n c c cc C c ccc c cC c cC c c r c < c n tr CC c ^ ( i^. ; "48E c< BM c ■ ^K £-1 ~~ ~c£2 ii £ ccc exc c C «; <: c«v_ ccc c - - -C. Cv v CC XTC C « C .'CCXCc .< r Cc CC C •: CCCCCC v CCCC C^C i.. Cv Cv CCiJl CCC: j c CC «r C ^ .<- i C c C VC A.CC-C v cc^xr c ccc as they said, in the light of their own reason and conscience. They left the Assembly to act in the dark and adopt their decision on trust. If the President of the United States disapprove a bill passed by Congress, he is required to return the bill with his objec- tions. If the Governor of New York disapprove of a bill passed by the Legislature, he sends it back with his reasons for vetoing it. And this is according to the true genius of republican liberty. Our American idea of free government abhors arbitrary, reasonless exercise of power. If the agree- ment of 1870 had given the General Assembly "the right of peremptory veto," as proposed in the letter of Dr. A. A. Hodge to Henry B. Smith, then, indeed, the recommenda- tion of Dr. Patton's committee would have been in order. A peremptory veto is a veto that requires no explanation. It is like an edict of the Sultan — an arbitrary act, pure and simple. The American Presbyterianism, in which Union Seminary was born and nurtured, is not fond of such acts. It likes to give a good reason for what it does, as well as for what it believes. The power of intelligible, rational, Christian disapproval, not & peremptory veto, was the power conceded by Union Seminary in 1870. 90 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. Before passing from this topic I desire to add a word respecting the course of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries. When I wrote the article in The Evangelist of May 21st on the veto power, I purposely restrained myself, and carefully omitted to say what would be, in my judgment, the inevitable effects of a veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer. In this perhaps I erred ; if so, it was in the interest of the peace of the Church. The crisis seemed to me serious enough to demand the utmost caution, not to say reticence, on the part of every friend of Union Seminary. Having expressed the opinion that the question about the veto power touched in principle all the other theological seminaries in the Presbyterian Church, I closed my article as follows : The General Assembly is shortly to convene and show its judgment upon the matter. Nor, for myself, have I any fear of the result. Many of the ablest, wisest, and best men in the Presbyterian Church, both of the ministry and eldership, will sit in that Assembly, and they will not be likely to coun- tenance any hasty or unjust action. This was my honest feeling and expectation. "When, therefore, the result came my disappointment was all the keener, especially with regard to Dr. Patton. Although my acquaintance with him was slight, I had for many years admired his varied gifts and his remarkable power of sway- ing a popular assembly. His oft-expressed reverence for the character and memory of my bosom friend, Henry B. Smith, touched me in a very tender spot ; and I had heard things related of him, privately, which won my sincere esteem. There are few men in the Presbyterian Church, perhaps there is not another one, of whom I could have honestly said just what in my letter to Dr. Field, in The Evangelist of June 11, 1 wrote of Dr. Patton. And what UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 91 is there written of him expresses so truly my feeling still, that I can only repeat it here : He had an opportunity to speak a word and strike a blow for justice, for sacred scholarship, for reasonable liberty, both of thought and teaching, for the suppression of clamor as an ecclesiastical and theological force, and for the highest interests of Christian truth, which, like the shot fired by the " embattled farmers " at Lexington, would have been "heard round the world." Acting, I do not question, from a strong sense of duty to the Presbyterian Church, he failed to seize it ; and he will be a fortunate man indeed, if Provi- dence ever again entrusts to him such an opportunity. (g). Union Theological Seminary in its relations to Princeton. I have been connected with Union Seminary, either as director or professor, for about forty years, and during all that time my relations with Princeton have been of the friendliest character. Eever have I failed to recognize the invaluable services rendered by her scholars and divines to the cause of Biblical learning and of sacred science in this country. Though trained in other schools of thought and of theological opinion, I have always found much to admire in her sturdy orthodoxy, in her fidelity to the teachings of the Westminster standards on the great questions of the church and the sacraments, in her homage to the authority of the inspired oracles, and in the fervor of her piety. The name of her " Old Dr. Alexander " was as familiar, and almost as dear, to my boyhood as the name of " Dr. Pay- son," or that of any other minister of Christ in New Eng- land. I might mention other names on her roll of saints of earlier and of later days, for whom I cherished, and still cherish, sentiments of unfeigned respect and affection. Who could have even a casual acquaintance with Dr. 92 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. Charles Hodge without beginning at once to love and revere him ? And I say