoxy of this position is challenged by his opponents, — and surely it is strange that it should have been challenged, — Dr. Briggs feels called upon to defend it, and in doing so appeals to the inspired Word as follows : — " We appeal to the statement of Holy Scripture respect- ing those outside the visible Kingdom of God, and there- fore excluded from contact with Holy Scripture and Church. What shall we say to the teaching of Paul ? ' And He made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us ; for in Him we live and move and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.' Do none of these offspring of God among the heathen feel after Him ? Do those who feel fail to find Him ? Do none of those the root of whose being is God look to the root and become conscious of that fountain of life springing up within them ? Or are these words of Paul a fancy incapable of realization, a dream which finds no counterpart in the real heathen man ? " What of the preaching of Peter ? ' Of a truth I per- ceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation lie that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is ac- ceptable to Him.' Are there no God-fearing men among the nations who hold to the ethnic religions ? Are there none who give alms and work righteousness ? Was Peter mis- taken ? Does God really respect persons, and reject a man because he was not born a Hebrew or because he was not 48 TRIAL OF DR BRIGGS. educated in Christian lands ? Waa Cornelius the only illustration of this profound utterance ? And was he ac- cepted simply because he might have been a pi u What of the preaching of Jesus ? 'The men of Nine- veh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it because they repented at the preach- ing of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here.' If the proud Assyrians, the inhabitants of Nineveh, were not excluded from repentance because they had no Bible and were hos- tile to the kingdom of Israel, why should the inhabitants of any other metropolis of the ethnic religions be excluded if they repent according to the teaching they have ? Is the Oriental queen the only potentate who has found I by wisdom outside the kingdom ? True, the one heard the preaching of Jonah, and the other the wisdom mon. But there is no evidence that either of them acce; Holy Scripture, or united with Holy Church."' At another stage of his argument Dr. Briggs quoted from the Confession, in support of his position, the words, — " Although the light of nature and the works of crea- tion and Providence do so far manifest the greatness and power of God as to leave man inexcusable,'" and added: "Listen to Holy Scripture : ' For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these not having the law are a law unto themse' which show the works of the law written in their hearts, FIRST CHARGE. 49 their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.' " He also referred to Romans i. 19-20 : — " Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath showed it unto them. For the in- visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are with- out excuse." The Prosecuting Committee utterly failed to meet Dr. Briggs here. They said several things as if in reply ; but their statements are so indefinite and conflicting that it is difficult, if not impossible, to de- termine with any degree of certainty whether they accept Dr. Briggs' reasoning and the teaching of Scripture regarding the possibility of individuals among the heathen being saved by the Spirit work- ing through their reason, or whether they reject this doctrine. The substance of what they say in reply, through Dr. Lampe, is contained in the following non- committal and mutually contradictory sentences : "That Dr. Briggs conceives of each of these fountains of divine authority as capable of imparting [Dr. Lampe still thinks of fountains as sources, having the power in themselves of imparting] a saving knowledge of God, is evident from his own statements on the subject. He says: ' Unless God's authority is discerned in the forms of the reason there is no ground upon which any of the heathen could ever have been saved, for they know nothing of 4 50 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. Bible or Church. If they are not savingly enlightened by the Light of the world in the forms of the reason the whole heat lion world is lost forever.' (Inaug. 2d ed. pp. 88, 89.) The divine authority in the reason therefore does savingly enlighten, in the view of Dr. Briggs." "The facts [says Dr. Lampe] that God can give evi- dence of himself to the man's soul, and that the man hat the power of certifying truth, that he can receive commu- nications from God, and be the subject of gracious influ- ences, show indeed, that as created in the image of God, man is endowed with a moral nature, but does not at all prove that his reason is a great fountain of divine authority." If Dr. Lampe had grasped the proper meaning of the word " fountain," he would have seen that this reasoning is self-contradictory. It both accepts Dr. Briggs' view and rejects it. But neither of the above quotations from Dr. Lampe's argument gives any definite information as to whether the Prosecuting Committee agree with Dr. Briggs' view of the pos- sible salvation of a heathen without the Bible. But how about the following ? — " Christ is supreme in the Church and in all matters of faith and life. But we know nothing about Him except through the Bible story. The truth by means of which He saves and assures His people is treasured up in the Scriptures so that we are shut up to them, both for a sav- ing knowledge of God and for assurance. The Bible alone tells us what we need to know about God, ourselves, the plan of salvation, our duty, and the conditions of eternal life and destiny. For this reason the Bible alone, FIRST CHARGE. 51 as against the Church and Reason, gives light in the moral and spiritual realm." This quotation seems to indicate plainly that in the opinion of the Prosecuting Committee there is no sal- vation for any one apart from a personal knowledge of the Scriptures, — that all the heathen, not having access to the written Word of God, must be lost. That this is the view of the committee would seem to be confirmed by this further statement by Dr. Lampe : "The Scripture expressly declares that men by wisdom have not known God. History shows that to be abso- lutely true. Reason, unaided by revealed truth, has never been able to bring man out of the bondage of sin to God. And therefore ' it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. ' God begets men to a new life by the word of truth and saves them by the belief of that truth; for how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear with- out a preacher ? " (Rom. x. 14.) This would seem to leave no doubt as to the view of the Committee. But to our surprise, in the very next sentence Dr. Lampe takes it all back, shifts his argument to a different point of the com- pass, and sets out to meet a wholly different issue, as follows : — " Any discussion in respect to the salvation of infants, incapables, and exceptional cases of heathen through the working of the Divine Spirit is immaterial here; no question is raised in the charges in reference to them. 52 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. The matter in hand is wholly different. Can one having the Bible and rejecting it find the way to God through either Church or Reason? " This cannot but be regarded as a very unsatisfac- tory way of reasoning. Before taking up this new question Dr. Lampe has raised, let us try to get our bearings. Let us have something definite as to the supremacy of Christ and the salvation of individuals through Him apart from a knowledge of written revelation. We know that Christ is the only Re- deemer of mankind ; that " there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." But we are taught also that it is not an accu- rate knowledge of all the facts connected with the life and death of Jesus that saves ; nor is it a perfect acquaintance with the plan of redemption revealed in Christ ; but it is that intimate relation of the heart and life to God which, whether man fully understands the basis of it or not, the name of Jesus and that alone has made it possible either for man to enter into or for God to accept. When God calls little children away from this world to Himself, we believe they are saved, though they never understood or even heard the precious name ; yet we believe their salvation is at- tributable solely to the fact that Jesus is the " One Mediator between God and men." When a heathen who has never heard the gospel preached reads care- fully by the light of nature until he learns to under- stand something of the invisible things of God by the things that are made, and in his consciousness of FIRST CHARGE. 53 guilt in the sight of his Maker becomes the subject of conviction of sin through the power of that Spirit who worketh even as the wind bloweth, confesses his sin in the sight of Heaven, seeks forgiveness of the Great God, reposes confidence in Him, and manifests his faith by working righteousness, we are taught to believe that God, in accordance with His own plan of redemption which He perfectly understands, can ac- cept that man's faith, even though the man himself may not properly understand the reason why. We know that saving faith does not " stand in the wis- dom of men, but in the power of God ; " that salva- tion is not based upon works, whether of the hands or of the head, but upon Divine wisdom and grace ; and that the essential thing on man's part is that " faith which worketh by love," — faith, not in a plan, but in a person ; confidence, not in a creed, but in God. This is a Scriptural and orthodox statement of the doctrine at issue. It is in accord with the Westmin- ster Confession, chapter v., section iii., which states that " God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure." It agrees also with chapter x., section iv., where it is set forth that men not profess- ing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way whatsoever than through Christ, " be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of the religion they do profess ; and to assert and maintain that they may is very per- nicious and to be detested." How, then, are we to understand the first sentence of the Confession, which .'A TRIAL OF DR. BRIG affirms that the light of nature and the works of crea- tion and providence -are not suffic _>e that knowledge of God and of His will wL sary unto salvation .' " We are to understand these words to mean, first, that the light of nature and the works of creation and provides not sufficient to - men apart from th< second, that even though, througl working of His Spirit, they may be the means of saving grace to some individual s effi- cient, in the ordinary course of providence, and the ordinary working of the Hoi all man- kind, or even any considerable number of our race, to repent and turn unto God : and third, that t are not sufficient, as a revelation of the will " for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world ; M in other words, they are not sufficient as u a rule of faith and practice." This is the doctrine taught by Professor B is the doctrine taught by orthodox ministers in the several branches of the great P an Church. It is possibly the doctrine held by the members of the Prosecuting Committee themselv- gh it may have been obscured to them for the inom heir confusion of terms and their inadvertent misapplica- tion of Scriptur for example, by taking the phrase "the world by wisdom km. " to mean that no individual of the human family has ever been saved without a personal knowi FIKST CHARGE. 55 Holy Scripture, or taking the words "faith cometh by hearing" to mean that faith can come only by hearing in the literal sense of the word. Having arrived at a definite understanding regard- ing this important question, which the Prosecuting Committee discussed for a time and then abandoned as immaterial, saying that no question is raised s in the charges in reference to it, we turn to the consid- eration of what Dr. Lampe calls the " wholly differ- ent" "matter in hand," namely, "Can one having the Bible and rejecting it find the way to God through either Church or Reason ? " This question was neither raised nor discussed by Dr. Briggs. It is raised by the Prosecuting Committee, their implication being that Dr. Briggs would answer it in the affirmative. This is one of the inferences they draw from their view of his argument. Dr. Briggs was incidentally dealing with the ques- tion, May one who fails to find religious certainty by his use of the Bible find it through the processes of the reason ? And lie instanced Martineau as one who claimed that he did, — "that he found God enthroned in his own soul." The scope of Dr. Briggs' argument shows that he believed that Martineau may have been right in this opinion of the way in which he had found certainty. The prosecution claim that, as they have learned from Martineau's writings that he is one of those who " reject the Scriptures as the authoritative proclama- tion of the will of God, and the way of salvation through the mediation and sacrifice of the Son of 56 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. God as revealed therein," Dr. Briggs must be held as arguing that one who rejects the Scriptures can find the way to God through the reason. Dr. Briggs replies that the question of Martincau's acceptance or rejection of the Bible was not what was before his mind in adducing the case of Martineau as an illustration of a man finding religious certainty through the forms of the reason, and intimates that if this view of Martincau's belief be emphasized then the illustration he has used is a bad one. But, as Dr. Briggs remarks, " a bad example may discredit a proposition, but it does not disprove it." It may still be true that a man who fails to find religious certainty by his use of the Bible may find it by the use of his reason. Not only may a man reach certainty in this way, but many do. This is a matter of Christian experience. I did not find religious certainty by my direct read- ing and study of the Bible. The fault was no doubt my own, but the fact remains. The entrance of God's Word gave me light, but not certainty. The light that was in me was darkness. The natural man did not receive the things of the Spirit of God. Doubts arose in my mind as I read the Word ; and the more I read, the more numerous my doubts seemed to become. The plainest statements of the Bible were dark to me. I turned and conferred with men who seemed to know the way to God. I listened to their experiences and reasoning. I reasoned with them and against them, and often felt that I had the best of the argument. I read the works of noted divines, and reasoned with FIRST CHARGE. 57 their writings before me, often reasoning against their reasoning. I finally took to reasoning with myself, and with God in whose existence I believed, though I could not understand His Word, nor trust Him as my Friend. It was while thus musing and reasoning alone, amid the darkness of night, that I found cer- tainty by finding God. And, strangely enough, it was not by my recalling any particular passage of His blessed Word that my doubts were dispelled, but it was by thinking of His goodness in the works of His hands round about me, and in the heavens above my head. Not till then did I see Him revealed in Christ as my Friend. From that moment my heart was at peace with God. Possibly another would express it better by saying, u I found God enthroned in my own soul.'' By God's grace I did not reject the Bible and trust to reason alone, as Martineau is alleged to have done. On the contrary, I found the Scriptures to be a full and clear revelation of that which had first dawned upon my mind through the contemplation of nature, namely, the simple truth, " God loves you." I need not speak of how much I have learned to prize and love the blessed Word since that experi- ence of many years ago. Such an experience is not unique ; it has been the experience of thousands ; and it illustrates the unquestionable truth that God places great honor upon the poor remnant of likeness to Himself that still remains in sinful man, and that man's reason, including his whole moral nature, is a fountain, channel, or medium through which the Spirit of God conveys religious certainty to many a soul. 58 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. But oven if the Prosecuting Committee accept this as a confirmation of the correctness of Dr. Briggs' view, they will still fall back upon the last offence they allege against J)r. Briggs under this first charge. It is an offence on the score of overmuch charity, but appears to be none the less offensive to the prosecu- tion on this account. It is stated in these words: "Dr. Briggs would not refuse those rationalists a place among the company of the faithful." This has reference to such men as Martineau, — men who, whatever may be their errors of belief, fear God and work righteousness. The prosecution, as represented by Dr. Lampe, appear willing to admit of exceptional cases of salvation among the heathen ; then surely their charity should be great enough to admit of examples of God's saving mercy being extended to devout persons among the rationalists. I shall never forget how noble that great man, the late venerable Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton, seemed when, after exposing the heresies of one of the greatest of rationalists, he added, "But I have no doubt he is now singing the praises of Christ in heaven." On being questioned as to how this could be, since he denied Christ on earth, his answer was that "his heart was right ; it was only his head that was wrong. He called Jesus a man, and thought He was only man, but lie gave Him such homage as could be paid only to a Cod." Would that all who imagine they are treading in the footsteps of the venerable Princeton divine, when they are contending only for what they believe FIEST CHARGE. 59 to be soundness in the faith, could have the breadth of view and largeness of heart of that great man. Soundness in the faith is only part of the soundness which God's Word enjoins. We are to be " sound in faith, in charity, in patience ; " and here also a the greatest of these is charity." In view of what Dr. Briggs has said of the suprem- acy of the Holy Scriptures in the hands of the Spirit, and of its being necessary for the reason to yield to their authority as the voice of God, and of the way in which the Spirit addresses and assures the reason through the Word when the Word has been read or heard, no one can rightly accuse him of intending to teach by the case of Martineau that he believes that Martineau must have found certainty through the reason in opposition to the teaching of the Word of God ; much less can it be claimed that he has taught, as the prosecution, by misinterpreting one of his illus- trations, have charged him with teaching, that the reason is a fountain of divine authority which may and does of itself savingly enlighten men, or through which men are savingly enlightened independently of the mediation and sacrifice of the Son of God. That this is far indeed from being his teaching- will become still more apparent as we review the cog- nate doctrine, — " The Church as a fountain of divine authority." GO TRIAL 01 JjJi. BRIGG& CHAPTER VI. OMD CHARGE: THE CHURCH A FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORfl THE second charge brought againsl Dr. Briggs by the Prosecuting Committee is that he teaches "that the Church is a fountain of divine authority, which, apart from the Holy .Scripture, may and docs savingly enlighten men/' All that has been said of the Committee hi apprehending the meaning of the word "fountain" in connection with the first charge applies also to this second charge. J -* aeaning they attach to the words '-'• apart from the I iptnre " is not quite clear. Do they mean, without the actual of the Bible as a book: or do they mean that Dr. Briggs teaches that the Christian Church ma, the Holy Scriptures and all their teachings, and some power treasured up in the Church its apart even from the work of the Spirit, still e ingly enlighten men ? The latter appears to be their ning. But this is a doctrine Dr. Briggs utterly repudiates. It is one of the mistaken inferences which the Committee have drawn from their miscon- ception of the meaning of his words and the scope of his argument. SECOND CHARGE. 61 It is not strange that Dr. Briggs spoke warmly against having such a doctrine imputed to him. He resented this imputation and dismissed it as unworthy of consideration. " I admit," he said, " the statements that * the reason is a fountain of divine authority,' and ' the Church is a fountain of divine authority,' but I deny all the rest of the doctrines attributed to me in the form and in the language in which the prosecution state them in these two charges. They do not prove and they cannot prove from the inaugural that men who reject the Scrip- tures and the salvation through Jesus Christ are savingly enlightened by the Reason or by the Church. There are no express statements to this effect in the inaugural. There are no statements which by logical deduction involve such conclusions. You can- not hold me responsible for any inferences made from my statements by the prosecution, or by yourselves, whether such inferences appear valid to you or not. There are certain invalid assumptions which the pros- ecution are forced to make before they can con- vince you, even by indirection, of the validity of such inferences. I shall waste no time in an at- tempt to expound the doctrines which have been invented by the prosecution and wrongly attributed to me." But Dr. Briggs still found it necessary to meet the contention of the Committee that it is an offence to say that the Church is a fountain of divine authority. In doing so he used the following unmistakable lan- guage : — 62 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. " The Church has no divine authority in itself apart from God. Its divine authority is in that its chief i. tutions were divinely appointed, and that these divinely appointed institutions are the ordinary channels of divine grace. The church is a fountain of divine authority. The divine authority flows from God Himself as the sole original fountain head and ultimate source, through the fountain of the Church, and distributes its healing, life-giving streams through all its ministries. "The Westminster Confession clearly shows thai visible Church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesiu that He 'hath given the ministry oracles and ordinal of God ' unto it; and J doth by His own presence and Spirit make them effectual.' . . . Whatever this court may conclude, I declare that the statement of the Confession is a true statement. There is divine authority in the Church ; it is Christ's kingdom. He reigns over it. He inhabits it by His Spirit. He makes its institutions efficacious. He grants access to Himself through His Church. Our Presbyterian fathers rejoiced in such access. Their de- scendants enjoy this unspeakable privilege. Are we to be robbed of our birthright ? Are you ready to banish from the official doctrine of the Presbyterian Church the wit- nessing Spirit, the indwelling Christ, and the living God in order to incase the Holy Trinity within the covers of a book ? Shall we destroy the Church in order to exalt the Bible ? " In the same connection Dr. Briggs showed that the Scriptural and Confessional doctrine regarding the sacraments proves the Church to be a great channel of divine authority. But the Prosecuting Committee appeared to reject SECOND CHARGE. 63 all these statements and to deny the validity of all this reasoning. Yet they did not attempt to reply to the statements or refute the reasoning. They simply dismissed the matter with this assertion : " The labored argument made by Dr. Briggs in his defence to show that according to the teaching of both the Bible and the standards, the Church and the Reason are great fountains of divine authority, is wide of the mark and wholly unsuccessful." Why it should be thought wide of the mark it is difficult to see, when the question at issue was, Is the Church, as an institution, a fountain, channel, or medium through which God speaks with authority to man ? If his argument be thought un- successful and inconclusive, it can easily be supple- mented with undeniable proof from all parts of sacred Scripture, not to speak of the seven chapters on the Church in the Confession of Faith, to which the prose- cution have made no reference ! Can we hear God saying to Abraham, as He founds the Jewish Church in him and his family, " In blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore : And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies : And in thy seed shall all the na- tions of the earth be blessed," and say that the Church is not a fountain of divine authority ? Can we recall the fact that it was through the Church thus founded and consecrated that Christ came and the whole written Word of God was given to mankind, and not believe that the Church is a channel of divine authority, the very medium through which God Himself came 64 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. down to man ? Can we hear Paul speaking of the Church as the hody of Christ, " the fulness of Him that filleth all in all ? " or can we hear John speaking of the Church as the bride of Christ, joining with the Spirit in crying u Come," and refuse to believe that the Church is a fountain of divine authority ? And what shall we say of the teaching of Jesus Himself as He says to the first members of the Christian Church : " Ye are the light of the world ; " " Ye are my wit- nesses ; " " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Can any believer in the Lord Jesus Christ read these words and deny that the Church is a fountain of divine authority ? The unsoundness of the position taken by the prose- cution is made still more apparent by the violence they do to Scripture in their attempt to maintain their position. Think, for example, of the incorrectness of such statements as the following made by Dr. Lampe on behalf of the Committee : " Christ and the New Testament writers invariably appeal to the Holy Scrip- tures as the ultimate authority for the settlement of all religious and moral questions ; " " With Christ and the Apostles the Bible alone held the place of absolute and final authority. They never appeal to either Church or Reason, but brought both Church and Reason to the bar of Scripture for judgment and light." SECOND CHARGE. 