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