frankly that in his theology, as in that of Dr. Alexander, there was not a little that I pre- ferred to not a little of the theology dominant in New England while I was a pastor there, or in the New School Presbyterian Church when I first came into it. But there were also certain features of Princeton theology and of the Old School ecclesiastical temper, which never attracted me in the least ; some, indeed, which strongly repelled me. I used to think that Princeton was altogether too inclined to fancy that her theology was, and of right ought to be, the only authorized theology in the Presbyterian Church. Nor did reunion seem to me to cure her wholly of this fond notion. I have ventured to speak of my personal relations to Princeton. So far as is known to me, the relations of Union Seminary to Princeton have been of the same friendly character ; only in the case of one of her oldest directors and professors, the saintly Skinner, much more intimate. Dr. Skinner was a typical New School theo- logian, enthusiastic and whole-souled in his devotion to the New England and Puritan, in distinction from the Scottish, Scotch-Irish, and Swiss divinity. He held the writings of Baxter, Howe, Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Albert Barnes in much greater esteem than the writings of Tur- retin and his school, whether in Scotland or America. And he bore upon his person the scars of many a sharp encounter in defense of his opinions, while preaching and fighting for his Master amidst the powerful foes who, in the second and third decades of the century, represented conservative Presbyterian orthodoxy at Philadelphia. But for all that, a very warm friendship existed between Dr. Skinner and Dr. Charles Hodge. They loved each other with the generous fervor of Christian brotherhood, an^ UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 93 when, in 1871, Dr. Skinner passed suddenly into the glory of that risen Redeemer whom he so adored, Dr. Itodge wrote thus to the Faculty of Union Seminary : When your beloved and revered colleague, Dr. Thomas H. Skinner, was called away, I was ill in bed. I was not in- formed of his death for more than a week after its occurrence. I wish these facts to be known, because no person was under stronger obligation to stand at the grave of Thomas H. Skin- ner than myself ; and few had better right to appear there as a mourner. For more than fifty-five years I knew, loved, and honored, and was loved and trusted by him. Of this he assured me, and no man ever doubted his sincerity. You must excuse the personal character of this communi- cation. I cannot forbear entering my claim to be counted among the oldest and most devoted of his friends. He was a man by himself. The union of high gifts with the most transparent, childlike simplicity of character gave him a peculiar position in the love and admiration of his friends. Dr. Henry White studied theology at Princeton ; but of his relations to that seminary in his later years I cannot speak. JNor do I know what were those of Edward Rob- inson, the great Biblical scholar. Henry B. Smith had no early association with Princeton. As late as 1850, when he came to New York, the embit- tered feelings of 1837-8 were still rankling. Ecclesias- tically and theologically, one might almost say, as it is written concerning the Jews and the Samaritans, Old School and New School " had no dealings with each other." I speak of my own recollections and experience. For years after I became pastor of the Mercer-street Presbyterian Church, the Old School ministers of New York — and such men as Spring, Potts, James W. Alexander, and Krebs were among them — neither called upon me nor I upon them. We never exchanged pulpits. We had no social 94 UNION SEMINAKY AKD THE ASSEMBLY. intercourse, except incidentally. I cared nothing for them except to esteem them, in a general way, as faithful minis- ters of Christ; and they, I presume, cared still less for me. The Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, attracted me much more than Old School Presbyterians. They never crossed the threshold of our Chi Alpha circle or of Union Seminary. It was the prevailing Presbyterian atmosphere of the day. I yielded to it, partly from temperament, partly because there seemed to be, theologically speaking, " a certain condescension " on the part of the Old School, as if its orthodoxy, especially as taught at Princeton, was the only standard orthodoxy ; and that was not at all to my taste. My impression is that this state of things influenced Pro- fessor Smith less than it did me. His sympathy with im- portant features of Old School theology was, perhaps, deeper and more active than mine. And he far surpassed me in the feeling that not only was such a state of things wrong, but that it ought to be changed just as soon as pos- sible. I do not think he had much intercourse with Prince- ton ; and later, as is well known, he took decided ground in his Review and elsewhere against some of Dr. Hodge's views. But nothing petty or partisan was ever allowed to enter into the discussion. He was far above such a thing. He attended Dr. Hodge's semi-centennial in 1872. and, on behalf of Union Seminary, spoke with admiration of that great and good man. Here are a few sentences from his address on the occasion : It is only the accident of my being born two or three years earlier that prevents you from hearing some more