65 How utterly at variance these statements are with the plain facts of Scripture ! Have the prosecution forgotten our Saviour's words in the 18th chapter of Matthew, " Tell it unto the Church " ? Does our Lord, in giving directions as to the settlement of a moral question in that passage, make no appeal to the Church ? Does He appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures as " the ultimate authority for the settlement " of that moral question ? No, He does not enjoin the offended brother to settle the question by reading the law, the prophets, or the psalms to his offending brother ; but He bids him tell it to the Church, and He makes the Church's authority final : u If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Then, as if to impress upon his followers the great solemnity and real divinity of the Church's authority, Jesus adds these words : " Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The Westminster divines based section ii. of chapter xxx. of the Confession of Faith upon this solemn utterance. Or could anything be a more direct contradiction of these remarkable assertions made by the prosecu- tion regarding Christ and His Apostles than the fol- lowing from the 5th chapter of First Corinthians : " For I, verily, being absent in body but present in Spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together and my spirit, with the poiver of our Lord Jesus, to deliver 5 66 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Among the last words Jesus spake to His disciples, if not the very last before His ascension, were these : " But ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. " Members of the prosecution themselves have no doubt often, in the discharge of solemn ecclesiastical functions, prefaced their official acts with such words as these : " In the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ, the King and Head of the Church." The doctrine taught by the Rev. Dr. Briggs, and charged against him as heretical, is so manifestly both Scriptural and Confessional that proving it seems a work of supererogation. Yet it is a fundamental and very sacred doctrine, and when it is denied there is need for lifting it into prominence, lest some should grieve away the Spirit of God by lightly esteeming the Zion which the Lord hath founded, the Jerusalem which He has graven upon the palms of His hands, and whose walls are continually before Him, the Heaven-created fountain through which the benefits of Christ's re- demptive work are to be communicated to the whole world, the God-ordained institution without whose agency the inspired Word itself might lie unheeded, and fail to accomplish the thing whereto God sent it. The prosecution further claimed that Dr. Briggs was guilty of an offence in saying that the majority of SECOND CHARGE. 67 Christians from the Apostolic age have found God through the Church. His language, as quoted by them in this connection, is : " Martyrs and saints, fathers and school-men, the profoundest intellects, the saint- liest lives, have had this experience ; institutional Christianity has been to them the presence-chamber of God." This is a simple statement of fact. It is true that the majority of Christians from the Apostolic age have found God through the Church and not directly through the written Word. This is true of the majority of those who find God savingly to-day. The Bible is not given a chance to be the direct means of savingly enlightening men. It is but little read by the great majority of the people of any country. It is read and taught more perhaps in our day than in any previous age. Portions of it are statedly read and discoursed upon in the church and Sabbath-school, and occasion- ally in the home. There are a few pious hearts in every Christian community who peruse the Bible with silent delight day by day for the comfort it brings them. There are others who search the Scriptures more critically, and make the interpreting and ex- pounding of them the chief work of their lives. But, after all, how many of the representatives of our religion have read the Bible once from beginning to end ? The treatment they give the Bible is altogether peculiar. They speak of the book in the most com- plimentary and reverential terms. They call it the Bible! — the Book of Books!— the Word of God! They fear it, and fight for the idea of its sacred- 68 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. ness. They do everything, in short, which the most zealous devotees should be expected to do ; but the one thing which, as intelligent men, they should be expected to do, they do not ; namely, read the book. That they occasionally read parts of it cannot be denied. That they imagine they have in some way acquired a correct knowledge of what it teaches is equally unquestionable. That they actually have such a knowledge is another matter. What a large propor- tion of nominally Christian people know about the Bible has been learned at second hand and not from independent study. Their religious knowledge is, to all intents and purposes, traditionary. It has come down to them mainly through oral instruction, and through the writings of those who are supposed to have studied the Bible so thoroughly as to be able to give the substance of it in their own words. Men who would be shocked at the thought of living from year to year without a Bible in their homes will live contentedly from the beginning to the end of their whole lifetime, without ever reading the Bible once throughout. The Book is sacred in their eyes only in an outward and material sense, and is of value to them as a fetich is of value to a heathen. It is ex- pected to banish sin as a piece of cedar wood will banish moths. It is relied on for salvation as the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord was relied upon in the disastrous fight with the Philistines. With the Bible thus neglected and misused, how do the majority of Christians find God but through the Church ? This is the doctrine of the Westminster SECOND CHARGE. 69 standards : " The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation." (Shorter Catechism, Q. 89.) Preaching is not using the Scriptures directly. It is one of the distinctive functions of the Church. There may not be one sentence from the Bible in the whole discourse. As a matter of fact, Scripture statements do not form more than the hundredth part of the average gospel sermon. But the Westminster standards teach that there are other " effectual means of salvation " besides the Word, one of which is the sacraments. Their answer to the question " How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?" is, " The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any vir- tue in them, or in him that doth administer them ; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them" (Shorter Catechism, Q. 91), or, to quote the answer as it is given in the Larger Catechism, Q. 161, " The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted." Yet the Prosecuting Committee deny that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, and that the sacraments of the Church, and insti- tutional Christianity as a whole, have been to 70 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. the majority of Christians the presence-chamber of God! If further testimony were needed against the heresy of this denial, it would be easy to furnish it. We cannot tell all the ways in which the sacraments Baptism and the Lord's Supper bring Christians near to God, but there are sonic outward ways with which every one who has had the care of souls is familiar. Eere is a pastor's testimony : — " Among (lie many whom I have seen come out of dark- ness into Light, Ili»' majority were led, not by means of the direct reading of the Word, but by means of the sacraments, and especially the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It was in connection with its observance that they were first led to think seriously regarding their relation to God. It was by committing themselves to a godly life in presence of others, by sitting at the Lord's table, that they were most powerfully helped to live consistent lives. A single example may serve to illustrate both these statements. On a Monday evening, following a Communion Sabbath, there called on me a much respected merchant of the city in which I was then a pastor. He spoke with his usual calmness of manner, but was in great disquietude of spirit. 'I have been greatly troubled,' said he, 'ever since I was at church yesterday morning. I sat in the same pew with my wife, but the bread and the cup were passed by me to her, as 1 am not a communicant. I said to myself then, and I have been saying it ever since, What does this mean? And how long is it to last? Bui I am not lit to be a communicant.' I spoke to him of the love of Jesus and of His willingness to receive him, and make the act of confessing Him before men a means SECOND CHARGE. 71 of grace to him ; and by God's blessing that dear member of my flock, with whom God's Spirit was thus striving, came out into the light. Two months later as I received him to the Communion of the church and saw him sitting with his beloved wife at the table of the Lord, I said within myself, Here is another example of that meaning of the Lord's Supper which Jesus evidently had in mind as He prayed at the time He instituted it, - — ' that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.' When last heard from that Christian brother, who was thus brought out of darkness into light by means of the sacrament of the Supper, was rejoicing in the light and witnessing a good confession." How many thousands have been brought to Christ through simply witnessing the observance of the Lord's Supper, and to how many thousands of thou- sands both Baptism and the Lord's Supper have been •' effectual means of salvation," in those hidden ways perhaps more directly referred to in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, eternity alone can reveal. But enough has been said in proof and illustration of this precious doctrine, for adhering to which Dr. Briggs was condemned ! The prosecution quote as part of his offence in this connection these words of Dr. Briggs regarding the above doctrine : " It is difficult for many Protestants to regard this experience as any other than pious illusion and delusion." I should hardly have thought this statement correct, had not the Prosecuting Com- 72 TRIAL OS DR. BRKH mittee, if not the majority of the Assembly Furnished an actual illustration of its truth. But I cannot doubt that, on carefully examining this doctrine, they will gladly reverse their judgment. Another proof of Dr. Briggs' alleged heresy relied on by the prosecution is that lie has said that t; New- man could not reach certainty through the Bible, striving never so hard," but that he found God through the Church. All that need be said regard- ing this is, first, that it was a statement by Dr. Briggs of what Newman himself claimed to be the fact in IjIs case; and, second, that there is some re- semblance in this alleged fact between Newman's case and that of his great evangelical ootomporary Charles 11. Spurgeon. Spurgeon's experience, as often referred to by himself, was that before his conversion he waited on ordinances, re-ad his Bible, and reasoned about the things of God, but could find no peaee ; and that it was on going into a church ami hearing a sermon preached from the old familiar words, " Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am Grod and there is none else," that he found peace. One would almost think that in arranging and con- trolling the circumstances connected with the conver- sion of His honored servant, Spurgeon, the Lord had before Him the present unhappy controversy in one of the great branches of His Church, and that He so ordered the manner of Spurgeon's eon version as to show to all His people how jealous He is of the honor of His Church, as well as of His Word and the moral nature with which Lie has endowed Ilis SECOND CHARGE. 73 intelligent creature, — man. Spurgeon did not reach certainty through his use of the Word alone. God saw that both the Church and the Reason were also honored before He allowed His servant's feet to be set upon the Rock. It was not in precisely the same way indeed that Newman found peace, for u there are diversities of operations ; " yet it was through the Church, in some sense, that he believed he finally reached certainty. This brings us to what may be termed the head and front of Dr. Briggs' offending in the opinion of his opponents, and of not a few of his friends. Let it be stated in the language of the prosecution : — " Again he says : ( Spurgeon is an example of the aver- age modern evangelical, who holds the Protestant position, and assails the Church and Reason in the interest of the authority of Scripture. But the average opinion of the Christian world would not assign him a higher place in the kingdom of God than Martineau or Newman. May we not conclude on the whole that these three representa- tive Christians of our time, living in or near the world's metropolis, have, each in his way, found God and rested on Divine authority ? . . . Men are influenced by their temperaments and environments which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue.' " In dealing with these statements of Dr. Briggs, which are unfortunately taken out of their setting in the inaugural, and away from their context, the prosecution inadvertently make mistake after mistake. They first say : " Here Dr. Briggs not only teaches that men may and do find God savingly through any one of 74 TRIAL OB DR BBIGGS. the three fountains of divine authority." Dr. B might have boon correct had he said this, hut it ifl not what lie did say. What he said was that i; men are influenced by their temperaments and environments which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue." A glance at the argument in the inaugural in which the sentence occurs shows that he does not teach that a man must find God B only through the way of searching for certainty which lie ma pursues ; and, in any ca* supposes the atonement made by Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit, as underlying each of the three media of authority, as that which makes it possible for a man to find access to God through any or all of these channels. This is the first mistake made by the prosecution in dealing with these quotations from the inaugural ; and here is the second: u but admits that the Bible, as the only way for obtaining d and certainty, as held by . m, is the Protestant doctrine." There are two errors here: first, Dr. I not admit that Spurgeon held that the Bible is the only way of obtaining salvation and certainty, — Christ is the only way; and second, he does not admit that holding that the Bible is the only way of salvation is the Protestant doctrine. He t Spurgeon as an example of the average modern evangelical, who holds the Protestant doctrine; but he claims that the evangelical Protestant dor that, while the Bible is ' ; the only infallible rul faith and practice," the Spirit of God, in savingly SECOND CHARGE. 75 enlightening men, and applying the redemption pur- chased by Christ, can and does work also through the Church and the Reason. This makes the next error into which the prosecution fall, in their argu- ment in this connection, apparent. It is contained in their words : " And therefore, since the Presby- terian Church is a Protestant Church, he convicts himself of teaching doctrines which are not Presbyte- rian." The prosecution here attribute to Dr. Briggs premises which he does not hold, and which are, therefore, logically false ; and their conclusion is accordingly false. But what did Dr. Briggs mean by speaking of Spurgeon, Martineau, and Newman as three repre- sentative Christians ? It was thought by some in the Assembly that he had placed the three on the same evangelical equality, and had held up Martineau and Newman as being as worthy of imitation in all respects as Spurgeon. In supposing this they for- got the sense in which Dr. Briggs used the word "representative," — not as representative of all that Christians ought to be, but as representative of the three great classes under consideration, — Spurgeon representing those who give the highest place theo- retically to the authority of the Scriptures ; Martineau representing those who give the highest place theo- retically to the Reason ; and Newman representing those who give the highest place theoretically to the Church. Some were still further offended by the statement that the average opinion of the Christian world would 76 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. not assign Spurgeon a higher place in the Kingdom of God than Martineau or Newman. But Dr. Briggs was speaking, not of Presbvterianism, or even Protes- tantism, but of historical Christianity, as will be remembered by recalling the statement, " There are historically three great fountains of Divine Authority." It is without question a simple fact, as Dr. Briggs showed in his defence, that the Christian world, in the sense in which the term was used in the inaugural, would not assign Spurgeon a higher place in the King- dom of God than Martineau or Newman, whether they are right or wrong in their estimate of the religious or ecclesiastical greatness of these three eminent men. To quote from Dr. Briggs' own language before the court : — u It may seem strange to some of you that the average opinion of the Christian world would not assign him (Spurgeon) a higher place in the Kingdom of God than Martineau or Newman. But a little reflection ought to convince you that it is so. Spurgeon is the hero of the Evangelical party in the Church. He was generally esteemed to be the greatest preacher of the gospel in our generation. His sermons have been of incalculable benefit to multitudes. I yield to none in admiration of Spurgeon as a master of sacred eloquence. It was my privilege to enjoy many times listening to his eloquence, and to know a great deal of the work lie was doing. But any one who understands the state of religious opinion in England knows that Spurgeon only represented a party among the nonconformists, and that a considerable portion of them would not assign him a higher place than Martineau or Newman. He lived to find himself in a hopeless minority SECOND CHARGE. 77 in his own denomination, and to separate from the mass of nonconformists, whom he accused of being on 'the down-grade.' ... In the average opinion of the Church of England, Spurgeon would certainly assume the lowest place of the three. Among Roman Catholics, Newman would have the pre-eminence. Among German Protes- tants, Marti neau would hold the highest rank. In North America, without doubt Spurgeon is in greatest estima- tion. . . . But suppose I make a mistake in statistics, and my opinion is wide of the facts, — is such a mistake heresy?" Any one who perceives the scope of the inau- gural will have no difficulty in understanding the reference made to Spurgeon, Martineau, and Newman. Dr. Briggs was not writing simply for Presbyterians. He had not even Evangelical Protestantism alone in view. He was taking into view the whole nominally Christian world, with all its varying churches, sects, and parties. It was not his purpose to exalt any sect or individual at the expense of another. Nor was he aiming at making either his own or any other denom- ination more narrowly exclusive, and more intensely loyal to its own historic position. He was think- ing of possible union rather than division, of peace rather than hostility between those of every name who are seeking in various ways to be the children of the same heavenly Father. He was striving to find out what truths were common to all the three great classes into which the Christian world is divided. His aim beino- to bring all to rightly acknowledge the authority of Scripture, he made "the Authority 78 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. of Scripture" bis theme. As a proper and necessary introduction to this theme, he examined " the Church and the Reason as scats of Divine authority," " be- cause," as lie says in the inaugural, "they open our eves to see mistakes that are common to the three departments." The Christian scholar who is willing to give false systems credit for any good that may be in them, and at the same time to honestly admit any- thing false that may be in the better system which he has the happiness to call his, and who, without relin- quishing any essential truth, is searching for a basis of religious faith and life broad enough for the whole Christian world to unite upon, is surely, in this age of vast endeavors and grand achievements, engaged in a task which deserves the encouragement of all lovers of God and man. The last effort to convict Dr. Briggs of heresy by means of this second charge is contained in the state- ment of the prosecution that according to the views of Dr. Briggs we must recognize the Church of Rome as a great fountain of Divine authority, able to give men, without or above the Bible, a saving knowledge of God, and divine assurance. 1 have never regarded the Roman Catholic Church as occupying the same plane with evangelical churches; I believe it to be full of errors, and wholly mistaken in many of its aims and claims. Yet I am bound to acknowledge that all this does not exclude it from being part of the visible Church. I believe the doctrine taught in section iv., chapter xxv. of the Confession: "This Catholic Church hath been SECOND CHARGE. 79 sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And partic- ular churches which are members thereof are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them." Section v. says : " The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches, but synagogues of Satan." But no one is warranted in applying this last clause to the Roman Catholic Church. Section vi., chapter xxv., repre- sents the Pope of Rome as Antichrist ; but even if the Westminster divines were right in this, — which many intelligent Presbyterians question, — that itself would not blot the Roman Catholic Church out from being part of the visible Church. Those who would see the proof of this statement have only to look unto Jesus. If ever a church had become corrupt, it was the Jewish Church at the time of our Lord's advent. Its leaders were hypo- crites, a generation of vipers, deceivers, making the Word of God of none effect through their tradition, shutting up the kingdom of heaven, neither entering it themselves nor suffering those to enter who gladly would. They were a thousand times more positively Antichrist than the leaders in any church of to-day. That church which had once been a " well-watered garden " had become " a dry ground." Yet it was out of that " dry ground " that there sprang the Plant of Renown. And Jesus honored that degenerate church. He observed its rites ; He kept its laws ; He wor- shipped in its synagogues. 80 TRIAL OF DR. BRIG We know that there are devout followers of Christ in the Roman Catholic Church of to-day. We have seen them in our homes ; we have known them i where. They may have no Bibles, and may no* allowed to read the Bible we would place in their hands. They may never have attended any church but their own; yet, full of error though it be. there is manifestly truth enough and Divine authority enough in connection with that church for the Spirit of I to make use of as a means of savir. earnest souls, whom you may know by their fruits to be true branches of the Living Vine. The day has gone by when any minister or member of the Presbyterian Church can be justly condemned as a heretic for holding the doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the Church Visible. In our review of the Bible, the Church, and the Reason as three great fountains of Divine authority, have found that, when properly understood, Dr. BrL statement is eminently in accord with both .Scripture and the Westminster standards. These three fountains of Divine authority, or means by which man, through Christ and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is led back to God, may be found summed up in a single sentence of * * minster Assembly's Shorter Catechism, in the v.- The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ com- municateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the and prayer, all which are made effectual to the el SECOND CHARGE. 81 for salvation. " If for " the Word, sacraments, and prayer " we substitute " the Bible, the Church, and the Reason," to which these three means of grace well correspond, we see, as we have seen in other ways, that this doctrine for which Dr. Briggs has been condemned is the doctrine of the Westminster standards. The same three fountains of Divine authority are also summed up in one brief passage of the Word of God (Rom. x. 13-21) : " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." This is the reason exercised in prayer. " How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed ? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard ?" This does not exclude the possibility of hearing God speaking through His works, and particularly through the conscience, reason, and whole moral nature of man ; but how, under ordinary circum- stances, and in the ordinary exercise of Divine grace, can they be expected to hear even through these channels without a preacher ? " And how shall they preach except they be sent ? " This preaching and sending of the preacher is the work of the Church, But with the work of the Church the Word comes in ; for both the Church's life and preaching are based upon the Word. "Even as it is written, 'How beauti- ful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!' But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, < Lord, who hath believed our report?' So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ. But I say, did 6 82 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. they not hear ? Yes, verily. ' Their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world,' " — a quotation from the fourth verse of the nineteenth Psalm with reference to God's works, confirming the doctrine that men should hear God speaking in His works, and exercise faith upon such hearing. "But I say did Israel not know?" Israel had better knowledge than could be derived from nature and reason alone, yet did not make as good use of it as some among the heathen made of the less clear light they possessed. "First, Moses saith: 'I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, with a nation void of understanding will I anger you.' " And Isaiah is very bold and saith : ' I was found of them that sought me not ; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me.' But as to Israel he saith : ' All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.' " How very clearly taught throughout this whole passage is the truth that some men, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, may find God through the medium of the reason, without the written Word, while, without the saving influence of the Holy Spirit, others may have the Word in their hands or most faithfully preached to them, and fail to find God. Is not the former of these two facts illustrated by exceptional cases among the heathen of to-day ? And is not the lat- ter fact only too sadly exemplified in the life and conduct of thousands in every Christian land ? SECOND CHARGE. 83 Had Dr. Briggs taught that the Bible alone is a fountain, channel, or medium of Divine authority, through which mankind are savingly influenced by the Spirit of God, and that the Spirit never works through the instrumentality of the Church or the Reason, either together with or apart from the written Word, it would have been right to have charged him with teaching heresy. But to convict him of heresy for teaching the doctrine regarding the Bible, the Church, and the Reason which he does teach, was worse than a mistake. The Church should have been grateful to him for calling attention to the proper relations of these three God-ordained media of Divine authority which seem to be so imperfectly understood. 84 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. CHAPTER VII. THIRD CHARGE: INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE. TO use the language of the prosecution, " The third charge has reference to the subject of inspiration. In it Dr. Briggs is charged with teach- ing that errors may have existed in the original text of Scripture as it came from its authors. Dr. Briggs admits the correctness of the facts stated in the spe- cifications, and that the charge correctly states his teaching on this point, but denies that it is an offence." In opening his defence against this charge Dr. Briggs said, " I agree to the doctrine that Holy Scripture Ms the Word of God written,' 'immediately inspired,' and 'the rule of faith and practice.'" In the course of his defence he affirmed his belief in " plenary or full inspiration." He further said : " The prosecution cite section iv. in order to prove that Holy Scripture 'is the Word of God.' There can be no doubt of this. ... I can sincerely subscribe to both statements, 'is the Word of God' and 'contains the Word of God.' Throughout his whole defence Dr. Briggs steadfastly maintained the position lie had previously held, as indicated by the following ansv. given by him to questions submitted to him by the THIRD CHARGE. 85 directors of Union Theological Seminary, and used as evidence in his trial before the Presbytery of New York : — Question 1. "Do you consider the Bible, the Church, and the Eeason as co-ordinate sources of authority ? " Answer. "No." Question 2. "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice ? " Answer. "Yes." Question 3. "Would you accept the following as a satisfactory definition of inspiration : * Inspiration is such a Divine direction as to secure an infallible record of God's revelations in respect to both faith and doctrine '?" Answer. "Yes." Question 4. "Do you believe the Bible inerrant in all matters concerning faith and practice, and in every- thing in which it is a revelation from God as a vehicle of Divine truth, and that there are no errors which disturb its infallibility in these matters or in its records of the historic events and institutions with which they are inseparably connected ? " Answer. "Yes." Question 5. "Do you believe that the miracles re- corded in the Scriptures are due to an extraordinary exercise of Divine energy?" Answer. "Yes." When a minister of Dr. Briggs' well-known intelli- gence and candor could sincerely subscribe to such doctrines as these, and could conscientiously subscribe to the form of doctrine submitted to Presbyterian TRIAL OF DB BBJQQ min' ie of tbei t, the P ing Committee might have been assured that tl. was some misunderstanding on their pa riling, when they undertook to convince him and ivince the whole Church that be held a totally different ue from that which he intelligen and honestly said he held. If he refused to say that ther< no error* in the autographs or original manuscripts of the writers of the Bible, the; s been satisfied that he had reasons for such refusal, which, when properly understood by them, would be found not to confii ascription and his ordinati If he beli< there were i ad incidental kind in the text of Scriptun now have it, and that some of these onors may have been in the original . they mi| that he regarded those unimportant inaccurae une sueh they were regarded by the late venerable Dr. Charles Hodge, i rote, in 1 matic Theology' 5 (voL i. p. 170), the words: "No man would deny that the Parthenon was built of marble, <■ here and there a speck of sand- stone should be detected in its structure. Not. I unreasonable is it. to deny the inspiration of such a book as the Bible, because one sacred that on a given occasion twenty-four, and anotlx thai -three, thousand men were .slain."' 'J is pi Dr. Briggs holds, arid for hold- ing which he has been charged with heresy, and suspended from the gospel m THIRD CHARGE. 87 This review might rest here, but the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture is so important a doctrine, and so many seemingly conflicting statements have been made regarding it in connection with the trial of Dr. Briggs, that the question cannot properly be dismissed at this point. It is right that lovers of truth should review the doctrine in the light of the evidence and arguments presented at the trial, and ascertain, if possible, whether the views of Dr. Briggs or of the prosecution are correct, and what theory of inspiration the Assembly intended to endorse. Those who make such a review, with the official report of the Washing- ton Assembly before them, will find that the point above referred to is not the only instance in which Dr. Briggs is in agreement, and the prosecution at vari- ance, with the venerable Princeton divine, — whom the late Dr. Cancllish, when both divines were alive, called " the greatest of living theologians." Those who undertake such a review will find, how- ever, that, owing to an almost entire absence of the definition of terms, and from the consequent fact that technical words and phrases are often used by the prosecution in an entirely different sense from that in which they are understood by the defendant, the argu- ments presented are in some instances such a tissue of irrelevancy as a reviewer is seldom called upon to deal with, and, if possible, disentangle. Every word that clothed a concept regarding which there was difference of opinion between the prosecu- tion and Dr. Briggs should have been specially con- sidered, and its technical meaning clearly defined. Failing this, confusion was inevitable. 88 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. Take the word " inspiration " for example ; what does it mean ? Here is Dr. Dick's definition of the term : " Inspira- tion is an influence of the Holy Spirit upon the under- standings, Imaginations, memories, and other mental powers of the sacred writers by which they were quali- fied to communicate to the world the knowledge of the will of God." Here is a definition of the term by Dr. Charles Hodge: "Inspiration was an influence of the Holy Spirit on the minds of certain select men, which ren- dered them the organs of God for the infallible com- munication of His mind and will." Neither the Holy Scriptures nor the Westminster standards contain any definition of the term. They deal with the fact of inspiration and leave the precise nature of it to be learned from the exemplification which the Scriptures furnish of the exercise of it. Conscfjuently no one is bound by any particular defi- nition of the term or any particular theory regarding it. But when a controversy arises in which the fact of inspiration is involved, it is necessary that the con- tending parties shall have either a, standard definition by which to test the correctness of their respective theories, or else that each of the parties shall furnish a definition of the term as he understands it, that the theories of both may be brought to the test of what the common faith of the Church, based upon the Word of God, regards as the orthodox meaning of the term. Dr. Briggs has subscribed to a definition of the term " inspiration" which will be seen to be in accord with THIRD CHARGE. 89 the two given above. It is as follows : " Inspiration is such a Divine direction as to secure an infallible record of God's revelations in respect to both faith and doctrine." The prosecution do not accept this definition but they furnish no other. An examination of their argu- ments, however, shows that they appear to hold quite a different doctrine from any of the above, namely, the doctrine that inspiration does not extend merely to the inspired man's utterances or writings in com- municating to the world the knowledge of the will of God, but also to his character and to all his utterances. They accordingly say : " Inspiration, as understood by Dr. Briggs, is clearly not that kind of inspiration which will keep the inspired writer from making mistakes or telling lies." Their contention seems to be that no inspired writer could ever make a mistake or tell a lie whether in communicating to the world the knowledge of the mind and will of God or at other times. They seem to hold that everything re- corded in the Bible as the utterance of a man who was known to be used at any time as one of the organs of God for the infallible communication of His mind and will, must always be inherently and absolutely true. They think it is heresy to say that an inspired man could ever utter anything that was not correct ; or at least, that all his utterances recorded in the Scriptures must of necessity be correct, whether they are com- munications of the mind and will of God or are simply the man's own utterances. Dr. Briggs, on the other hand, holds that it is only when speaking under the 90 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. guidance of Divine inspiration, and therefore com- municating the mind and will of God, that the in- spired speaker or writer is uttering infallible truth. At other times and in regard to other matters than the revelation of the mind and will of God he may err like an ordinary man. Who is right in this, Dr. Briggs or the prosecution ? Let Dr. Charles Hodge answer. He says that the sacred writers — " were fully inspired as to all that they teach, whether of doctrine or fact. This of course does not imply that the sacred writers were infallible except for the special pur- pose for which they were employed. They were not im- bued with plenary knowledge. As to all matters of science, philosophy, and history, they stood on the same level with their contemporaries. They were infallible only as teachers, and when acting as the spokesmen of God. Their inspiration no more made them astronomers than it made them agriculturists. Isaiah was infallible in his predictions although he shared with his countrymen the views then prevalent as to the mechanism of the uni- verse. Paul could not err in anything he taught, although he could not recollect how many persons he had baptized in Corinth." A little farther on, in the same connection, Dr. Hodge adds : — " Nor does the Scriptural doctrine on this subject imply that the sacred writers were free from errors in conduct. Their infallibility did not arise from their holiness, nor did inspiration render them holy. Balaam was inspired, and Saul was among the prophets. David committed THIRD CHARGE. 91 many crimes, although inspired to write psalms. Peter erred in conduct at Antioch; but this does not prove that he erred in teaching. The influence which preserved him from mistakes in teaching was not designed to preserve him from mistakes in conduct." (Systematic Theology, vol. i. p. 165.) If this be not sufficient to prove the correctness of the position the prosecution once and again almost tauntingly attribute to Dr. Briggs, turn to the thir- teenth chapter of the First Book of Kings and read at the eighteenth verse : — "And he said unto him, I also am a prophet as thou art, and an angel spake unto me by the Word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. So he went back with him and did eat bread in his house, and drank water. And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the Word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back: and he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast been disobedient unto the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the command- ment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, but earnest back and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which He said to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water ; thy carcase shall not come into the sepulchre of thy fathers." And when even that old lying prophet spoke under the guidance of Divine inspiration his prediction came true. Hereafter the prosecution and all others, should 92 TRIAL OF DR. BRIG' be careful to quote 2 Peter i. 20-21. not as it is in the Old (King James'; Version of the Bible, but in the Revised Version, as follows : ; " Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpreta- tion. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man : but men spake from God. being moved by the B Ghost." The Old Version says, "holy men of God spake ;" but it is evident from this passage in I Kings, as well as other passages that might t that men who were not holy sometimes spake as I were moved by the Holy Ghost, just as it has I made clear also that holy men did not always speak as they were moved by the Holy spake as ordinary men, and their utterances, whet correct or incorrect, are truthfully recorded w< have been chosen to form part of the book which we know as, and which truly is, the Word of I Was the lying utterance of the old prophet in- spired of God ? No one will claim that it wi is a part of the Sacred Scriptures. Then, is all scrip- ture not given by inspiration o: G I Arc we to regard the rendering of 2 Timothy iii. 16, in the Revised Version, as decisive as to this : — the reading being, not u All scripture is given by inspiration of God," nor " every scripture is inspired of God," as in the margin of the Revised Version, but '" Every scrip- ture inspired of God is also profitable for teach! etc. Shall we adopt this view and say that some statements in Scripture are not inspired ? N means. But whatever interpretation be put upon 2 Tim. iii. 16, it is manifest that some pai 3 Brio- THIKD CHARGE. 93 ture are not inspired in the same sense in which others are ; and it is here that the prosecution have fallen into the greatest number of mistakes and the greatest confusion. They appear to have treated the word " inspiration " as if it were always to be under- stood in the same sense, — as if the malicious utter- ances of Satan recorded in Holy Scripture were inspired in the same sense with the seraphic utter- ances of the prophet Isaiah or the apostle John. Let us have a definite understanding of what in- spiration is, from a careful analysis of the orthodox belief regarding it. " Inspiration " in itself is one and the same always. , It is the special in-breathing of the Holy Spirit to qualify men for certain work in connection with the speaking and writing of the Holy Scriptures and the transmission of them in canonical form to mankind as the Word of God. While inspira- tion is always the same in this, that it infallibly guides the subjects of it in doing the particular work assigned them, the work assigned to different inspired men is different. 1. Some men, under the special guidance of the Holy Ghost, uttered eternal and unchangeable truth, the very mind and will of God. This was true of the prophets, apostles, and others who " spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." This exercise of inspiration was often, if not always, accompanied by " revelation," the imparting of knowledge. 2. Others, under the special guidance of the Holy Ghost, recorded with infallible wisdom and truthful- ness whatever God designed should be embodied in 94 TRIAL OF DR. JililGGS. Hie Holy Scriptures. Ft might be said thai such men selected and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Gho it was the selecting of what they v.. that was infallibly wise, and the recording of it that was infallibly true, and not. nee. the thoughts recorded. The thoughts and •.. good men who some! poke incorrectly and un- wisely are faithfully recorded when they form part of the \l')\y Scriptures. 6 whether or foolish, of wicked men. .So also are the words of •Satan himself. 8. Others, under the special guidance of the Holy Ghost, collected and arranged the various writ that . or both and written, under the guidance of the same Spirit; so that they form the canon of Sacred Scripto It is in the second and third of the abo that the Bible is wholly inspired. What/ . be said of some statements recorded in Scripture, when red in the light of the first of the above m inspiration, in the light of the second and third of the above sense! given by inspiration of God." There is a fourth sense in which the Bible is the inspired word of God ; namely, in that when, through a proper understanding of the consent of all its parts, the teaching of the Spirit by means of this word of elation is learned, that teaching is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing hut the truth. It is the Led will of God The prosecution, through Dr. Lampe, make the THIKD CHAEGE. 95 statement that " the entire epistle to the Hebrews carries out this idea that the statements of Scripture are the sayings of God." If by this they mean that all the statements contained in the Bible are utter- ances that were inspired of God in the first sense given above, they state what is obviously not correct. Yet in the second, third, and fourth senses given above, all the statements of Scripture form the. Word of God, the " most necessary " revelation of His will to man. Some who hold that the whole Bible has been writ- ten and given to man under special Divine guidance, do not call that providential superintendence which has secured the infinitely wise and truthful recording of all that is contained in the Bible " inspiration " (just as they and others do not call by the name of " inspiration " the providential oversight by which the Word of God has been kept pure through all the ages). They call by the name ci inspiration " only the act of God in enduing men to speak or write that which is in and of itself the eternal and unchange- able truth of God. But so long as they hold to the fact of infallible guidance having been given for the second, third, and fourth purposes above named, it matters little by what name that guidance is called, so long as no violence is done to Scripture teaching. Now, the strange confusion, misunderstanding, and disagreement between the prosecution and Dr. Briggs has been due mainly, so far as tin's question is con- cerned, to a misunderstanding and misuse of the term " inspiration. " 96 TRIAL OF DR. BRIG' The prosecution seem never to discriminate b inspiration in th< Ora- tion in the second, third, or fourth They appear to assume that while * roly one kin I inspiration, that inspiration way, and for the doing of only one thing. They rea- son as if every person who of what is contained in the Bible m . been a saint, and (hat every statement recorded in the J> must be inherently . as well as truthfully re- corded and chosen with infalli Mm part of the Scriptures, which shall be profitable for d trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous] j The prosecution do not attempt any explanation the fact that statements are recorded in ti. which are in themselves the very oppc of God. The following sentence is an exampl the vague and general way in k 02 the whole subject: -The hooks were mritl the God of truth is in such a deep sen Author that everything written there' .be- lieved, and obeyed, because it u the Word of God." Is the devil's statement, ; - Ye shall not surely to be received, believed, and obeyed because it if the Bible? to take every statement we find in the Bible as in itself an expression of the mind and will of God ? May we take ai where recorded in the Bible and regard it as in if absolutely correct simph ;s truthfully re- corded in the Word of God? M .hooae a I THIRD CHARGE. 97 indiscriminately and call it one of the true savings of God ? I was taught a different doctrine at Princeton, and in a way that impressed it upon my memory. It was in connection with the preaching of my " ten- minute sermon " in the " Oratory. " I chose for my text a verse that had long been precious to me (Job xxii. 21): ''Acquaint now thyself with Him and be at peace ; thereby good shall come unto thee." At the close of my effort, Professor C. Wistar Hodge, D. D., the presiding critic on that evening, called attention to the fact that I had spoken of the words of the text as the words of God, and had treated them as such ; while, as a matter of fact, they were the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, who was not speaking under the guidance of Divine inspiration, and had entirely misunderstood Job's righteous character, and was con- sequently giving him poor counsel and miserable com- fort (see Job xlii. 7). " You are all right this time, however," said the professor; "for the lessons you have drawn from the text are good, and the text itself, as you have interpreted it, is confirmed by other parts of Scripture ; but in future look more carefully at the context." I began to learn the lesson then, and have been learning it more and more ever since. But after nearly a quarter of a century of searching the Scrip- tures, one finds he has still much to learn in order to be thoroughly skilled in " rightly dividing the word of truth." He knows that many errors of doctrine are faithfully recorded in the Word of God, and they are not always labelled " errors." For the prosecution to demand that a minister shall 98 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGQS. say that there are no literary errors recorded in the Bible, when it is well known to contain recorded errors of an unspeakably graver nature, seems very Btrange. II", as we have seen, all that the Bible con- tains w.-is not spoken by inspired men, and if, as we have also seen, inspired men did not always %ptak as they were moved by the Boly Ghost, as in the ease of the old prophet at Bethel, then all that inspiration had to r authentic, and it must be untrust- worthy. It lli.