elo- quent representative of our institution, for ice are all here. [Applause.] .... For the first time in America, we cele- brate to-day the semi-centennial of a professor in a theolog- ical institution. It is a matter of sincere congratulation that UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 95 the merit is as incontestable as are the years. To speak on such an occasion is embarrassing ; but, after all, this assem- blage itself is the great speech of the occasion. All these ministers and men gathered from all parts of our land, from all parts of the world, are here to do honor to one most hon- orable name, to testify to the power and influence of a long and noble life consecrated to the highest welfare of our country, as well as to the service of the Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ In comparison with such a life, I do not know what glory in peace or war can be called greater or more worthy of the highest style of manliness or manhood. There is another circumstance about this celebration which we may well emphasize, and that is, that here we meet, as we so seldom can, to pay due honor also to theology, to see what theology is and means, and how it is needed for the highest welfare and true progress of the nation. Literature is spoken of every day, and appeals to all. Merely literary men live in a popular atmosphere, but theology must be studied in comparative seclusion. Its fruits are the fruits of mature years, and they come to be known in their full value only after a long lapse of time. In behalf of our Seminary, then, I would congratulate him whose name is on all our lips to-day, for the high honor to which he has been called, and for the eminent success vouchsafed to him. • We offer to him the expression of our deep and unfeigned esteem and affec- tion. May he yet many years live to receive the grateful tributes of the Church which he has always loved, and which loves him so well. And, above all, may he now and evermore be blessed with all spiritual blessings in Jesus Christ our Lord! Dr. Adams' relations to Princeton, in his later years at least, were much closer and more pronounced. To him, as we have seen, Princeton was chiefly indebted for whatever of good she found in that veto power, which relieved her 96 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. of the necessity of having her professors elected by the General Assembly. The last person outside of his own family who saw Dr. Hodge before he departed was Dr. Adams. As the latter came to the bedside, Dr. Hodge took his hand and held it fast during the whole interview. Although too feeble to speak with his lips, by a silent pressure of the hand and with expressive eyes the dying theologian responded to the assurance how many there were who held him in their thoughts and hearts, and to com- forting words of Holy Scripture. Dr. Hitchcock stood upon substantially the same ground as Professor Smith with respect to Princeton. In New England he had sympathized rather with the Old than the New School of Congregational orthodoxy ; and on coming to New York, while entering with loyal devotion into the service of the New School, his generous culture, large views, and catholic spirit enabled him to do full justice to whatever was best in the Old School. I can recall no word from his lips, in public or in private, between 1855, when he came to New York, and the day of his death, which was not most friendly to Princeton. Of Dr. Shedd I might use still stronger language, were it needful. I am not entitled to speak for my present colleagues in the Faculty of Union Seminary. They are quite able to speak for themselves. But if a single one of them has not a conscience void of offense toward Princeton, the reason is unknown to me. The only possible exception would be Dr. Briggs, and he is now beyond the sea.* What his feel- ings are I can only conjecture by considering what my own would be, were I in his place. He no doubt believes, as his friends believe, that the veto of his transfer to the chair * This paper was prepared last summer, while Dr. B. was in Europe. UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 97 of Biblical Theology was, primarily and mainly, the result of what may justly be called Princeton influence in the Church. Had that powerful influence, whether exerted from far or near, been put forth in opposition to the veto, or had it only remained quiet, there is no reason to doubt that Dr. Briggs would have been spared the stigma which the General Assembly at Detroit placed upon his brow. But while unable to say what is Dr. Briggs' present state of mind with regard to Princeton, I know what it was during the ten years in which, as principal founder and senior editor of The Presbyterian Review, he came into such intimate rela- tions with that seminary through his successive co-editors, Drs. Aiken, Hodge, Patton, and Warfield. At his earnest request I consented to serve on the executive committee of the Presbyterian Be view Association. He consulted me, both as a friend and as a member of that committee, year in and year out. He talked to me with absolute freedom respect- ing the Keview, its policy, his colleagues, and his own plans, labors, and trials in its management. He was restrained by no fear that anybody would ever know what he said to me. 1 do not believe he ever hesitated to give vent in my ear to his inmost thoughts, or doubts and suspicions, if he had any, about Princeton. And yet as I look back over the record in my memory of those ten years I see nothing dishonoring to Christian scholarship ; nothing that did not betoken a man whose devotion to what he regarded as sound doctrine, the best interests of the Presbyterian Church, the cause of sacred learning, and, above all, alle- giance to the King of Truth, was an absorbing passion. Again and again I said to myself, " How this man loves to work for his Master and his Master's kingdom ! " To be sure, Dr. Briggs did, now and then, say or write things about certain features of Princeton divinity and biblical scholarship which seemed to me needlessly severe. The 98 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. tone of his article in The Presbyterian Review on the Old Testament Revision and Revisers, for example, I dis- liked exceedingly and frankly told him so. Such a tone, I said, is against all my convictions as to the right temper of Christian scholarship ; it hurts my feelings. And he al- lowed me to say this without the slightest sign of irritation. But to speak unadvisedly with one's lips, or one's pen, is really no new thing in the annals of American Presbyte- rianism. Dr. Briggs did not invent it. If, as is charged, he has sinned in that line, his sins are venial in comparison with those of not a few eminent Presbyterians in the eighteenth century and in the nineteenth. How some Old and E"ew School men used to " talk back " to each other ! And it always did seem to me that, as a general rule, an Old School Presbyterian, when once fairly aroused and " on the war-path," so to say, left a ISTew School Presbyte- rian, however gifted and advanced in that method, far behind. I have expressed my honest respect, not to say admiration, for Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge. But what shall be said of the tone and manner in which he was wont to express his mind about his New School brethren — and, as for that, his Old School brethren, also, when they dif- fered with him— in 1834, 1837-8, at the Philadelphia Union Convention in 1867, and in the General Assembly at Albany in 1868 ? What could have been more provok- ing than his biting criticism upon the noble report of Dr. Adams and Dr. Beatty on reunion — a report so seasoned with the meekness of wisdom — pronouncing it unworthy of the great Presbyterian Church and " deficient in style, literature, grammar, and rhetoric from one end to the other"! The simple fact is, that Presbyterians now and then are not only, as they have often been called, the Lord's " silly people," but they are also the Lord's fighting people. UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 99 Their Calvinism makes them bold and determined, but it tends also to make them somewhat pugnacious and domi- neering. They hold a high doctrine of original and in- dwelling sin ; and I have wondered whether, in His permis- sive will, God did not allow an unusually large share of the latter to remain in them in attestation of their doctrine, as also to keep down their pride of orthodoxy. When I consider what have been Dr. Briggs' services to the Presbyterian Church, and to Christian scholarship; how far they exceed in variety, amount, and quality those of most other Presbyterian scholars of his own day, and with what fidelity and devotion he has rendered them, I am little in the mood to complain of his faults or to hear others do so. As to his relations to Princeton during the ten years to which I have referred there is no ground whatever, I repeat, so far as my knowledge goes, to speak of him otherwise than in terms of respect and praise. Upon his severing his connection with The Presbyterian Review the sense of his services, entertained by the Keview Association, was expressed in the following letter addressed to him by Dr. Aiken, under date of Princeton, Oct. 18, 1889 : At the meeting of the Eeview Association in New York, on "Wednesday last, it was unanimously and heartily voted that the thanks of the Association be given to you for the many important services which you have rendered the Association during the ten years of its history. We recognize your con- spicuous and invaluable service in the starting of the Asso- ciation and the Review, and, in many ways, in maintaining both. We recognize the great benefit we have derived from your deep interest in the Review, your indefatigable energy and industry, your wide acquaintance with men on both sides of the water, your patience in looking after details, and your wide outlook over the field which the Review was aimed to cover. And the embarrassments of various kinds which appear 100 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. now to have brought to an end the work of the Review, make us only the more eager to express to you our sense of what we owe you. It was on my motion that this vote was passed, — but it needed only the motion to secure the instant and unanimous assent of all present. The absent, we are sure, would have concurred with us. I was requested to communicate with you, freely, without any form of words proposed by me, or given me to transcribe. It gives me per- sonally real pleasure to be the organ of the Association in conveying to you the knowledge of this action. The members of the Executive Committee of the Ke- view Association at this time were William M. Paxton, Charles A. Aiken, Benjamin B. Warfield, Thomas