- Pentateuch's claim of Mosaic authorship be false, And the work originated piece by piece during centuries after the death of Moses, the document as it has Come <<> us is a fraud, and no dependence can be placed upon it." In other words, although the Bible nowhere claims that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, they guexx that lie was because the Pentateuch itself speaks of him as a maker of books, etc. ; they are strength- ened in this correct ure by the fact that Moses is said to have written parts of the Pentateuch ; they are still further encouraged to think that Moses wrote the whole from the fact that many, and a " higher critic " among the number, believe that Genesis has a com- mon authorship with the other four books ; therefore, FOURTH AND FIFTH CHARGES. Ill if the claim put forth in this conjecture be not true, the Pentateuch is " a fraud "/ Verily, if this be a fair specimen of the "higher criticism," I for one am not in favor of it. Its pre- mises are too weak and disjointed, and its conclusions too lamely arrived at. It is by means of no such halting logic that accurate scholars of any school reach their conclusions. The prosecution themselves seem to feel that their logic is not as conclusive as it should be. They sup- plement it by a few additional sentences of inferential criticism, followed by another concession quoted from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (!) as follows : " It is conceded that in the time of Chronicles Moses was already taken to be the author of the Pentateuch (Encylopaedia Britannica, Pentateuch)." Whether the writer of the article quoted from is a u higher critic " or a logician of another kind, is not indicated. The prosecution are not yet satisfied that they have estab- lished their contention. They accordingly resort to tra- dition in the hope of strengthening their premises ; but it will be observed from the following quotation that they themselves distrust this new kind of evi- dence, and impliedly confess its weakness by defend- ing it before it is attacked. Their language is as follows: " The Jewish people for three thousand years have given their united testimony in behalf of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The Christian Church has always united in that testimony. This singular unanimity of God's people on this question for so manv centuries is of such great value that it 112 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. cannot be sneered out of court as mere traditionalism. Such a consensus is not to be cast aside for the trivial reason that it does not accord with the subjec- tive impressions of the higher critics, which impres- sions are those of men as fallible as the rest of us." The next sentence is of special interest in the light of the prosecution's attempt at u higher criticism n as given above : " Conjectural criticism on the Pentateuch has not established its claim to our confidence. For not all those who use it attain to good results when working in fields where the rest of us can follow." Certainly the prosecution have not attained to good results in their attempt to follow, but then they have followed at too great a distance. May they yet be found, side by side with Dr. Briggs, expert higher critics of the evangelical school. The next sentence uttered by the prosecution ia an- other curious non sequitur. It is a conclusion with- out any valid premises as its basis. — a " thus *' in the sense of " therefore " which has no proper affinity with what precedes. The sentence is as follows : u Thus Dr. Briggs has misapprehended completely the teach- ing of the fathers, reformers, and Westminster divines regarding the truthfulness of the Bible." Why say u thus " when we have had nothing fur- nished us by the prosecution as to the teaching of the fathers, reformers, and Westminster divines regard- ing the truthfulness of the Bible as depending upon the authorship of the Pentateuch and the Book of Isaiah? — and for the simple reason that there is nothing to furnish. The fathers, reformers, and FOURTH AND FIFTH CHAKGES. 113 Westminster divines taught no such doctrine as the prosecution have attributed to them. Who has ever taught, until now, that the truthfulness of the Bible depends upon its human authorship ? Having failed to establish their charge, or any part of it, thus far, they come to their last and main re- liance for proof, which is substantially contained in the first two sentences they utter regarding it, as follows : " But Christ and the writers of the New Testament give unqualified testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. When speaking of ' the law,' ' the law of Moses,' ' the book of Moses,' and ' Moses' writings,' they used those terms in the accepted meaning of that time as referring to the entire Pentateuch." But it will be observed that the second of these two sentences contradicts the first. " Christ and the writers of the New Testament" in speaking of "the law," " the law of Moses," " the book of Moses," and " Moses' writings," " used these terms in the accepted meaning of that time," and not as giving any " testi- mony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch." And the same thing was true of their references to " Isaiah." This review might close here, so far as the necessity for showing how utterly the prosecution have failed to make good their charge of heresy is con- cerned. But this review seeks to point out, not simply how strangely fallacious the positions of the prosecu- tion are, but how directly opposed they are to those held by distinguished Presbyterian scholars, occupy- ing, up to the time of their decease, the most important 8 114 TRIAL OF PR BRIGGS. positions as religious teachers at the very fountain-head of orthodoxy in America. I have now the pleasure of quoting the teaching of another of my late revered Princeton professors, and of setting forth the fact that he did not believe that Moses was the author of the whole Pentateuch. What- ever may have been his views regarding the authorship of the other four books of the Pentateuch, or the book of Isaiah, he neither held nor taught that the book of Genesis was written by Moses. He taught, on the con- trary, that it was not. In a work which bears upon the titlepage of its first volume, " A Comparative History of Religions, by James C. Moffat, D.D., Professor in the Theological Seminary in Princeton. Part 1. Ancient Scriptures. New York. Dodd & Mead, 762 Broadway, 1873," twenty-eight pages, namely, from page 73 to page 101, of vol. i. are devoted to proving that Moses could not have been the author of the book of Gene- sis. Any reader will find those twenty-eight pages of intense interest from any point of view (as the whole scholarly work is) ; and by orthodox Presbyterian Bible students known to the present writer the argu- ment they contain has been deemed conclusive and unanswerable. No attempt will be made here to re- produce the argument, but a few quotations may be taken from the pages to confirm what has been said above regarding the fallacy of the positions taken by the prosecution as to the authorship of Isaiah and the Pentateuch, and the truthfulness of the Bible. FOURTH AND FIFTH CHARGES. 115 Speaking of the Pentateuch, Dr. Moffat says (page 73) : — "That the first of those books in its present form has not descended to us from the time in which any, even the latest of its events occurred, is capable of easy demon- stration ; and it is just as plain that it has undergone the process of modernization, receiving the explanation of old names from more recent names, and other additions from editorial hands at some date subsequent to the conquest of Canaan." On page 99 the author says : — "Occasionally we find ancient names followed by the explanation in the more recent name, as if the editor had not felt free to modernize the whole so far as to leave out the old and substitute the new, but preferred to retain the old, appending the new by way of explanation. Thus, 'Bela (the same is Zoar) ; ' Kiriath Arba (the same is Hebron),' etc. " Speaking of the book of Genesis, on page 74, Dr. Moffat says : — "It is substantially pre-Mosaic, and bears distinct internal marks of belonging to the same primitive, patri- archal style of society which gave birth to the earliest songs of the Veda and the Avesta." Then there follows a statement which all who hold the opinions of the prosecution regarding the views of Dr. Briggs would do well to ponder, — a series of state- ments rather, — as follows : — " To the value of Scripture it no way imports who the original writer was. The authority of inspiration is of 116 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. equal weight without the sanction of a human name. Can it be determined who penned the Book of Job, or of Judges, or of Chronicles, or some of the most beautiful and affecting of the Psalms? And are those parts of Scripture of inferior weight because of that unsettled question ? It is not the human authorship which confers the authority of inspiration; but, on the contrary, it is inspiration which gives his weight to any of the prophets, no matter what his name. The word of God bears its own stamp, and stands in no need of a voucher in any name of human renown. There is that in it and about it whereby it is as truly distinguished from a work of the human mind as a natural rose is distinguishable from an artificial one, or a natural landscape from one arrayed according to the laws of art. As the silent declaration of Deity rises from nature, so does it from revelation, self- sustained, and sustaining its defenders while borrowing nothing from them. Whether we know or do not know the name and genealogy of God's human instrument in the case is, in respect to Scriptural authority, a matter of very little moment. Where the name of the writer has been recorded, and we know about him in other connec- tions, it is certainly gratifying to feel that w T e have a sort of personal acquaintance with one so favored of God; and yet it is undoubtedly not without design that the names of several Scripture writers have been withheld. "The book of Genesis came down from antiquity to the Hebrew nation with their laws, and through the hands of the lawgiver, and was, therefore, very naturally by them classed under the same head; but the traditional classifi- cation is not entitled to forbid its full weight to the obvious fact that the book is anonymous. Yet anonymous as it is, no other portion of Scripture bears the marks of FOURTH AND FIFTH CHARGES. 117 Divine inspiration more legibly impressed upon it than the book of Genesis. . . . The question of its authorship is merely one of literary history ; but under that head a question of no common interest. . . . "The very latest event mentioned in Genesis had occurred, at the shortest estimate, more than half a century before Moses was born, and the rest of its human history covers a period extending to more than two thou- sand years of a prior antiquity, — the earlier parts of it standing in relation to Moses, chronologically, as the times of Homer and Hesiod and Thales stand to ours. It is clear that he could not have been the human author of such a history by any natural means. "The book could have come to his hands in only one of four ways : either the whole was revealed to him super- naturally; or its materials came down to him on the stream of tradition ; or they were kept in detached records — written monuments of one kind or another — from which he composed the work; or finalty, the whole is an historical series, preserved in the usual historical way, and existing in its original historical integrity." By a thorough and scholarly examination of the whole subject Dr. Moffat reaches the following conclusions : — ■ "Whoever were the penmen of it, the book of Genesis was composed after the manner of all the rest of Scripture, by successive additions of book to book" (page 97"). "It is the collection in chronological order of the ancient books themselves, without further trace of edi- torial work than that of modernizing the diction and prefixing the conjunction in some cases, by way of link- ing the consecutive books together " (page 92). 118 TRIAL OF DR. BRIO "The primal epoch of revelation to which it pertains was separated from its successor by a long period of degeneracy; and a similar degeneracy intervened the close of the revelations belonging to the Mosaic e\ and those which opened the Christian. In both tl intervening periods the written Word kept the spirit of the Church alive''* (page 97;. '•In what we call the book of . them we the Bible of the patriarchal Church, — the Bible of the Church before Moses, containing literary productions from the earliest ages of our race, and the only extant historical authorities of the first two thousand years "" fpage 99;. In the course of his discussion of this most inter- esting question Dr. Moffat meets and easily di- the statement upon which the prosecution finally relied for proof of their charge that Dr. Briggs is guilty of heresy in teaching that Moses is not author of the Pentateuch, nor Isaiah of half the book that bears his name. The reliance of the prosecution was upon the fact that Christ and the writers of New Testament speak of * ; the law of Moses/' and quote from it in connection with the name of Mc and from the book that bears Isaiah's name as if it might all have been written by him. The principle in both these cases is the same, and has been fully explained by Dr. Moffat as follows : — "In the gospel according to Luke, xxiv. 27, we find it said of the Saviour that, ; beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scrip- tures the things concerning Himself,* and hence might infer a final settlement of this question. Because, if FOURTH AND FIFTH CHARGES. 119 there are tilings concerning the Messiah in Genesis, as we are told there are, it must be comprehended under the name of Moses, from whom, together with all the prophets, He began His exposition. But in order to that conclusion we must show that the words ' Moses,' 'the prophets ' and 'the Scriptures,' are designations of authorship, and not mere classification of the sacred books. Upon attempt- ing, however, to make this point good, from parallel pas- sages, and passages of direct reference or quotation, we find everything going to determine the opposite. In the forty- fourth verse of the same chapter of Luke, ' the law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms ' is obviously a classification of the books of Old Testament Scripture. So in Matt. v. 17 ; vii. 12, and xxii. 40, and Luke xvi. 16 the law and the prophets are used as general terms comprehending all Scripture. In these last mentioned instances it is clear that the words Maw and the prophets' correspond respectively to ' Moses and the prophets ' in the first. The name of Moses, as the writer of the law, is used in a sense synonymous with ' law,' according to a custom equally prev- alent in our own language. And then either or both of them are used as terms whereby to designate a class of sacred books in which the law was the principal part. That group of books contained also history, poetry, and much else besides law, but the law was its great feature and furnished a convenient designation for the whole, which every Hebrew rightly understood when so used. It was not, however, always confined to the Pentateuch. Jesus Himself sometimes called the whole body of Old Testament Scripture the law (John x. 34 ; xv. 25). Sometimes the two heads, the law and the prophets, were used as comprehensive of the whole, and sometimes three classes were made, ' the law, ' or ' Moses,' or ' the law of 120 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. Moses,' being the name given to the first, ' the prophets' designating the second, and 'the Psalms ' the third. It is clear that these names, so far from determining author- ship, do just the very opposite, by grouping together under the same head books of acknowledgedly different authors, and of dates separate by hundreds of years. Thus, as Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon were classed with the Psalms, although certainly not Psalms, and Kings with the prophets though really historical, so Genesis was classed with the law of Moses, although not belonging to the law. " Genesis being thus arranged under the general head of the law by the Jews, the Saviour, by adopting, confirmed the classification ; but did not thereby affirm anything else than that the classification was a proper one; just as much, and no more, as he affirmed of the other heads by adopting them " (pp. 81-83). The above argument by Dr. Moffat is precisely the line of argument pursued by Dr. Briggs, only that he applied it to Isaiah as well as to the Pentateuch. At page 170 of his first volume of " Systematic Theology " Dr. Charles Hodge says, " The language of the Bible is the language of common life, and the language of common life is founded upon apparent and not upon scientific truth." Dr. Briggs showed that Christ and the New Testa- ment writers, using the language of common life spoke of the Pentateuch as "the law of Moses" or " Moses," and the book called the book of Isaiah as " Isaiah," just as we in common language call the book of Ruth "Ruth," or the book of Job "Job." FOURTH AND FIFTH CHARGES. 121 He also called attention to the fact that in the fourth chapter of " Hebrews " the inspired Word seems to speak of the book of Psalms under the name of " David " although it is well known that many of the Psalms were not written by David. There is no doubt that many of the Jews, whose language Jesus used, understood it in some cases as meaning something more than Jesus understood it to mean. There were disputes among themselves over many literary and technical questions. But Jesus did not enter the arena of literary dispute with them, and correct all their minor errors. He had a greater work to do, and must leave many errors until the time of the dispensation of the Spirit, who, when He should come, would guide into all the truth. But now that we live in the dispensation of the Spirit, and He, by guiding His servants in their study of the Word of God, would correct every error, there are not a few who prefer to cling to the traditions of the fathers and reject the Spirit's teaching. Our Confession teaches, chapter i., section x., that " the Supreme Judge, by which all controversies are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." But when a Christian scholar, who believes this doctrine, draws forth from the treasury of the Word things new and old for the correction of error and the building up of men in the most holy faith, there are some who up- 122 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. braid him in such language as the following : " Dr. Briggs says, ' Jesus was not bound to correct all the errors of His contemporaries.' Well, if that is true, then it is a great pity that Dr. Briggs did not follow so good an example, so as not to disturb the peace of a great church." Had Dr. Lampe remembered the words, " I came not to send peace, but a sword," or had he observed that his unhappy remark might be seen to have a more pointed application to the prose- cution than to Dr. Briggs, he would probably not have allowed himself to utter it. But what has become of the two quotations from the Confession of Faith which were the specifications by which the prosecution were to prove their charge ? They have been captured by Dr. Briggs and turned directly against the prosecution. "It is not sufficient," said Dr. Briggs, "for the prose- cution to claim that a doctrine is an essential doctrine of the Westminster standards. They may claim anything and everything. It is necessary for them to prove their claim. The court have doubtless noticed that the prose- cution have made no attempt in their argument to present such proof. They have made no use of these passages of our Confession whatever. On this account I ask you to rule charges four and five out of court as entirely destitute of proof. But I shall find it convenient to use these passages of the Confession myself, and turn them against the prosecutors. I admit that two doctrines of our standards are i that the Holy Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of God by the consent of all its parts,' and ' The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.'" FOURTH AXD FIFTH CHARGES. 123 Dr. Briggs then took these two Confessional state- ments that had been relied upon by the prosecution to prove their charges, and showed that it was by making Scripture interpret itself, and by ascertaining " the consent of all its parts," that it had been found that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, nor Isaiah the author of half the book that bears his name. The tables were thus completely turned upon the prosecution. To use a classic phrase that was used in the court, they were " hoisted with their own petard." But the court did not so decide. Dr. Briggs then closed his argument on these two charges as follows : — ••Let me sum up my arguments on the charges four and five. •• 1. There is no lawful bridge by which these specifica- tions, ' that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah is not the author of half of the book that bears his name,' can be brought under the charges. Therefore there is no relevancy in the specifications, — they cannot be accounted as valid. "2. The Westminster Confession of Faith nowhere states that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or that Isaiah wrote the whole of the book that bears his name. There- fore there can be no lawful case against me in the Presbyterian Church. "3. The testimony of Holy Scripture in the passages adduced does not show that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name. Therefore my statements are not in conflict with Holy Scripture, and there is no valid case against me on the ground of Holy Scripture. 124 TRIAL OF DR BRIGG& 11 A. Holy Scripture mail idenl thai Motet did not write the Pentateuch, and that fsaiah did not write half of the book that bean big name. Therefore my <• true, and the prosecution are in conflict with Holy Scriptui These two charges, which are thus soon to hare absolutely do support from either the Scriptures or the Confession of Faith, were regarded by the pr< cution as the gravest of all the charges they bad framed. They seemed to be Looked upon as the irery key of their position. Here are the words with which Dr. Lampe, on behalf of the prosecution, closed bis j jitation of those charges: — "This teaching is far more dangerous than affirming the Scripture to be in error in matters of minor impor- tance; it tends to a total destruction of faith in the Bible. It has done that already for many. It is entirely at variance with the Confessional doctrine of the Holy Scripture* " None of all the charges stirred individual com- missioners as did these two. The only case, so fai- ns the present writer can remember, in which any member of the court needed to be called to order dur- ing the trial was in connection with these charges. This was in the case of a lay commissioner w.ho took an active part in ?j 1 1 the proceedings, and whose opinions and ntteran med to have weight with many in the court. In expressing his views on these charges lie was deeply stirred, and with earnest FOURTH AND FIFTH CHARGES. 125 gesture and elevated voice began to relate an imagi- nary colloquy between Dr. Briggs and God, in which he represented " God Almighty " as declaring to Dr. Briggs that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and Dr. Briggs as replying that Moses did not. But at this point he was called to order in the most quiet and considerate way by a venerable father in the Assembly, — the Rev. Dr. Storrs. The respect that was entertained for the opinions of the commissioner referred to may be judged from the fact that at the opening of the Assembly he had been made a member of the judicial committee, and at the close of the trial he was made a member of the committee that was appointed to prepare the sentence to be passed upon Dr. Briggs. It is possible that Dr. Briggs may not be correct in all his conclusions regarding the authorship of parts of the Pentateuch and parts of the book of Isaiah. He may have made mistakes, such as all students are liable at times to make, or such as any minister may sometimes make in his interpretation of the text from which he preaches ; but that he has fallen into any vital error, or that he has cast any slight upon any part of the inspired Word, either in the course of his study or in the conclusions he has reached, is the reverse of what has been proved by all the records of the case. Instead of aiming* at weakeninc; either Divine authority or man's loyalty thereto, all his teaching claims for its aim the promotion of a higher Chris- 126 TRIAL OF DR. BEIGGS. tian life through a clearer comprehension of the full meaning of the inspired Word of God; or, to use his own language, through learning to see " the mag- nificent unity of the whole Bible, to capture all lis sacred treasures, and to enjoy all its heavenly glories." SIXTH CHARGE. 127 CHAPTER IX. SIXTH CHARGE : PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH. WE come now to the last of the six charges that were sustained by the General Assembly. It accuses Dr. Briggs of teaching the doctrine of pro- gressive sanctification after death, and claims that this is heresy. There is nothing new about this doctrine except, perhaps, the name. With every- thing else that is essentially connected with it, every student of historical theology is familiar. It is a doctrine which has been held by many of the most saintly and orthodox divines for centuries. In fact, if we leave the letter of the doctrine out of view and take account only of its spirit, it is the doctrine held by all orthodox Christians. They do not believe that the soul either dies or sleeps ; nor do they believe the patristic doctrine that between death and the resurrection " the soul is in a dreamy, semi-con- scious state, neither happy nor miserable, awaiting the resurrection of the body." They do not believe that the soul enters " a state of suffering," " a purga- tory," there to be cleansed from sin before it can enter heaven ; nor, on the other hand, do Presby- terians believe that the souls of believers attain to 128 TRIAL OF DR. BRIG the highest blessedness in the state between death and the resurrection. They believe that at death believers pass into the immediate presence of the Lord Jesus, and that they are made perfect in holi- ness in the sense of being wholly freed from sin, but that some higher degree of blessedness awaits them after the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment. To use the language of the Westmim standards (Larger Catechism, Question 8 be- lieve that — "The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible Church enjoy immediately after death, is in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and are received into the highest he&l where they behold the face of God in light and g waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds till at the last day again united to their souls." The Presbyterian Church holds that after the resurrection and at the day of judgment believers shall enter upon a still more blessed state than tl as is stated in their standards (Larger Catechism, Question ! 