S. Hast- ings, George L. Prentiss, and Marvin P. Yincent. It is hardly needful to say more of the friendly relations of Union to Princeton. On the part of Union, for forty years at least, I can testify that, so far as I know, not only has no hostile sentiment toward Princeton been cherished by her, but habitually and on principle has she abstained from saying or doing aught that might stir up jealousy, strife, or rivalry between the two institutions. Her record in this respect is clear and unimpeachable. Had Union Seminary been established a few years earlier, the case might have been different. In a letter dated New York, June 5, 1827, Dr. John Holt Pice, one of the wisest and best men in the Presbyterian Church of that day, writes : "While all the brethren appear to regard me with great per- sonal affection, neither of the parties are entirely cordial to me. The Princeton people apprehend that I am approximat- ing to Auburn notions ; and the zealous partisans of New England divinity think me a thorough-going Princetonian. So it is! And while there is much less of the unseemly bitter- ness and asperity which brought reproach upon the Church in past times, I can see that the spirit of party has struck UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 101 deeper than I had even supposed. And I do fully expect that there will be either a strong effort to bring Princeton under different management, or to build up a new seminary in the vicinity of New York, to counteract the influence of Princeton. One or the other of these things will assuredly be done before long, unless the Lord interpose and turn the hearts of the ministers. Fortunately, Union Seminary was founded nine years later, and with no design whatever antagonistic to Prince- ton. Such, then, being her record from the beginning until now, can it be thought strange that the course of Princeton at Detroit was regarded by the friends of Union, in view especially of 1870, with most painful surprise % or that they felt deeply offended and injured by it % Is it strange if it inflicted one of those wounds, that are apt to rankle long and are very hard to cure ? "I doubt," writes an old and devoted friend of Union Seminary, " I doubt whether you fully realize the depth, or extent, of the indignant feel- ing which the course of Princeton at Detroit aroused among thousands of thoughtful men and women, throughout the country. It was, and still is, largely a suppressed feeling — suppressed partly, perhaps, by reason of its very intensity and in part for the sake of the peace of the Church — but a feeling which, you may rest assured, is not going to be al- layed by any pious truisms. It is not now the case of Dr. Briggs chiefly — that is a mere occasion and passing incident — it is the honest conviction that vital principles of Amer- ican Presbyterianism, as well as vital principles of justice and Christian liberty, are involved, which renders this feel- ing so deep and strong. As to Union Seminary, what a return she got for her services to Princeton in 1870 ! How would William Adams have felt, could he have foreseen it ! I do not envy the President of Princeton College his part in this matter. "Would his illustrious predecessor, the 102 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. venerable Dr. McCosh, ever have consented to act such part ? It does not seem to me even thinkable. " The union of the Old and New School Churches is gen- erally regarded as one of the greatest events in the annals of American Presbyterianism. "What was the agency of Princeton in bringing it about ! Dr. Hodge from first to last was its strongest opponent. What was the agency of Union in bringing it about ? Henry E. Smith was its fore- most leader and advocate. By his memorable sermon at Dayton in 1864, by his editorials in The Evangelist, by the powerful articles in his Review, he more than any other man started, defended, and guided the movement. With- out Henry B. Smith and such coadjutors, among the direct- ors of Union Seminary, as William Adams, Jonathan F. Stearns, Edwin F. Hatfield, and William E. Dodge, I, for one, do not believe .Reunion would have been accomplished even to this day. It had other very able New School ad- vocates, whose services also were invaluable. And without such strong friends in the Old School branch as Drs. Beatty, Gurley, Musgrave, Monfort, Allison, and many others like them, it could not, of course, have been accomplished. But so far as reunion was a great blessing to the Presbyte- rian Church, the agency of Union in bringing it to pass en- titles her, it seems to me, to lasting gratitude ; certainly to treatment very different from that of which she has so often and in so many quarters been the subject during the past six months. Nor is it a small service that Union has ren- dered both to the Presbyterian Church and to Christian scholarship as a living centre of reasonable theological free- dom and progress. ' I am not afraid to say that a new idea never originated in this Seminary,' was the remark of Dr. Hodge at his semi-centennial. That has never been the position of Union. She welcomes all new ideas, that ' swim into her ken ' from the word of God or from the vast realm THE ACTION AT DETRIOT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 103 of science. How many new l ideas ' originated in Union Seminary in the days of Henry B. Smith ! But I weary you. I took up my pen simply to say that the feeling caused by the course of Princeton at Detroit, is really deeper and more widespread than even you appear to think. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion." (h). The action at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs as an eye-opener. The veto of Dr. Briggs was a veritable eye-opener. Its instantaneous effect was great ; its ultimate effects are likely to be greater. In a moment, as by a flash of lightning, the agreement of 1870 was seen, as it had never been seen be- fore. It was seen to involve alarming possibilities of harm to the Presbyterian Church, to free Christian scholarship, and to the cause of theological truth and progress. It was, probably, at once the cause and the subject of more anxious thought in one week after the vote at Detroit, than during all the previous twenty years. That vote revealed it as an arrangement full of explosive mischief. Instead of contrib- uting to the "peace and prosperity of the Church," by promoting mutual confidence and love, it showed itself, of a sudden, as a stirrer up of strife and bitterness. It proved that the many disadvantages, infelicities, and perils, which, to those who took an active part in founding the Union Theological Seminary, appeared so serious in the election of professors by the General Assembly itself, were no less incident to the veto power in the election of pro- fessors, when exercised by the General Assembly. In other words, the action at Detroit demonstrated that the two prin- cipal grounds upon which the veto power had been conceded to the General Assembly by Union Seminary in 1870, were deceptive and untenable. The evils specially deprecated and to be guarded against by the concession of that power 104 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. have been sprang upon the Church in its very first exer- cise. With the best intentions in the world, both the Board of directors of the Union Seminary and the General Assem- bly greatly erred as to the effects which, sooner or later, would be caused by armiug the Assembly with authority to forbid, year in and year out, at its absolute discretion, every election of a professor in every Presbyterian theological seminary in the United States. For a time it may have served, as the ninth " concurrent declaration " of 1869 had been intended, " to allay the ap- prehensions of any who might imagine that the sudden accession and intermingling of great numbers [that is, the coming in of the New School branch] might overbear those who had hitherto administrated these seminaries which had been under the control of one branch of the Church. It was intended as a measure for the maintenance of confi- dence and harmony, and not as indicating the best method for all future time." As a measure for the maintenance of confidence and harmony during that critical period of tran- sition from a divided to a reunited Church, it was, perhaps, of use. But time has long since allayed any apprehensions, which the Old School might have felt, of being overborne in the administration of their seminaries by a sudden acces- sion of the New School to equal power in the General As- sembly. Old School and New School are obsolete terms. And yet who can wonder that, in 1870, some " apprehen- sions," if not " jealousy," with regard to this matter still existed on the Old School side, especially at Princeton ? The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, to return to my point, is a grand and powerful religious body. In its own proper sphere it is a mighty agency for building up and extending the kingdom of God on earth. But it is singularly unfitted to make the best possible choice, or to ascertain and forbid the unwise THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 105 choice, of a theological professor. The chances seem to me as ten to one that, in all ordinary cases, the choice of a pro- fessor in Princeton, or Auburn, or McCormick, or Union, or San Francisco, or any other seminary, will be far more wisely made by its own board of directors than by a popular assembly composed of some five hundred men, living thou- sands of miles apart, coining together for ten days, subject to numberless misleading influences through ignorance of the candidate, and restrained perhaps by only a feeble sense of direct personal responsibility in the case. Twenty votes in a board of directors, composed, as the boards of our theological seminaries usually are, of judicious, experienced, high-minded Christian men, stand for more, and are worth more, than five hundred votes in General Assembly. Of course, the best boards are liable also to commit mistakes. No device or method of election can insure against possible errors and imperfections of human judgment, whether it be the judgment of eight and twenty directors or of five hundred commissioners. Personally, no man has better reason than I have to speak well of the General Assembly in this regard. I myself bear its imprimatur as "the standard of Presbyterian ortho- doxy." Under the lead of that apostolic servant of Christ, Dr. Charles C. Beatty, the first General Assembly of the reunited Church, by a unanimous and rising vote, elected me to the chair of Systematic Theology in one of its most important seminaries ; and upon my declining the call, re- elected me with similar unanimity in 1871. Never can I cease to feel grateful in remembrance of such uncommon kindness and honor ; grateful also in memory of the special tokens of personal interest and good-will which I received from the layman so distinguished at once for his stanch Presbyterianism and his generosity, whose name the Semi- nary of the Northwest now bears. 106 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. I will now proceed to note some of the ways in which the action at Detroit, in the case of Dr. Briggs, may be re- garded as an eye-opener. (1). In disclosing the doubts and scruples respecting the agreement of 1870 which existed at the time, but had never, so far as I am aware, been made public. I refer more especially to Lane Seminary, which, like Union, was entirely independent of ecclesiastical control. An extract from a letter of the Rev. Henry A, Kelson, D.D., addressed to Hon. James R. Cox, of Auburn, and published in The Evangelist of June 25th, shows what was done at Lane and why it was done. Dr. Kelson was a member of the Joint Committee on Reunion, as well as a professor at Lane, and is known far and wide as an eminently wise and true man. Here is the extract : Our Lane Seminary charter made its board of trustees a close corporation, empowered to fill vacancies in its own membership, and to appoint all professors and instructors, who should hold their chairs at the pleasure of the board. Hon. Stanley Matthews, afterward a justice of the United States Supreme Court, was consulted on the legal questions involved. He stated clearly and positively that the board of trustees, a corporate body, could not legally delegate any of its powers to the General Assembly or to any other body Our board of trustees adopted the by-law (as its charter em- powered it to do) in words like the following, as nearly as I remember : * " Every election of a professor in this institu- tion shall be reported to the next General Assembly, and if the said Assembly shall by vote express its disapprobation of the election, the professorship in question shall be ipso facto vacant from and after such veto of the General Assembly; it being understood that in such case it is not the pleasure of this * I give the resolution of the Lane Seminary board exactly as it was passed (Moore's Digest, p. 384). THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENEE. 107 board that such professor shall continue in office" Judge Mat- thews said that this by-law, being adopted by the board of trustees, could at any time be repealed by the board. The board could not divest itself of this power. But as long as it should keep that rule on its own book and govern itself by it, it would no doubt have all the moral effect which was sought for. No one of us imagined that it could have any further legal force or effect than was thus denned by that competent legal adviser. Dr. E. D. Morris, now professor of Systematic Theology at Lane, occupied in 1 870 the chair of Church History in that institution. Dr. Morris has long ranked among the ablest and most judicious writers in this country on ques- tions of ecclesiastical law and polity. The Evangelist of July 23, 1891, contained a striking article from his pen, en- titled " The Compact of 1870." The following are extracts from this article : The writer does not hesitate to say at this point, that hav- ing occasion in 1871 to look into the matter of legality, so far as Lane was concerned, he was led to the conclusion that, in the eye of the civil law, this compact, excellent as it was in intention, was wholly unwarranted. Indeed it was question- able in his judgment whether it lay within the constitutional prerogative of the General Assembly to accept such a func- tion if proffered to it, and the recent experience has appeared to him to give some degree of reasonableness to that doubt. But on the civil side of the matter, it must be ordinarily clear to any student of the charter of that institution, that its trus- tees are the sole and only party having, or that can have, or gain, any authority whatsoever in the appointment of those who, in whatever capacity, give instruction in it. These trus- tees are limited by but one condition/that such instructors shall be in good standing in the Presbyterian Church. But they have no right to go to the Assembly to inquire whether 108 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. such or such a teacher is in good standing, nor has the Assem- bly any power, by mere resolution, to declare the standing of any such person to be either good or bad. They might go to the records of some presbytery having jurisdiction, and inquire whether the person involved was rectus in curia there ; but they could not commit to such a body the matter of ap- proving or disapproving their choice of him as a teacher. In that choice they are absolutely and forever sovereign, with no chartered right to delegate their responsibility to, or even share it in any particular with any other body whatever. If the question were one of financial administration, no court in the land would justify these trustees in calling on the General Assembly to guide or to control them in the care of the funds and properties of that institution, and the same legal princi- ple holds no less truly in the exercise of any other part of their corporate trust. The board of Lane Seminary is in every particular, and at all times, the official authority, and there can be no other. Such was the view which the writer was