44 At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on His right hand, and there, openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with Him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery, filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy SIXTH CHARGE. 129 both in bocty and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion which the members of the invisible Church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment." To all these orthodox doctrines Dr. Briggs sub- scribes. Whatever else he believes is not of such a nature as to prevent him from holding all these doctrines. Nor does it conflict with any of these doctrines. What he believes in addition to all that has just been formally stated is simply of an ex- planatory nature. He explains what the words " the souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness " should be taken to mean. He believes that the clauses of our standards, as quoted above, which speak of the communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible Church enjoy immedi- ately after death are parallel clauses, — clauses which make affirmation, " not of successive chronological events, but of parallel events : (1) ' made perfect in holiness,' (2) < received into the highest heavens,' (3) ' behold the face of God in light and glory,' (4) ' waiting for the full redemption of their bodies,' — all alike referring to the communion in glory with Christ which continues through this entire state from death to the resurrection." He sees that being made perfect in holiness, ac- cording to this view, would not be one instantaneous act, but would go on through the whole period be- 9 130 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. twccn death and the resurrection. In thus being a continuous process, he sees that it would resemble the process of sanctification as it is taught in the Word of God and set forth in the standards of the Church. He has, therefore, called it sanctification. He is confirmed in this view by observing that the stand- ards teach that the communion in glory which the members of the invisible Church have with Christ pertains to three stages or states of existence, namely : " this life," " at death," or " immediately after death," and " at the resurrection and final judgment." He further observes that this commun- ion is not, in other cases, limited to one instant of time, — that " in this life " means during this life from the moment of regeneration onward ; that " at the resurrection and day of judgment" must mean beginning at the resurrection and day of judgment ; and, therefore, that " at death," or " immediately after death," must mean beginning at, or immediately after, death. As elsewhere explained in his argument, Dr. Briggs understands this to mean that at the moment of death there will be " a transformation ; " which he likens to " the springing forth of the blossom in the springtime after a long winter's secret preparation," "the springing of a new life." He adds this dec- laration ; " I firmly believe that then [in the moment of death] there will be a transformation greater than any that is possible in this life." He says some may call this sanctification, — meaning perfect sanctifi- cation ; they may call it being " made perfect in holiness ; " but he regards this as a very meagre and SIXTH CHARGE. 131 inadequate conception of the sanctification taught in the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Confession. He quotes the language of the Confession to show that it is not merely cleansing from sin and rising to a higher grade of Christian life and experience, " it is being more and more strengthened in all Christian graces, to the practice of true holiness," and this requires duration ; it is " sanctification throughout the whole man ; " and the proof-text cited by the Confession in support of this doctrine is (1 Thess. v. 23) : " And T pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," — thus showing that before sanctification can bo perfect the resurrection body must have been received, and the second advent of Christ must have taken place. But it is unnecessary to review the whole argument by which Dr. Briggs supports his belief in the doctrine of progressive sanctification. All that is necessary is to show the position he holds, preparatory to showing that this position is not only not contrary to the teaching either of the Bible or the Confession, but is regarded by many saintly and orthodox divines as the proper interpretation of the Scriptures and the standards on this question ; and it is also to be regarded as substantially the orthodox doctrine, judging by the opinions and teaching of the man whose volumes on Systematic Theology are commonly regarded, in America at least, as the best exposition of Presby- terian doctrine anywhere to be found. Dr. Charles Hodge, in the third volume of his " Sys- 132 TRIAL OF DB BBIGG8. tematic Theology " (page 724), opens his discussion of the doctrine of the intermediate state as follows: "As all Christians believe in the resurrection of the body and a future judgment, they all believe in an inter- mediate state. That is, they believe that there is a .state istence which intervenes between death and the resur- rection; and that the condition of the departed during that interval is, in some respects, different from that which it is to be subsequent to that event. It is not, therefore, as to the fact of an intermediate state, but as to its nature, that diversity of opinion exists among Christians. "The common Protestant doctrine on this subject is that 'the souls of believers are, at their death, made- per- fect in holiness, and do imniediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their es till the resurrection. ' According to this view the intermediate tar as believers are concerned, is one of perfect freedom from sin and suffering, and of great exaltation and blessedness. This is perfectly consistent with the belief that after the second coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, the state of the soul will be still more exalted and blessed." This is by no means all that there is to be quoted from Dr. 1 lodge as representing his views on the ques- tion new under discussion. But before quoting further from his writings, 1 will relate an incident which occurred at Princeton somewhat more than twenty years ago. Two theological students, in dismissing this very question, came upon a difficulty neither of them could settle to the satisfaction of the other. Their difficulty was. How are the souls of believers SIXTH CHARGE. 133 made perfect in holiness at death ? Is it by a mys- terious operation of the Holy Spirit, like the act of re- generation, or is it by means of the Word in some form in accordance with Our Lord's intercessory prayer, " Sanctify them through Thy truth ; Thy word is truth " ? The two students agreed to refer the matter to the venerable Dr. Hodge ; so at the close of the next lecture in his class-room they stepped forward to his desk. No sooner was the question propounded than the venerable teacher, with his gold spectacles resting above his brow, benevolence beaming on his strong yet tender countenance, and the simplicity of a child in his speech, answered, " Oh, bathe a soul in the light of heaven and it will become perfect in holi- ness in a very short time!" These were his exact words. They have often been related since, but I believe were never before put on record. Other words were spoken, but what they were is not remembered. But this much is certain : the tenor of them, together with the above utterance, led the present writer to conclude that the sanctification of believers when they pass into the presence of Christ is by means of The Word ; that it is through beholding Jesus and enjoy- ing His presence that we become " like Him." Is not this what was meant by being " bathed in the light of heaven ?" " The Lamb is the Light thereof." What the now sainted theologian meant by " in a very short time " I do not profess to know. But I do know that I have heard him guarding us against reasoning about eternity as we would reason about time, — measuring out its hours as we measure the hours of one of earth's 134 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. days, forgetting that eternal duration is a subject we do not as yet understand, and that u one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." ^tay it not be that all our reasoning about either the instantaneousness or progree - of being made perfect in holiness after death may only betray to celestial intelligences our ignorance of things unseen and eternal, at which we may at pre* " look," indeed, but concerning which we have b furnished with but few data out of which to manufac- ture logical syllogisms ? The Westminster divines were no doubt wisely guided in so framing their state- ments of doctrine upon this question, which pertains rather to the heart and soul than to the head, that they may be understood variously. One child of God may take the statements of the Larger Catechism regarding the Communion which believers have with Christ at death to imply an instantaneous act of sancti- fication ; another may take them to imply a prog change " from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." It is an interesting fact in this connec- tion that the first and second clauses in the answer of the question on this subject in the Shorter Catechism may be regarded as interchangeable. Instead of say- ing "The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory, and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do in their graves till the resurrection," the answer might have read : M The souls of believers at their death do immediately pass into glory and are made perfect in holiness, and their bodies, being still united SIXTH CHARGE. 135 to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection." If it be true that it is by being bathed in the light or glory of heaven that perfection in holiness comes, then the latter would be the more natural order. But, as we have already seen, this is not a subject upon which mortals may dogmatize. It is a question upon which orthodox leaders in all Protestant churches have always allowed great liberty of individual opin- ion, so long as no violence is done to positive state- ments in the Word of God — if there are any such statements bearing directly upon this doctrine. We know that for the believer to depart is to be with Christ ; to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord ; that the soul of the penitent thief went direct from the cross to Paradise. But, as Dr. Briggs has pointed out, only one proof-text is cited in support of the Confessional statement that the souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and even that one text is not a direct statement of the doctrine. In the opinion of many — and among them such divines and scholars as Calvin and De Wette — " the spirits of just men made perfect " spoken of in that text do not refer to the spirits of all believers immediately after death ; so that the passage, in their opinion, teaches nothing regarding the doctrine now in question. The boldness of the prosecution, in charging Dr. Briggs with heresy for holding the doctrine of pro- gressive sancti fixation after death is striking when viewed in the light of the fact that John Calvin him- self, after whom the Presbyterian system of doctrine takes its name, held that believers, in the intermc- 136 TRI A I, OF DR. BTUGGS. diate state between death and the resurrection, are "in the way of advancement." The attention of the Assembly was called to this fact by Dr. Briggs, who quoted Calvin's views as follows: — • \ i, however, tin- Spirit is accustomed to speak in this manner in reference to the last coining of Christ, it were better to extend the advancement of the grace of Christ to the resurrection of the flesh. For, although those who have been freed from the mortal body do no longer con- tend with the Lusts of tli.- flesh, and are, as the expression is, beyond the reach of a single dart, yet there will he no absurdity in speaking of them as in the way of advance- ment, inasmuch as they have not yet reached the point at which they aspire; they do not yet enjoy the felicity and glory which they have hoped for; and, in fine, the day has not \i't shone which 18 to discover the treasures which lie hid in hope. And, in truth, when hope is treated of our eyes must he directed forward to a blessed resurrection as the grand objeel in view." (Calvin on Phil. i. 6.) It is not necessary to point out the various ways in which the prosecution have misunderstood language used in connection with this doctrine, as they misun- derstood language used in connection with the fore- going doc! rines; nor need I point out fallacies in their reasoning, and false inferences drawn by them from Dr. Griggs' statement of his views. I shall close the review of this sixth charge by showdng that, in the opinion of so conspicuously orthodox a divine as the late Dr. Charles Hodge, the man who holds the views Dr. Briggs holds on this subject should not have his orthodoxy called in question. SIXTH CHARGE. 137 By turning to the third volume of his " Systematic Theology," pp. 733-743, it will be found that in the opinion of Dr. Hodge even those who hold the patris- tic doctrine of the intermediate state, as it is com- monly set forth in modern times, are in substantial agreement with the strictly orthodox view. At one point in his argument Dr. Briggs said : " Let me read a single question that has been sent up to me : * Do you mean by middle state a condition of being, between earth and heaven, or a condition of heavenly life between the death of the believer and the final judgment ?' " Dr. Briggs' prompt reply to this question was : " I mean the latter." Dr. Briggs, in common with Dr. Hodge and other orthodox theologians, holds that the " middle state " is not a different place from heaven and hell, but simply a state of existence in some respects differ- ent from that which will be more fully experienced after the resurrection and final judgment. In this he and other strictly orthodox theologians differ from those who hold the patristic view commonly known as the doctrine of " the intermediate state," as dis- tinguished from the doctrine of an intermediate state, as held by the majority of Christians. The patristic doctrine of " the intermediate state " is modelled after the old Jewish belief in Sheol. Speak- ing of the belief of the early Christians regarding this doctrine, Dr. Hodge says (Systematic Theology, pp. 738-739) : — " As many of the Jews therefore assumed that in Sheol there were two departments, Paradise and Gehenna, the 138 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. one the abode of the righteous, the other of the wicked, so the Christians, in many cases, made the same distinc- tion with regard to the intermediate state: la of believers went to Paradise, the souls of the wicked into hell. And they often so exalted the blessedness of the former as to make it a mere dispute about words whether they went to heaven or into an intermediate state. The real controversy," adds Dr. Hodge, "so far as any ex is not as to whether there is a state intermediate between death and the resurrection in which believers are glorious and exalted than they are to be after the second advent of Christ, but what is the nature of thai Dr. Hodge then indicates what he means by the dif- ference as to the nature of the state, by asking the questions: "Are believers after death with Chri Do their souls immediately pass into glory ? Or, are they in a dreamy, semi-conscious state, neither happy nor miserable, awaiting the resurrection of the bod Dr. Briggs, in common with Dr. Hodge and other strictly orthodox theologians, answers the first and second of these questions in the affirmative, and the third in the negative. But the opinion of Dr. Hodge as to the orthodoxy of Dr. Briggs' position on this subject may be learned still more definitely from his statements regarding the modern form of the doctrine of " the interme- diate state " on pp. 741-743 of his u Systematic The- ology," vol. iii., a few extracts from which may now be given as follows : — " The common views on this subject are perhaps fairly represented in the elaborate work of the Honorable Archi- SIXTH CHARGE. 139 bald Campbell, on l Tbe Doctrine of a Middle State between Death and tlie Resurrection' (London, 1721, p. 44). He thus sums up the points which he considers himself to have proved to be the doctrine of the Bible, of the Fath- ers, and of the Church of England: — "' First, that the souls of the dead do remain in an intermediate or middle state between death and the resurrection. ' " ' That the proper place appointed for the abode of the righteous during the interim between death and the resur- rection, called Paradise or Abram's bosom, is not the high- est heavens where alone God is present, fully to be enjoyed, but it is, however, a very happy place, one of the lower apart- ments or mansions of heaven, a place of purification and improvement, of rest and refreshment, and of divine con- templation, — a place whence our Blessed Lord's humanity is sometimes to be seen, though clouded or veiled if com- pared with the glory He is to appear with and be seen in at and after His second coming. Into which middle state and blessed place, as they are carried by the holy angels, whose happy fellowship they there enjoy, so afterward at the resurrection, after judgment, they are led into the beatific vision by the Captain of our salvation, Jesus Christ Himself, where they shall see Him fully as He is, and there they shall enjoy God for ever and ever, or sempiternally.' "The souls of the wicked at death do not go into hell, but into a middle state, ' which state is dark, dismal, and uncomfortable, without light, rest, or any manner of re- freshment, without any company but that of devils and such impure souls as themselves to converse with, and where these miserable souls are in dismal apprehensions of the deserved wrath of God.' 140 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. u 'Secondly, Thai there is do immediate judgment after death, no trial on which sentence is pronounced, of nei- ther tin' righteous nor the wicked, until Christ's second coming. 1 . . . " 'Thirdly, That the righteous in their happy middle state do improve in holiness, and make advances in per- fection, and yei they arc not, for all that, carried out of that middle state into glory, or into the beatific vision, until after their resurrection.'" (Campbell also held that prayers for the blessed dead "are acceptable to God as being fruits of our ardent char- ity, and are useful t<» them ami to US.") "'Lastly. That this doctrine of an intermediate state between death and the resurrection, as I have proved it, docs effectually destroy the popish purgatory, invocation of the saints departed, popish penances, commutations <»f those penances, their indulgences, and treasures of merits purchased by supererogation.' " Dr. Hodge also quotes the opinion of Jeremy Taylor, as follows : — 81 'Paradise is distinguished from the heaven of the blessed, being itself a receptacle of holy souls, made illus- trious with visitation of angels, and happy by being a repository for such spirits, who at the day of judgment shall go forth into eternal glory.' " "Again he says: 'I have now made it as evident as questions of this nature will hear, that in the state of Separation the spirits 6f g 1 men shall he blessed and happy souls; they have an antepast or taste of their re- ward; but, their great reward itself, their crown of right- eousness, shall not he yet; that shall not be until the day of judgment.' " SIXTH CHARGE. 141 After making the above quotations from devout scholars who held, not the doctrine of an intermedi- ate state held by Dr. Hodge and Dr. Briggs, but the doctrine of " the intermediate state " as a separate place in which there was held to be advancement in holiness, Dr. Hodge gives us his opinion of the little importance to be attached to the difference between even such views as these and those known as strictly orthodox views, in the following words : — "It appears, therefore, that there is little difference between the advocates of an intermediate state and those who are regarded as rejecting that doctrine. Both admit, (1) that the souls of believers do at death pass into a state of blessedness; (2) that they remain in that state until the resurrection; (3) that at the second coming of Christ, when the souls of the righteous are to be clothed with their glorified bodies, they will be greatly exalted and raised to a higher state of being.' ' If this were Dr. Hodge's opinion regarding the mod- ern form of the patristic doctrine, what would he have said had he been told that a scholarly Presbyte- rian professor was condemned as a heretic for teach- ing that neither the holiness nor the happiness of a believer is in the highest sense perfect immediately after death, but that there is growth in both until the resurrection of the body and the day of judg- ment. Judging from his views as recorded above, he would promptly have said : " It is a great mistake ; he is in substantial agreement with all orthodox Christians." 142 TRIAL OF DR. BBIG "What the belief of the prosecution is dition of the souls of believers in the intermed stat- m death and the t all clear from their arguments. Whet.. that having become perfect in holiness at the mom of death, they are from that time onward perfect in happiness also, and as complel will be after the resurrection, and that they thug liv an eternally conservative and un; from the moment of death on through -ty; ther they believe thai having, in the moment of death, attained the goal of absolute perfection, live on in a dream; eon* scious state of existence, waiting for the redem] of the body, we are nor toM. T would s< to be most in accord with their ' i. On of the prosecution, Dr. Birch, is on record as "All dead Christians are ask we show the rest which consists in th mind and body." 1 I can; :;at Dr. ally- holds the heretical doctric but it is quite possible that, if the cution were accurately ascertained and formula! would be found to be a modified form of the old patristic doctrine of a drear: — a doctrine based upon the old Jewish f And why not? If the opinions of the J - for three thousand years be quoted by the pi ;i in support of their view of the authorship of the P< teuch, why should they not be allowed to q 1 '• ^leriograpber's I SIXTH CHARGE. 143 opinion of the Jews for over three thousand years in support of their theory of the state of the soul between death and the resurrection ? It is well that the whole of orthodox Christendom has always allowed great liberty of individual opinion upon this difficult ques- tion in eschatology. 144 TRIAL OF DR. 151UGGS. ni x. MESSIANIC PROPHECY A NO SECOND PROBATION. TIIK foregoing six charges were framed by the Prosecuting Committee prior t<> the meeting of the Portland Assembly in May, 1892. Having received permission at that assembly to amend the charges within certain limits, the committee took the liberty of adding two new charges, interjecting one between charges three and lour, and the other between charges five and six, and changing the numbering of the charges accordingly, so that four and five of the original series became five and six of the amended series, and number six of the original charges became number eight of the amended list. The former of these tw<> new charges (number four of the amended series alleges that Dr. BriggS teacbes a doctrine " which is contrary to the essential doctrine of the Holy Scripture and of the standards of the Church, that God is true, omniscient, and unchange- able," which the prosecution explain as follows: "In the fourth of the amended charges, Dr. Briggs is Charged with teaching that many of the Old Testament predictions have been reversed by history, and that the at body of Messianic prediction cannot be fulfilled. " "THE REJECTED CHARGES." 145 The latter of the two new charges (number seven of the amended series) charges Dr. Briggs with teaching that '-the processes of redemption extend to the world to come in the case of many who die in sin." These two charges were rejected by the Presbytery of New York on two grounds: (1) because it was contrary both to the instructions of the Portland Assembly and the law of the Presbyterian Church, and not in the interests of justice to allow the com- mittee to amend the charges in such a way as to change their general nature ; and (2) Because both charges accused Dr. Briggs of holding doctrines which he utterly disavowed, and repudiated the idea of ever having taught. He had done this before the Presby- tery of New York, in presence of the prosecuting committee, prior to the meeting of the Portland Assembly, as he stated to the Washington Assembly, as follows: "In my response, November 4, 1891, I said, 'Specifica- tion seven alleges that Dr. Briggs teaches that predictive prophecy has been reversed by history, and that much of it has not been and never can be fulfilled.' This specifi- cation makes invalid inferences and against Christian courtesy, and an imputation upon my veracity which this Presbytery should not tolerate. "Charge seven charges me 'with teaching that the pro- cesses of redemption extend to the world to come in the case of many who die in sin.' The prosecution impute this doctrine tome notwithstanding the disclaimer of such teaching which has been submitted to the Presbytery on two different occasions : — 10 146 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. "1. Dr. George Alexander laid before the Presbytery on October 5, 1891, without consultation with me, my answers to the following questions of the directors of the Union Theological Seminary: 'Do you hold to what is commonly known as the doctrine of a future pro- bation? Do you believe in purgatory?' Answer — 'No.' 'Do you believe that the issues of this life are final, and that a man who dies impenitent will have no further opportunity of salvation?' Answer — 'Yes.' "2. In my response of November 4, 1891, I said: 'If I had been charged with teaching second probation, or any probation whatever after death, 1 might have pointed to several of my writings in which this doctrine is distinctly disclaimed. If the doctrine of purgatory had been imputed, or regeneration after death, or transition after death from the state of the condemned to the state of the justified, any and all of those could be disproved by my writings.' I ask the Presbytery, in view of these disclaimers, if it is just, if it is honorable, if it is in accordance with Christian courtesy and gentlemanly propriety for the prosecution to make such charges against me." When the question came up for discussion in the Washington Assembly, as to whether the Presbytery of New York was right in rejecting these two charges, the prosecution presented much, if not substantially all, of what they had to urge in support of the charges. As the charges themselves were not tried either before the Presbytery or General Assembly, it would perhaps be improper for this review to enter fully upon the consideration of their merits. All that need be done is to show, from the arguments of the "THE REJECTED CHARGES." 147 prosecution in support of their appeal against the rejection of the charges, wherein they have fallen into error and wholly misunderstood the position of Dr. Briggs. In the first place, they have misunderstood and misapplied his language in a way that seems unac- countable. For example, in proof of their charge that Dr. Briggs teaches " that the processes of redemption extend to the world to come in the case of many who die in sin," the prosecution say, " ' The processes of redemption,' he states, ' ever keep the race in mind. The Bible tells us of a race origin, a race ideal, and a race redemption.' " And they mean this to be taken as indicating that Dr. Briggs teaches Universalism or some such heresy. Now the reader will observe that the prosecution seek to condemn Dr. Briggs here for stating a simple fact. The Bible in speaking of redemption does always keep the race in mind. It tells us that God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the tvorld, but that the world through him might be saved ; that Christ came not to judge the world but to save the world ; that He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world ; that as by one trespass the judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so through one act of righteous- ness the free gift came unto all men unto justification of life. Must Dr. Briggs and the Bible be charged with teaching either the doctrine of Universalism or the 148 TRIAL OF DR BRIGGS. doctrine of a second probation because of such state- ments ? Dr. Briggs was showing that the teaching of the Bible warrants us in believing (as the greatest of orthodox divines have taught) that the number of the redeemed will ultimately be so vast, as compared with the number of the lost, that salvation will be seen to have extended to the whole race. The redeemed will not be a limited number selected from among the mass, but on the contrary, the redeemed will be the mass, — " a great multitude which no man could num- ber, out of every nation and out of all tribes and peoples and tongues," — and the lost a limited number. 1 But what is our surprise to find that the prosecution see in Dr. Briggs' language a denial of the doctrine of election! They say: "According to Dr. Briggs, redemption is not limited by election. He says, ' The Bible does not teach universal salvation, but it does teach the salvation of the world, of the race of man, and that cannot be accomplished by the selection of a limited number of individuals from the mass.' " 1 " That the benefits of redemption shall far outweigh the evils of the fall, is hen; clearly asserted. This we can in a measure comprehend, heeause the number of the saved shall doubtless greatly exceed the number of the lost. Since the half of man- kind die in infancy, and, according to the Protestant doctrine, are heirs of salvation ; and since in the future state of the Church the knowledge of the Lord is to cover the earth, we have reason to believe that the lost shall bear to the saved no greater propor- tion than the inmates of a prison do to the mass of the com- munity." (Dr. Charles Hodge's Commentary on Romans, chap. v. verse 21.) "THE REJECTED CHARGES." 149 Why did the prosecution not go on and quote Dr. Briggs' next sentence as part of their argument ? It is as follows : " The holy arm that worketh salva- tion does not contract its hand in grasping only a few ; it stretches its loving fingers so as to comprehend as many as possible, — a definite number, but multitudes that no one can number." To place a Christian minister's ecclesiastical life in jeopardy by such a misreading and misuse of plain language is a grave mistake, which the prosecution themselves should be the first to hasten to correct. The prosecution make a similar misapplication of the following language quoted from page 53 of the inaugural : " Another fault of Protestant theology is in its limitation of the processes of redemption to this world, and its neglect of those vast periods of time which have elapsed for most men in the middle state between death and the resurrection." They have in- terpreted this to mean that Dr. Briggs holds that men can be regenerated in the middle state, — a doctrine he distinctly disavows. Had they remembered that he was speaking, not of one act in the plan of redemption, but of the processes or progress of redemption in the case of those already regenerated, they might have avoided this mistake. Another mistake into which the prosecution have fallen is that of disregarding the well-known principle of interpretation that when any statement made by a writer is obscure and there is a question about " the true and full sense " of it, its meaning is to be u searched and known by other places " in the writings 150 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. of that author, ' k which speak more clearly." The prosecution quote from page 56 of the inaugural a sen- tence which is somewhat obscure to them, and which fchey interpret as teaching that regeneration can take place after death. Had they remembered that in other j daces Dr. Briggs distinctly disavows this doctrine they would have decided otherwise. The sentence referred to is the following : — "The salvation of the world can only mean the world as a whole, compared with which the unredeemed will be ><» lew and insignificant, and evidently beyond the reach of redemption by their own art of rejecting it and harden- ing themselves against it, and by descending into such depths <»f demoniacal depravity in the middle state that tiny will vanish from the sight of the redeemed as alto- gether and anredeemably evil, and never more disturb the harmonies of the saints.' 1 When read in the light of what Dr. Briggs teaches in other places, the key to the proper interpretation of the sentence is the word "evidently," which is equiva- lent to " will be seen to be;" and the meaning is not that they will place themselves beyond the reach of re- demption by k * descending into such depths of demon- iacal depravity in the middle state, etc.," but that their " descending into such depths of demoniacal de- pravity." together with the fact of their having by their own act rejected salvation and hardened them- selves against it, will he seen by the saints to be such an evidence or proof of their being altogether and unredeemable evil that they will finally u vanish from "THE REJECTED CHARGES." 151 the sight of the redeemed," and never more disturb their harmonies. The prosecution, ignoring all that Dr. Briggs has plainly taught in other places, and as if bound to put, not the more favorable, but the less favorable con- struction upon his words, remark that " if Dr. Briggs does not teach in this passage that some men who die impenitent might have been redeemed in the middle state but for their * descending to such depths of demoniacal depravity in the middle state,' then certainly when he tried to clothe his concept with language, he puts its clothes on upside down." It does not seem to have occurred to the prosecution that perhaps it was not the clothes of the sentence that were upside down, but that they were themselves mentally upside down while looking at the clothes. The prosecution should have remembered that as far back as 1824 the Assembly announced the prin- ciple that " candor requires that a court should favor the accused by putting on his words the more favor- able rather than the less favorable construction." (Moore's Digest, p. 224.) The next mistake into which the prosecution have fallen is that of failing to observe the distinction between hypothetical statements and positive state- ments. When Dr. Briggs, writing as an apologist and inquirer after the truth upon a subject, raises and discusses questions that seem to have a bearing upon that subject, or discusses texts of Scripture that seem to throw light upon it, or for the sake of a thorough investigation of the subject assumes the possible cor- 152 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. rcctness of doctrines which are commonly regarded as unsound, the prosecution charge him with holding and teaching every idea he has made use of in dis- cussion in this way. Then they wonder what he means when he declares that he does not teach those ideas. This applies to several of the false positions they charge him with holding under these two rejected charges as well as elsewhere. For example, when Dr. BriggS is referring to the scripture which declares that the unpardonable sin shall not be forgiven, nei- ther in this life nor in the life to come, the prosecu- tion quote his words as follows : — "This raises the question whether any man is irre- trievably lost ere he commits the unpardonable sin, and whether those who do not commit it in this world ere they die are, by the mere crisis of death, brought into an un- pardonable state ; and whether, when Jesus said that this sin against the Holy Spirit was unpardonable here and also hereafter, be did not imply that all other sins might be pardoned hereafter as well as here." It will be observed that Dr. Briggs has made no positive statement here, no declaration of his views, but has simply said that a certain passage of Scrip- ture raises certain questions. But the prosecution class this with the other statements already given, which they have been shown to have misunderstood and misapplied, and say of it and of them, " These declarations are contrary to direct statements of Scripture," — the first and most direct of which is "THE REJECTED CHARGES." 153 Prov. xi. 7 : " When a wicked man dieth, his expecta- tion shall perish, and the hope of unjust men per- isheth." The' prosecution might have learned from one of Dr. Briggs' apologetic statements, quoted by them- selves, that their charge against him of teaching that regeneration can take place in the middle state, is unfounded. They quote from page 220 of his work entitled " Whither," the following words : " The question which we have to determine as Calvinists is whether the divine act of regeneration may take place in the middle state." This statement, which is unfortunately severed from its context, proves that Dr. Briggs docs not believe that it has yet been shown that the divine act of regeneration may take place in the middle state. He stated before the Assembly that he would be glad to teach this doctrine if it could be found in the Bible, but he could not find it there, and therefore could not teach it. This was a much stronger testimony against the doctrine of a second probation than could possibly be borne by any of those who have no care whatever regarding this matter. Is it an offence to cherish a willingness to teach any doctrine that can be proved to be a doctrine of the Bible ? Would not the members of the Pros- ecuting Committee themselves be glad to preach the doctrine of a second probation if it were taught in the Word of God ? Any man would who is not lacking in that charity which " hopcth all things." What has been said of the failure on the part of the prosecution to distinguish between positive 154 TRIAL OF bB. BBIGG8. statements and hypothetical or apologetic statements applies to their charge against Dr. Briggs of teaching the non-fulfilment of Old Testament predictions, and especially Messianic prophecy. In order to refute their arguments, all that was necessary was for Dr. Briggs to read his teaching on the subject from his well-known work on " Messianic Prophecy." Before- reading from this work he said : — "I have been teaching Messianic prophecy for twenty years to a thousand Christian ministers, who are now at work in all parts of the world. I wrote this work on 'Messianic Prophecy' after many years of teaching and careful revision of my lectures. This booh lias been translated into the Japanese language, and is now in use in several theological colleges in Japan. They see no error in it, and it has received the commendation of no less a man than William E. Gladstone, and the hearty approval of no less evangelical a man than Dr. Franz Delitsch of Leipsic." Dr. Briggs then read at length from this work, and so completely did his quotations refute the charge his opponents had made against him regarding the non- fulfilment of Messianic prophecy that somewhat of a sensation was caused in the court. When the book was produced, a member of the court asked the ques- tion, "When was that book written?" It proved to have been written in 1886. After the reading of the quotations from it, Dr. Briggs was interrupted by an- other member of the court, as follows : — "We have listened to what Dr. Briggs has said on that subject, and I should like to ask him a question. "THE REJECTED CHARGES." 155 That book was written in 1886, and I should like to ask if that is the opinion of Dr. Briggs at this time? Does he subscribe to the same opinion now ?" " Certainly, I do," said Dr. Briggs. " That book I use as a text-book in the Union Theological Semi- nary, where it has been used continuously ever since it was written. Every senior class goes over it every -year. I have not changed a particle." The member of the Judicial Committee referred to in a former chapter as feeling so deeply in regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was the next questioner. He said : " Before Dr. Briggs sits down, in justice to him and my own mind, — I did not inter- rupt him in the course of his argument, — I would like to ask him if, in his book on Messianic Proph- ecy, which I have never read, from pages 4 to 45 he makes the statement that ' the essential ideals of predictive prophecy are fulfilled.' Is that the position ? That is all I desire to ask." Here the moderator indicated that there was no time just then for the asking and answering of questions, as the hour of adjournment had come. So Dr. Briggs re- plied to the above question by simply saying, " I read over the appeal. The brother can read it after the meeting." The questioner was not satisfied with this answer, and said : " What I want to ask through you, Mr. Moderator, is, whether Dr. Briggs gives a definition of what is essential and what is ideal as to what is to be fulfilled in predictive prophecy. That is my first question." 156 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. " Yes, I did give a definition," said Dr. Briggs, " and I will read it over again if you wish." In reply the questioner said : " I would like him to read and state what is the distinction between essen- tial and non-essential ? " Dr. Briggs replied, "I shall have to read the whole chapter. Mr. McDougall can have the book if he wishes it." The discussion was finally closed with this state- ment by Dr. Briggs in answer to another questioner : " I have shown in my ' Messianic Prophecy,' that the great body of Messianic prediction had been, or will be, in the mediatorial reign or second advent of our Lord, fulfilled in history." This was seen to be a direct refutation of the charge in question, which was that he taught " that the great body of Messianic prediction cannot be fulfilled." As these two "rejected charges" had not been retained as part of the indictment on which Dr. Briggs was tried by the Presbytery of New York, it was not competent for the General Assembly, the Supreme Court of the church, to put him on trial upon them. All that the Assembly could do was either to approve the Presbyteiy's action in rejecting them or to say that the Presbytery had erred in reject- ing the charges, and remit them to the Presbytery for trial. Had the majority of the Assembly seen fit to take the latter of these two courses Dr. Briggs might have appeared again before his Presbytery and had the satisfaction of fully defending his views on these two "THE REJECTED CHARGES." 157 questions, and of knowing how they wore regarded by his brethren who stood nearest to him ecclesiasti- cally. The majority of the Assembly did not see fit, however, to take this course, nor did they sustain the Presbytery of New York in rejecting the charges. On the contrary they decided that the presbytery had erred in rejecting them, but left the charges untried. The moral effect of this action of the majority will no doubt be to convey the impression to the Church and the world that Dr. Briggs was adjudged guilty on these two charges as well as on all the other six. Is there any precedent for a superior or supreme court deciding that charges which had been rejected by a lower court should not have been rejected, — in other words, that they should have been tried, — and then leaving these charges hanging over the accused untried ? Did not the Assembly, by condemning the action of the presbytery in not trying the charges, virtually at the same time condemn its own action in entertaining those charges aud yet not ordering them to be tried ? And does not this anomalous action of the Assembly give weight to the unfortunate impression made upon the minds of many, that the object of the prosecution in the case of Dr. Briggs was not to ascertain the exact nature of the guilt or innocence of the accused, but to secure his conviction ; and that when charges enough had been sustained to warrant his suspension from the ministry, the court manifested indifference as to the two additional charges preferred against him, although these charges 158 TRIAL OF DR BRIGGS. were of a very grave nature, both as affecting the accused himself and the purity of doctrine in the Church at large ? Is not this one of the errors into which the court inadvertently fell in its haste to pacify the majority of the Church by condemning one whom they believed to be guilty of heresy ? DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 159 CHAPTER XT. DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. THAT the reader may have before him a brief view of the case as a whole, there will be given in this chapter a few essential facts connected with its initiation in the Presbytery of New York, and its transference from the Presbytery to the Gen- eral Assembly, together with the full text of the decisions of the Presbytery and General Assembly thereupon, and also the protests which followed the action of the Washington Assembly. It was on the occasion of his inauguration as Professor of Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., on the 20th of January, 1891 (his chair formerly having been that of Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages), that Dr. Briggs delivered the inaugural address upon which all the charges preferred against him were based. On the 13th day of April, a. d. 1891, the Presby- tery of New York appointed a committee to consider the inaugural address of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., in its relation to the Confession of Faith, and on May 11, a. d. 1891, the committee presented to presbytery a report, which was accepted, and its recommendation, " that the presbytery enter at once 1G0 TRIAL OK DR. BRIGGS. upon the judicial investigation of the case," was adopted by the presbytery, and thereupon it was — " Resolved} That a committee be appointed to arrange mid prepare the accessary proceedings appropriate in the of !>)-. Briggs." The Rev. G. W. V. Birch, D. I)., Rev. Joseph J. Lampe, D. !>., Rev. Robert P. Sample, I>. I>., and Rul- ing Elders John J.Stevenson and John J. McCook were appointed such committee in conformity with the provisions of section 11 of the Book of Discipline. At the meeting of presbytery, held on the 5th day of October, a. Dfl891 , the Prosecuting Committee pre- sented charges'and specifications in the case, which were rend in the presence of the judicatory, and were then served by the moderator upon the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, I>. D., together with a citation, citing him to appear and plead to the said charges and specifica- tions at a meeting of the presbytery, to be held on November 4, a. d. 1S91. On November 4, a. d. 1891, the presbytery, after fully hearing Dr. Briggs' " Response to the Charges and specifications," upon the motion of the Rev. Eenry Van Dyke, D. D., made and entered on its records its decision and final judgment dismissing the case in the following words, to wit: — "Resolved) Thai the Presbytery of New Eork, having listened to the paper of the Rev. Charles A. IJriggs, D. I)., in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the dnited States of America against him as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect, DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 161 and without approving of the positions stated in his inaugural address, at the same time desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church, and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Standards, and of his disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words, deems it best to dismiss the case, and hereby does so dismiss it." From this action of the Presbytery of New York, in dismissing the case, the Prosecuting Committee took an appeal in the name and on behalf of the Presbyterian Church to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. This appeal came before the General Assembly at Portland, Oregon, in May, 1892, and after the hear- ing of the case the Assembly decided as follows : — "The General Assembly having, on the 28th day of May, 1892, duly sustained all the specifications of error alleged and set forth in the appeal and specifications in this case, — "It is now, May 30, 1892, ordered that the judgment of the Presbytery of New York, entered November 4, 1891, dismissing the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., be, and the same is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded to the Presbytery of New York for a new trial, with directions to the said presbytery to pro- ceed to pass upon and determine the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect, and to permit the Prosecuting Committee to amend the specifica- tions or charges, not changing the general nature of the 11 162 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. same, if, in the furtherance of justice, it be necessary to amend, bo that the case may be brought to issue and tried on the merits thereof as speedily aa may be practicable." The action of the Presbytery of New York in com- pliance with this decision of the Portland Assembly is set forth in the following report : — On the ninth day of January, 1893, a committee con* sisting of the Rev. George Alexander, D. D., the Rev, Henry Van Dyke, D. D., and Elder Robert Jaffray, ap- pointed to bring in a minute to express the action of the said indicatory, made its report, which was adopted by the judicatory, and the said presbytery, sitting in a judicial capacity, made and entered its decision and final judgment in this case, in the following words, to wit: — "The case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., having been dismissed by the Presbytery of New York on November 4, 1891, was remanded by the general assembly of 1892 to the same presbytery, with instructions thai ' it be brought to issue and tried on the merits thereof as speedily as possible.' " "In obedience to this mandate, the Presbytery of New York has tried the case. It has listened to the evidence and argument of the committee of prosecution, acting in fidelity to the duty committed to them. It has heard the defence and evidence of the Rev. Charles A. lh-iggs, pre- sented in accordance with the rights secured to every minister of the church. "The presbytery has kept in mind these established principles of our polity: that 'no man can rightly be con- picted of heresy by inference or implication; " that ' in the DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 163 interpretation of ambiguous expressions candor requires that a court should favor the accused by putting upon his words the more favorable rather than the less favor- able construction ; ' and that ' there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character may differ.' " Giving due consideration to the defendant's explana- tion of the language used in his inaugural address, accept- ing his frank and full disclaimer of the interpretation which has been put upon some of its phrases and illustra- tions, crediting his affirmations of loyalty to the standards of the church and to the Holy Scriptures as the only infal- lible rule of faith and practice, the presbytery does not find that he has transgressed the limits of liberty allowed under our constitution to scholarship and opinion. " Therefore, without expressing approval of the critical or theological views embodied in the inaugural address or the manner in which they have been expressed and illus- trated, the presbytery pronounces the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., fully acquitted of the offences alleged against him, the several charges and specifications accepted for probation having been ' not sustained ' by the follow- ing vote. [See next page.] " Accordingly, the presbytery, making full recognition of the ability, sincerity, and patience with which the committee of prosecution has performed the onerous duty assigned it, does now, to the extent of its constitutional power, relieve said committee from further responsibility in connection with this case. In so doing the presbytery is not undertaking to decide how far that committee is subject to the authority of the body appointing it, but intends by this action to express an earnest conviction that the grave issues involved in this case will be more wisely and justly determined by calm investigation and 164 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. Sustained. Not Sustained Minis- ters. Elders Total ters. EUea 1 Total 1 f 1. Specification . j ! 2. Specification . [ Charge j J ; ; f 1. Specification . j T ! 2. Specification . 1 Char s e \l ' : f Specification . . IIL 1 Charge J b '. .' ( Specification . . IV , Charge {« ; ; ( Specification . . *] Charge {«;; VI i Specification . . | Charge 41 42 42 42 39 39 39 39 44 44 42 44 39 39 39 35 35 35 41 41 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 15 15 15 14 14 14 16 16 58 59 59 " 55 "" 61 61 61 54 54 54 49 49 W 55 54 54 54 ' 56 56 52 52 54 55 55 57 57 57 55 55 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 17 17 17 16 16 16 14 14 69 69 72 72 72 - 69 72 72 69 69 fraternal discussion than by judicial arraignment and process. " Id view of the present disquietude in the Pj Church and of the obligation resting upon all Christians to walk in charity and to have tender concern for the sciences of their brethren, the y earnestly coun- sels its members to avoid on the one hand hasty or i confident statement of private opinion on points concern- ing which profound and reverent stude: Word are not yet agreed, and, on the other hand,, suspicions and DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 165 charges of false teaching which are not clearly capable of proof. " Moreover, the presbytery advises and exhorts all sub- ject to its authority to regard the many and great things in which we agree rather than the few and minor things in which we differ; and, turning from the paths of contro- versy, to devote their energies to the great and urgent work of the Church, which is the proclamation of the gospel and the edifying of the body of Christ." It was from this verdict of acquittal by the Pres- bytery of New York that the Prosecuting Committee appealed to the Washington Assembly, with the result set forth in the pages of this review. After the final vote had been taken in the Assem- bly, which resulted in the appeal against the decision of acquittal by the Presbytery of New York being sustained by a vote of 383 to 116, a committee of fifteen was appointed, with the Rev. Dr. Hoyt, of Philadelphia, chairman, " to bring in an explanatory minute" and report what "action should be taken with reference to what should be done with the inferior judicatory." Before the report of this committee was read, the Rev. Geo. D. Baker, D.D., was asked by Dr. Hoyt to make a statement on behalf of a sub-committee which had been sent to interview Dr. Briggs, " and give him an opportunity to say whatever he might be pleased to say in view of the distressing circumstances." " Our interview," said Dr. Baker, " was frank, kind, and cordial to the last degree ; but Dr. Briggs in- sisted strenuously, positively, irrevocably, upon every- TRIAL OF UK 131 thing that he had said in the defence which he made when brought to the bar of this court At my req he gave into my bands thu ment in I handwriting, which J will road: — " In accordance with your request, I hereby state that your committee called upon me to a.sk me if I had any- thing to them the disposition of the I thereupon said that I adhered to all the positions taken before the General Assembly, arid had nothing fur- ther * the appellee j 11 rights, and that the Q Assembly should take the excln for any further action." Dr. Boyt read the following, which •• wards adopted as the judgment of the Assembly in the : — "General Assembly of the erian Church in the United States of America, . hington, Dii trict of Columbia, June 1, 1803. ' burch in the United I America, appellant, <■ . Rev. Charlei A. Briggs, \). I)., appellee. appeal from the :. of New York. "Thia appeal being . . ted and coming on to be heard on the judgment, the notice of appeal, the appeal, and the .specification- of error alleged, and the record in the case from the beginning, the reading th< having been omitted >nt, and the parties hereto having been heard before the judicatory in argument, and the opportunity having been given to the members! of the judicatory appealed from to he heard, and they having been beard, and opportunity having been given to the DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 167 members of this judicatory to be heard, and they having been heard, as provided by the Book of Discipline, and the General Assembly, as a judicatory, sitting in said case on appeal, having sustained the following specifications of errors, to wit: all of said specifications of errors set forth in said five grounds of appeal, save and except the first and fifth specification under the fourth ground of appeal — "On consideration whereof this judicatory finds said appeal should be and is hereby sustained, and that said Presbytery of New York, the judicatory appealed from, erred in striking out said amended charges 4 and 7, and erred in not sustaining on the law and the evidence said amended charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. "On consideration whereof, this judicatory finds that said final judgment of the Presbytery of New York is erroneous, and should be and is hereby reversed. "And this General Assembly, sitting as a judicatory in said cause, coming now to enter judgment on said amended charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, finds that the said Charles A. Briggs has uttered, taught, and propagated views, doctrines, and teachings as set forth in said charges contrary to the essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and the standards of the said Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and in violation of the ordina- tion vow of said appellee, which said erroneous teachings, views, and doctrines strike at the vitals of religion, and have been industriously spread; wherefore this General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, sitting as a judicatory in this cause on appeal, does hereby suspend Charles A. Briggs, the said appellee, from the office of a minister in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America until such time as he shall give satisfactory evidence of repentance to the 168 TRIAL OF DR. BKIGGS. General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America of the violation by him of the said ordination vow, as herein and heretofore found: and it is ordered that the stated clerk of this General Assem- bly transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the Pres- bytery of New York, to be made a part of the record in this case." " Mr. Moderator, in addition to this report of judg- ment, there were also formulated by us in obedience to your commands doctrinal statements bearing upon the issues which have been pending here, and with your permission I will ask that Rev. Dr. Ilarsha, the chairman of the sub-committee, read that paper." Rev. Dr. Haiisha. — The report, Mr. Moderator, of this sub-committee is a very brief one. We did not deem it advisable to go into large details on the doc- trinal points raised in this appeal. "Your committee, to whom was intrusted the duty of formulating a deliverance of tins Assembly on the doctrinal points involved in the appeal of the committee of prosecu- tion from the decision of the Presbytery of New York in the case of Charles A. Briggs, D. D., reports as follows: " 1. We find that the doctrine of the errancy of Scrip- ture, as it came from them to whom and through whom God originally communicated His revelation, is in conflict with the statements of the Holy Scripture itself, which asserts that all scripture, or every scripture, is given by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy iii. 1G); that the prophecy came not of old by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter i. 21) ; and also with the statements of the standards of DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 169 the church which assert, that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God (Larger Catechism, question 3), of infallible Truth and Divine Authority (Confession, chapter i. section v.). "2. We find in this case involved the question of the sufficiency of the human Reason and of the Church, as authorized guides in the matter of salvation. Your committee recommends that this General Assembly de- clare that the Reason and the Church are not to be regarded as fountains of Divine Authority ; that they are unreliable and variable, and whilst they may be, and no doubt are, channels or media through which the Holy Spirit may reach and influence for good the human soul, they are not to be relied upon as sufficient in themselves, and aside from Holy Scripture, to lead the soul to a saving knowledge of God. To teach otherwise is most dangerous, and contrary to the Word of God and our standards, and our ministers and churches are solemnly warned against them. "3. We find involved in this case a speculation in regard to the process of the soul's sanctification after death which in the judgment of this Assembly is a dangerous hypothesis, in direct conflict with the plain teachings of the Divine Word and the utterances of the standards of our church. Those standards distinctly declare that the souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holi- ness and do immediately pass into glory, whilst their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection. (Shorter Catechism, question 37; Cor. v. 3; Phil. i. 23; and John xvii. 24.) " Against the foregoing judgment of the Assembly, and a declaration by the Assembly that the original manuscripts of the Bible were without error, protests, 170 TRIAL OF DR BRIO' which were largely signed, were submitted Dr. Sprague, of Auburn, and Rev. Dr. Herrick John- son, of Chicago, respectively. The following is the protest | >y \^r. Sprague, of Auburn, in regard to the E against Dr. Briggs : — "We, the undersigned, ministers and elders in the P byterian Church in the United Sta v * lare our hearty belief in, and love for, the Holy Scripture* the Old and New Testaments, and our entire loyah the principles of the Presbyterian Church, and de respectfully to record our solemn protest against the diet and suspension, and the proceedings leading to the verdict, of the case against tl harles A D. D., in the General Assembly of 1893 — "1. As involving, in our judgment, acts of doubtful constitutionality. i( 2. As seeming to abridge the liberty of opinion hith- erto enjoyed under our standards by office-bearers in the church. "3. Tending, we believe, to the discouragement of the thorough study of the Bible, and reverent ad apprehension of divine truth; and — " 4. As inflicting what we cannot but feel is an injustice on a Christian scholar of acknowledged high character and learning, as well as on the Presbytery of New York, wl has fully acquitted him of the charges alleged against him." The resolution offered by Dr. Herrick Johnson, in behalf of himself and others, was as follows : — "The undersigned enter respectful and ear:, against the action of the Assembly which declares the DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 171 inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture to be the faith of the church. "We protest against this action — "1. Because it is insisting upon a certain theory of inspiration, when our standards have hitherto only em- phasized the fact of inspiration. So far as the original manuscript came from God, undoubtedly it was without error. But we have no means of determining how far God controlled the penmen in transcribing from docu- ments matters purely circumstantial. "2. Because it is dogmatizing on a matter of which necessarily we have no positive knowledge. "3. Because it is insisting upon an interpretation of our standards which they never have borne, and which on their face is impossible. No man in subscribing to his belief in the Scripture as the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, has his mind on the ' original autographs/ "4. Because it is getting up an imaginary Bible as a test of orthodoxy. If an inerrant original Bible is vital to faith, we cannot escape the conclusion that an inerrant present Bible is vital to faith. "5. Because it is disparaging the Bible we have and endangering its authority, under the pressure of a preva- lent hostile criticism. It seems like flying for shelter to an original autograph, when the Bible we have in our hands to-day is an impregnable defence. " Believing the present Scripture to be 'the very Word of God,' and 'immediately inspired by God,' 'kept pure in all ages,' and 'our only infallible rule of faith and practice,' notwithstanding some apparent discrepancies in matters purely circumstantial, we earnestly protest against the thrusting of this new interpretation of our standards 172 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. upon the church to bind men's consciences by enforced subscription to its terms." To this protest the committee appointed to prepare an answer recommended the adoption of the follow- ing, and its report was accepted : — " The committee appointed to prepare an answer to the protest of Dr. Herrick Johnson, Dr. S. J. Niccolls, and others, recommend the adoption of the following: — "As already announced by this General Assembly, the deliverance of the Portland Assembly, and the deliver- ances of this body, touching the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, impose no new test of orthodoxy, nor do they set forth any theory of inspiration, but only reaffirm the statement of our Confession of Faith, chapter i. sections 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10, the Larger Catechism question 3, — state- ments to which every minister and every elder in the church gives his assent at his ordination in response to the following question: 'Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and onlyinfallible rule of faith and practice ? ' "We can, therefore, say with the protestants, we be- lieve ' these present Scriptures to be the very word of God,' and 'immediately inspired by God,' 'kept pure in all ages,' and our only 'infallible rule of faith and prac- tice,' while if errors were found in the original autographs they could not have proceeded from ' God, who is truth itself, the author thereof.' It may be noted here that the Assembly passed a resolution also expressive of its disapproval of the action of the directors of Union Theological Seminary DECISIONS AND PEOTESTS. 173 in standing by Dr. Briggs, retaining him as a teacher, and rescinding their resolution of 1870, which pro- vided that all appointments of professors " shall be reported to the General Assembly, and no such appointment of professor shall be considered as a complete election if disapproved by a majority of the Assembly/' The rescinding of this resolution had been voted for by nineteen of the twenty directors, only one of the twenty directors being opposed to it. The fact that those who stood nearest to Dr. Briggs, and were presumably best acquainted with him and his views, stood by him in the face of whatever sacri- fice it might cost them, might have been regarded as an indication that those who were gathered together from far and near, and who were not intimately ac- quainted with Dr. Briggs and his teaching, had mis- understood the man and misinterpreted his views* But the Assembly did not so judge ; but, on the con- trary, condemned the action of the directors of the Union Theological Seminary by adopting the follow- ing recommendations of its committee on Theological Seminaries : — " Because, then, of the strange and unwarranted action of the directors in retaining Dr. Briggs after his appoint- ment had been disapproved by the Assembly; and because of the refusal by the directors to arbitrate the single point in dispute between the Assembly and the board; and because of the attempt of the board on its own motion, and against the expressed desire of the Assembl}" to abrogate the compact of 1870, the Assembly disavows all responsi- 174 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. bility for tin- teaching of Union Seminary, and declines to receive any report from its bdard until satisfactory rela- tions are established. The Assembly, however, cherishes tlie hope, and will cordially welcome any effort to bring Union Seminary into such a relationship with itself as will enable the Assembly to commend the institution again to students for the ministry. "Your committee would further recommend thai the board of education be enjoined to give aid to such students only as may be in attendance upon seminaries approved by the Assembly. "Your committee would also recommend that the re- election of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs by the Presbytery of New York as a director of \hr German Theological Seminary at Bloomfield, N. J., be disaffirmed by this Assembly." The following explanatory remarks by Prof. Francis Drown, J). I)., should he added: — "Mr. Moderator and brethren, there is no member of the board of directors of Union Seminary on the floor of this house. Therefore, although 1 am a member of the faculty, and, as such, responsible only to the board of directors for instruction in a certain department, 1 may he pardoned, as Standing here in some sense for the seminary, for saying a few words. "I desire not to introduce personal elements into this discussion. Although, at the outset I may he permitted to say, now that the judicial case is substantially closed, that in refraining from personal 'dements in the discussion at the present time I do so without prejudice to my warm affection, high esteem, and confidence in my revered DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 175 teacher, colleague, and friend, who has been so promi- nently before you during the past few days. "With reference to the action proposed by this assem- bly concerning Union Seminary, I have no objection to offer. If this assembly desires to take such action, or esteems it to be just and wise, no difficulty will be thrown in its way by any word that I shall speak. Union Semi- nary is not here pleading for an3 r thing from this assembly, either recognition or indorsement, either the receipts of these reports or the recommendation of students who may be sent to it to the board of education. These matters must be decided by authorities other than those of Union Seminary. " The case is simply this : Union Seminary was founded as an independent seminary upon its own charter, owing ecclesiastical allegiance as an institution to no body what- ever. It continued in the exercise of its rights under its charter, without any ecclesiastical connection whatsoever, for thirty-four years. At the end of that time it entered into an agreement with the General Assembly of the united church with certain provisions. Twenty-one years later it conceived that those provisions had not been carried out on the part of the General Assembly, and, recognizing fully the intention of the Assembly to abide by the agreement, it nevertheless felt that its chartered and constitutional rights had been infringed, and that, without surrendering a part of those chartered and constitutional rights and proving in this way false to the trust which the charter and the constitution imposed on the board, it could not acquiesce in the action of the Assembly of 1891. There is no spirit of revolt or rebellion behind this action, but a serious, earnest, profound desire to be faithful to obliga- tions assumed in the sight of God and men, and to do 176 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. without fear or favor what conscience dictated in obedi- ence to those obligations. " Please understand that I am not apologizing for the board of directors of Union Seminary, and that I am not putting in any plea for the mitigation of judgment. Nothing is further from my desire. I simply desired to make it plain to you, if I could, that from their point of view the directors of the seminary have acted in a straight- forward, consistent, honorable, and faithful manner with reference to the interests of that seminary which were legalty committed to them, and to them alone. " One of the incidental circumstances emphasized by the prosecution and that had weight with many mem- bers of the Assembly in deciding- them to vote for the condemnation of the views of Dr. Briggs was the fact that the Presbytery of New York, in acquitting him of heresy, seemed to them to condemn his views. The language referred to in the Presbytery's decision is as follows : — u Therefore, without expressing approval of the criti- cal or theological views embodied in the inaugural address, or the manner in which they have been expressed and illustrated, the presbytery pronounces the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., fully acquitted of the offences alleged against him." A little reflection will satisfy any one that this lan- guage of the presbytery did not necessarily imply any condemnation of Dr. Briggs' views. There were other considerations besides the soundness or unsoundness DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 177 of the views in question, which made it prudent for the presbytery to express no approval of them. The views in question were in some instances extra- Confessional ; nothing had been formulated in the Westminster standards regarding them, — as for ex- ample, in the case of the authorship of the Pentateuch, and the book of Isaiah. This being so, the presby- tery would have been out of its sphere had it expressed approval of them. It may be questioned if even a General Assembly could properly assume such a prerogative. It is not by vote of any single church court, but by the conjoint action of presby- teries, that doctrines can be formulated as doctrines of the church. Then there are many views which an orthodox minister may hold and teach, which come in conflict with no doctrine taught in the Word of God, or formu- lated in the standards of the church, but which other Presbyterian ministers, whether in their individual capacity or acting as members of a church court, would be unwilling to endorse. Suppose that a minister is charged with heresy for holding and teaching "free trade" views. When his brethren come to examine his views, they will find nothing in either the Word of God or the standards of the Presbyterian Church, with which his teaching is in conflict. They will accordingly pronounce him fully acquitted of the charge of heresy, but they will be careful to insert the clause, " without expressing approval of the views in question." Probably the reason which influenced some of the 12 178 TRIAL ok DR. BRIGGS. members of the Presbytery of New York to express no approval of the views for which Dr. Briggs had been put on trial was because they felt that they had not given the views in question sufficient study. They understood them well enough to see that they were not in conflict with any vital doctrine, but had not mastered them so completely as to make them part of their own thinking, — their own independent belief. All must see that under such circumstances it would have been unwise for intelligent and independent men to as much as let it lie thought that they expressed their personal approval of ihe views in question. [f it be claimed that the members of the court of the presbytery could not, intelligently acquit Dr. Briggs, and declare that his views wen; not in con- flict with any vital doctrine, if they did not so master his views as to make them part of their own thinking, then may it also he claimed that the members of the Supreme Court of the church could not intelligently condemn Dr. Briggs and declare that his views were in conflict with vital doctrine, if they did not so mas- ter them as to make them part of their own thinking. And who will claim that the views of Dr. Briggs were thus mastered by the majority of the ministers and ruling elders in the assembly, in the brief time, and under the peculiar circumstances, in which they were considered ? In any case, if the deliverance of a general assem- bly in a heresy trial were simply an expression of the opinions of a majority of its members, without, their having made themselves thoroughly acquainted with DECISIONS AND PROTESTS. 179 all the facts of the case and all the doctrines in ques- tion, such opinions might he of hut little value. Even if, in the opinion of the members of the Presbytery of New York, the views of Dr. Briggs were incorrect, this could not of itself be equivalent to a condemnation of his views as heretical. The General Assembly of 1824, in pointing out to the Synod of Kentucky that a wrong had been done in condemning Mr. Craighead because of his " perverting, etc., the sentiments of the preachers and writers in our con- nection," said : " In our connection there are a multi- tude of preachers and writers differing by many shades of opinion from each other. How then can this be a just ground of accusation ? " (Moore's Digest, p. 578.) 180 TRIAL OF DR. BKIGGS. CHAPTER XII. THE WRONG AND ITS REMEDY. THE foregoing review has not dealt with the pro- longed discussion in the Washington Assembly on the question of jurisdiction and procedure, — not because that question was not important or had not a vital connection with the proper issuing of the case, but because it was of less importance than the discus- sion of the merits of the ease, and also because the necessarily protracted discussion of it seemed both to weary the court before the merits of the case were reached, and in various ways obscure the real issue. As the court, in the exercise of its discretion, saw fit to pass by the Synod of New York and try the case on a direct appeal from the decision of the pres- bytery, all that need be remarked here is that in thus exercising its discretion, the Assembly did not act in accordance with a precedent established in 1810 in the Bourne case, to the effect that when it is discre- tionary as to whether a case shall be transferred from the presbytery to the synod or directly to the General Assembly, the wishes of the accused shall be respected, and lie shall be tried by the court he prefers. (See Moore's Digest, p. 555.) It is true also that, in refus- ing to accede to Dr. Briggs' wish to be first tried by THE WRONG AND ITS REMEDY. 181 the synod, the Assembly deprived him of the right of complaint, and that at a time when complaint of his against action of the presbytery was already pending before the Synod of New York. Another grave question raised by the defendant and set aside by the Assembly was as to the legality of entertaining an appeal against a verdict of acquittal in any case, and putting a man on trial for his eccle- siastical life a second time. But this question need not be discussed here. The gravest question as to procedure presented by the defendant and overborne by the Assembly was not in connection with the discussion of the question of jurisdiction, but in the discussion of the merits of the case; namely, tin: disregarding of an important precedent established in 1824, in the Craighead case. The principle laid down in that precedent was expressed in the following explicit terms : — " A man cannot fairly be convicted of heresy for using expressions which may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doctrines, if they may also admit of a more favorable; construction; because no one can tell in what sense an ambiguous expression is used but the speaker or writer, and he has a right to explain himself; and in such cases candor requires that a court should favor the accused by putting on his words the more favorable rather than the less favorable construction. "Another principle is that no man can rightly be convicted of heresy by inference or implication; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those consequences which may legitimately flow from his asser- 182 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. tions. Many men are grossly inconsistent with them- selves; and while it is right in argument to overthrow false opinions by tracing them in their connections and consequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion which he disavows." (Moore's Digest, p. 224.) Not only did the Washington Assembly disregard this precedent, but the Prosecuting Committee, through one of their number, Dr. Birch, went so far as to cast slight upon it — not to say upon the Assemblies by which it had been instituted and respected — by boldly affirming with reference to it that " the posi- tion that a man cannot be condemned on an infer- ence, even though it be a necessary inference, is a false one." To the disregard of the principles laid down in the above precedent, the suspension of Dr. Briggs from the gospel ministry is wholly due. Had the Assembly not convicted Dr. Briggs of heresy by inference or implication, and by charging him with opinions which he disavows, it could not have convicted him at all. Had a presbytery or synod convicted him in the same way, on his appealing to the General Assembly the Assembly would have been bound to reverse the decision of the lower court, or else depart from what has been the well-established policy of the church in the past, as may be seen by referring to the action of the supreme court of the church in the two following important cases. Mr. Craighead was suspended from the gospel ministry on a decision of the Synod of Kentucky, THE WROXG AND ITS REMEDY. 183 based upon inference or implication, and although there were several particulars in his conduct which the Assembly severely condemned, the decision of the synod was reversed, and Mr. Craighead was re- stored by the Presbytery of West Tennessee, acting under the Assembly's instructions. (Moore's Digest, p. 225.) The following extracts from the Assembly's deliv- erance in the case may serve to illustrate the applica- tion of the above principles : — "Mr. Craighead may be understood as teaching that the only real agency of the Spirit was in inspiring the Scriptures and confirming them by signs and miracles. There is much in his discourse that has this bearing, and undoubtedly this is the common impression among the people where it is best known. This was the idea of the Synod of Kentucky when they condemned him, and this is in fact denying the operation of the Spirit in our days; and whether his expressions have been fairly interpreted or not ; they are dangerous and ought to be condemned. In justice to Mr. Craighead, however, it ought to be remembered that he utterly disclaims this meaning in his defence set up to this Assembly; and would it be fair to continue to charge upon him opinions which he solemnly disavows ? Of the sincerity of his disavowal God is the judge. The conclusion is that the first charge, though supported by strong probabilities, is not so conclusively established as to remove all doubt, because the words adduced in proof will bear a different construction from that put upon them bj^ the presbytery and synod. " The evidence in support of the second charge is still less clear and conclusive. The charge is : — 184 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. "'We charge him with denying, vilifying, and mis- representing the doctrine of Divine foreordmation and sovereignty and election.' "It might, perhaps, be shown by argument that Mr. Craighead uses many expressions not consistent with these doctrines; hut agreeably to the principle laid down above, he must not be charged with holding these conse- quences unless he has avowed them.'' (Moore's Digest, pp. 224. 225.) Twelve years after the establishing of the above precedent, the Synod of Philadelphia disregarded it in the celebrated case of the Rev. Albert Barnes. In reversing the synod's decision, the General Assembly pointed out the distinctions which the synod had overlooked in relying upon the inferences they had drawn from Mr. Barnes' language. There is a close parallel between the Barnes case and the Briggs case in this particular, that both of these defendants were condemned on a misunderstanding of terms and their application, and on the teaching of extra-Confessional, not contra-Confessional opinions, as a comparison of the record of the trial of Dr. Briggs with the following extracts from the deliverance of the Assembly in the Barnes case will show : — •• Resolved, That the decision of the Synod of Philadel- phia, suspending Rev. Albert Barnes from all the functions proper to the gospel ministry be and it hereby is reversed." [Yeas, 145; nays. 78: declined voting, 11.] In reply to two protests which were presented the Assembly made the following statements as to the doctrines involved : — THE WRONG AND ITS REMEDY. 185 " The correctness of the preceding positions is confirmed, in the opinion of the Assembly, by a careful analysis of the real meaning of Mr. Barnes under each charge, as ascer- tained by the language of his book and the revisions, dis- claimers, explanations, and declarations which he has made. " In respect to the first charge, that Mr. Barnes teaches that all sin is voluntary, the context and his own declara- tions show that he refers to all actual sin merely, in which he affirms the sinner acts under no compulsion. "The second charge implies neither heresy nor errors, but relates to the expression of an opinion on a matter con- cerning which no definite instruction is contained either in the Bible or in the Confession of Faith. "In respect to the third charge Mr. Barnes has not taught that unregenerate men are able, in the sense alleged, to keep the commandments and convert them- selves to God. It is an inference of the prosecutor from the doctrine of natural ability as taught by Edwards, and of the natural liberty of the will as taught in the Confes- sion of Faith, chap, ix., sec. i. On the contrary, he does teach, in accordance with our standards, that man by the fall, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. " In respect to the fourth charge, that faith is an act of the mind, Mr. Barnes does teach it, in accordance with the Confession of Faith and the Bible; but he does not deny that faith is a fruit of the special influence of the Spirit, and a permanent holy habit of mind, in opposition to a created physical essence. That faith is ' counted for righteousness ' is the language of the Bible, and as used by Mr. Barnes moans, not that faith is the meritorious ground of justification, but only the instrument by which the benefit of Christ's righteousness is appropriated. 186 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. 1 'In respect to the fifth charge Mr. Barnes nowhere denies, much less at the idea that Adam was the nant and federal head of hi> posterity; on the con- trary though he employs not these terms, he does, in other language teach the same truths which are taught by this phraseology. " In respect to the sixth and seventh charges, that the sin of Adam is not imputed to his posterity, and that mankind are not guilty or liable to punishment on account of the first sin of Adam, it i.s to he observed that it is not taught in the Confession of Faith that the sia of Adam is imputed to his posterity. The imputation of the fju'dt of Adam's sin, Mr. Barnes affirms, though not as including personal identity and the transfer of moral qualities, both of which are disclaimed by our standard writers and by the General Assembly. "In respect to the eighth charge, that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, as the vicarious substitute of His people, Mr. Barnes only denies the literal infliction of the whole curse, as including remorse of conscience and eternal death, but admits and teaches that the suffer- ings of Christ, owing to the union of the Divine and human natures in the person of the Mediator, were a full equivalent. " In respect to the ninth charge, that the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to His people, Mr. Barnes teaches the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but re- importing a transfer of Christ's personal righteous believers, which is not the doctrine of our church. And when he says that there is no sense in which the right- eousness of Christ becomes ours, the context and his own declarations show that he simply means to deny a literal transfer of His obedience; which, on the contrary, he THE WRONG AND ITS REMEDY. 187 teaches is so imputed or set to our account as to become the only meritorious cause or ground of our justification. "In respect to the tenth charge, Mr. Barnes has not taught that justification consists in pardon only, but has tan glit clearly that it includes the reception of believers into favor, and their treatment as if they had not sinned." (Moore's digest, pp. 226-227.) Had the Assembly of 1893 observed distinctions of terms and made " a careful analysis of the real mean- ing of Dr. Briggs under each charge," as the Assembly of 1836 did in the case of Mr. Barnes, the verdict of acquittal by the New York Presbytery would have been sustained by the Washington Assembly. Upon a calm and impartial review of the whole case, one cannot but regret that this course was not taken. It would have saved the Church and the world the peril which must arise from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States declar- ing in effect that one of the ablest Biblical scholars, if not the very ablest, in that great church, has, as the result of over twenty years of special study and re- search, come to the following conclusions : (1) That the human reason and the Church are of equal author- ity with the Bible, and are in themselves sources of salvation (doctrines which Dr. Brigga has neither held nor taught). (2) That the Bible is not the inspired Word of God (a conclusion which Dr. Briggs utterly repudiates). (3) That many of those who die in sin may be regenerated and saved in the middle state (a doctrine which Dr. Briggs distinctly declares he has 188 TKIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. not found in the Word of God, and therefore can nei- ther accept nor teach). To publish to the world that a Christian scholar of the well-known ability of Dr. Briggs lias reached such conclusions as these, is to put a weapon in the hands of the foes of saving truth which they will use with tremendous effect in destroying- the confidence of many in the Word of God. They will say, "Oh yes! The great mass of the membership of the Presbyterian Church believe so and so, but here is the opinion of an expert, whose opinion is worth more than the opinions of all less scholarly persons put together." It was alleged as an offence that the views of Dr. Briggs were being " industriously spread." But alas ! unintentionally indeed, yet none the less truly, the false views attributed to Dr. Briggs are being a thou- sand times more industriously spread through the action of those who have mistakenly opposed him. The sooner the world is assured that Dr. Briggs docs not either hold or teach a single one of the heret- ical doctrines for the alleged holding of which he has been condemned and suspended from the gospel ministry, the better for the Church and for the world at large. The injury done has not been mainly the discour- aging of ministers, young men and others in the Pres- byterian Church, from a critical study of the Holy Scriptures, or the inciting of them to pursue such study in a spirit of hostility to the Church ; nor has it been mainly that it has exposed the Presbyterian Church to the loss of influence for good through a THE WRONG AND ITS REMEDY. 189 loss of prestige as a church which has always been prepared to settle questions that have arisen regard- ing the truth, on the basis of the broadest and most accurate intelligence, and not on the ground of tradi- tion and popular opinion. I cannot say that an injury has been done to Union Theological Seminary ; for intelligent young men, looking toward the ministry, will judge for themselves, from their knowledge of the merits of the case, and will be likely to declare themselves in favor of liberty to think. Xor has the wrong done been simply a wrong to Dr. Briggs. He may be able to endure to be misun- derstood. His consciousness of having to endure this may itself be a source of comfort to him. He may look unto One infinitely greater than all earth's di- vines, Who was charged with being a blasphemer and condemned by the leaders of the orthodox Church of His day, and may feel that in having to bear a like cross after Him he is infinitely honored. He may be cheered too by the conviction that the time will not be long in coining when his views will be better under- stood. But whatever wrong may have been done to Dr. Briggs, or to the seminary in which he is a much esteemed teacher, or to the consciences of brethren in the Presbyterian Church near and far who feel that the Church which they love and truths that are dear to their hearts have been alike misrepresented, the great wrong done is that the truth has not been brought out and made to shine. On the contrary, 190 TRIAL OF DR BRIGGS. error has been honored and magnified by being bidden to quote, as on its side, a great Biblical scholar born and educated in the Presbyterian Church. If any one thing more than another grieves Dr. Briggs, it must be that in spite of all his arguments, explanations, and solemn protestations to the contrary, his oppo- nents have persisted in representing to the world that the result of all his scholarship and years of special study of the Holy Scriptures, has been to lead him to teach that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God, and to cause him to disregard its authority and to do despite unto the Saviour whom the Bible reveals. This is indeed a painful position in which to place one who loves the Lord, who loves the Bible as His inspired Word, who rejoices in Christ, and has no confidence in the flesh, but hates error in all its forms. Yet this is the effect of the suspension of Dr. Briggs from the gospel ministry on the charges preferred against him. Is there no relief from such a position ? There is. Tt will be competent for another General Assembly, after due investigation, to say that the circumstances surrounding the trial of Dr. Briggs were such as pre- vented the Assembly at Washington from being in proper possession of all the facts and arguments pre- sented, and that, as the result, Dr. Briggs was con- demned for holding heretical views, which he solemnly disavows, and for holding extra-Confessional views, which were only supposed to be heretical ; and that on a more minute and extended examination of the evidence and arguments in the case than it was pos- THE WRONG AND ITS REMEDY. 191 sible for the Assembly at Washington to make, it has been found that the accused did not either hold or teach heretical views, and that therefore he be relieved of the sentence passed upon him. But can a General Assembly correct errors into which a preceding Assembly may have fallen ? It would be unfortunate for the Presbyterian form of government if it could not. An Assembly not only can reverse the decision of a preceding Assembly, but has repeatedly done this. The Assembly of 1822 found that the Assembly of 1811 had erred in a decision it rendered in connection with the Craighead case, and accordingly reversed that decision, the result of which was that Mr. Craig- head, who had been suspended from the ministry, was restored. (Moore's Digest, p. 586). The Assembly of 1864, N.S.,on being memorialized by the Synod of Onondaga, reversed a decision of the past Assembly on two grounds : (1) " that the last Assembly seemed to have acted without such a knowl- edge of all the facts of the case as a regular presen- tation of the complaint and the records would have given them ; " and (2) on the ground that they had overlooked the principle that the discretion of a court is not a matter of review by the General Assembly. (Moore's Digest, p. 533.) It will be competent therefore for a synod, presby- tery, session, or single individual in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, to memori- alize the next or some subsequent General Assembly, praying that Dr. Briggs be relieved of the sentence 192 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. of suspension passed upon him ; and the memorial may assign valid reasons, which need cast no reflec- tion upon either the last or any preceding Assembly. The Westminster Confession intends no reflection when it says (chap, xxxi., sec. iv.) : "All synods or councils since the Apostles' times, whether gene- ral or particular, may err, and many have erred ; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both." CLOSING SUMMARY. 198 CHAPTER XIII. CLOSING SUMMARY. AS a lover of the Presbyterian Church, though a stranger alike to Dr. Briggs, the prosecution, and the members of the Washington Assembly, and hav- ing no personal interest whatever in the issue of this case, I have this testimony to bear as the result of having heard the whole case discussed in the Assem- bly at Washington, and thereafter having carefully reviewed all the evidence and arguments as contained in the official report of the Assembly : — 1. That while the language used by Dr. Briggs in speaking of the Bible, the Church, and the Reason as three great fountains of Divine authority, seemed at first to convey an idea which as an orthodox Pres- byterian I could not accept, a more careful reading of the argument of Dr. Briggs, together with the explan- ations made by him before the Assembly, lias made it perfectly clear that his views in regard to the authority of the Bible, the Church, and the Reason are eminently Scriptural and in entire accord with the doctrines of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. 2. That while Dr. Briggs holds, in common with all orthodox scholars and divines, that errors of l.-; 194 TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS. various kinds arc faithfully recorded in the Holy Scriptures, he at the same time holds firmly to the doctrine of plenary inspiration, and believes that such recorded errors do not in any way interfere with the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, but that, on the contrary, when, through a right understanding of the consent of all the parts, the Bible's teaching is ascertained, it is seen to be in truth the inspired Word, the revelation of the mind and will of God, 3. That while, in common with many orthodox scholars and divines, Dr. Briggs believes that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch as a whole, and that Isaiah did not write one half of the book that bears his name ; and while in this he differs from the popular and traditional opinion regarding the author- ship of these portions of Holy Scripture, he does not differ from anything taught in the Word of God, or the Westminster standards ; nor does he hold those views in such a way as to lessen his reverence for those parts of Scripture as the inspired Word of God, or to cause him to question any of the statements made either in them or in other parts of Scripture regarding these six books or the persons commonly regarded as their authors, but, on the contrary, his reverence for those parts of Scripture, and the Word of God as a whole, is increased. 4. That while Dr. Briggs holds what is called the doctrine of progressive sanctification after death, in opposition to instantaneous perfection at the moment of death, his views, when analyzed, are found to be CLOSING SUMMARY. 195 in substantial agreement with those of all orthodox Christians, the difference being mainly in the terms used and not at all in the essential truth that all believers at death pass immediately into the presence of Christ, into a state of exalted blessedness, although they do not attain to the highest blessedness until after the resurrection and the Day of Judgment. 5. That with reference to the two charges upon which Dr. Briggs has not been tried, the first of these charges — namely, that many of the Old Testament predictions have been reversed by history, and that the great body of Messianic prediction has not been and cannot be fulfilled — is based upon a misunderstand- ing of language and arguments used by Dr. Briggs, and charges him with holding views which are directly opposed to the views he does hold, and which he has taught for years with great ability and clearness. With regard to the second of these two " rejected charges," — namely, that the processes of redemption extend to the world to come in the case of many who die in sin, — this charge is also based upon a misunder- standing of language and arguments used by Dr. Briggs, and charges him with holding views which he has distinctly declared that he does not hold, and has not found in all his searching of the Word of God. My deep conviction is that Dr. Briggs has not been justly convicted of heresy, but that, on the contrary, he has been condemned and suspended from the min- istry for deducing sound doctrines from the Word of God, — doctrines which are contrary to nothing con- tained in the Westminster standards, although they DB BRIG not all be found formulated in those standai and for man a willingness to accept and teach Scripture 1 . although it may not be found in and council*, ti faded ; and in this he is in b the W( j, — cha| The supreme judge by which all contr i be mined, and all dec: councils, opinions • -nt writers, docti men, and private spii aed and i be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking - ■ n inglj d to break the law : neither will the P ian Church. When the real position - .. the P burch in the United • doubt, accord I edly entitled, and re-