compelled to take twenty years ago, so far as one of these three seminaries was concerned, and the recent discussions have served to make it evident that the trustees of Auburn and Union are by the charters of those institutions in a very similar position. Looking at the matter as one of legal principle simply, to be determined judicially, is it not clear that these boards of trust could not hand over to a General Assembly a right of ultimate control over any of the endowments committed to their keep- ing ? And is it not just as clear that they could not ask a General Assembly to create any new department, or prescribe any change in the methods of instruction, or to choose or even nominate a professor for any work within these institu- tions? All such matters are committed by law to these several boards, and to them alone, in the exercise of their corporate sovereignty, and there is ground for the query whether their f ailure to exercise such prerogative in the way prescribed by their respective charters would not ultimately THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 109 work a forfeiture of the funds intrusted to their keeping. No such board could, for example, discharge their corps of instructors and close the institution indefinitely, without be- coming subject to civil suit, even though it should resolve to commit its endowments meanwhile to the care and keeping of the General Assembly. And the same principle must apply to all their acts. Turning from the question of legality to that of expediency and desirableness, we enter a field more diificult of discussion, yet one where a dispassionate examination will be likely to lead thoughtful men into substantial agreement. The com- pact is a good one so long as there is no occasion to apply it. As a simple expression of good-will and cordial confidence between the parties it is admirable. But the moment a case arises, in which the judgment of any of these boards of trust goes in one direction, and that of an Assembly goes in an- other, and the Assembly overrules such board by vetoing its action and displacing a teacher, whom, in the exercise of its chartered prerogatives and its corporate wisdom, it has chosen, there will always be trouble ; it cannot be otherwise. If the Assembly acts without giving any reasons, simply in- terposing its final negative in the case, it exposes itself at once to the charge of arbitrariness, and to those immediately affected by its action, that action inevitably savors of a tyranny to which any born Presbyterian will find it hard to submit. On the other hand, if an Assembly attempts to give reasons for its veto, all such reasons must resolve themselves into two — the lack of fitness to teach, and the lack of ortho- doxy. How difficult it is for an Assembly to adduce either of these reasons in support of its decision without precipitat- ing serious trouble, will be evident on very slight reflection. Suppose the reason to be the lack of fitness to teach, what- ever may be the special nature of that lack. At once a series of questions spring up, such as the following : What constitutes fitness to teach in a theological seminary ? What are the special requisites to success in this or that particular 110 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. department of the theological study? Is the Assembly as well qualified as the particular board of trust to ascertain whether the person appointed possesses such fitness, and in what degree ? Is it right for a board, after it has chosen a teacher as the result of the most minute investigation it can make, to let its deliberate judgment be set aside by the veto of a body every way less prepared to decide the matter wisely? "Would it be just to the man himself, if, after he and the board had settled the matter, and a call had beem presented and accepted, the Assembly should step in, and with only such knowledge as a body so constituted would pos- sess, should hold him up before the whole Church and be- fore the world -as a person incompetent to teach, and unfit for the place to which he had been chosen ? So serious are such questions that it is doubtful whether any General Assembly could be induced to take such a step on this ground. The case must be an exceptional one in- deed ; and the veto of the Assembly would become not merely a remarkable and destructive condemnation of the man, but also a verdict of gross incompetency against the board who had appointed him. And the case would be more exceptional still if the chosen instructor had already been be- fore the Church for many years in some similar capacity, perchance in the same institution, and the board that chose him had acted on the basis of an experimental acquaintance with his abilities as a teacher But the second ground, the lack of orthodoxy, is a hundred- fold more perplexing. Suppose an Assembly should openly say, in any given case, We put our veto on this appointment, because in our judgment the chosen instructor is not ortho- dox, or is heretical, according to our standards. Suppose it should vary the statement, and say in a more guarded form, We do not condemn this man as a minister, but we do pro- nounce his teachings doubtful and dangerous in quality, and even heretical, and on this ground declare him unfit as a teacher. The Assembly of 1836 has established a precedent THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER* 111 against any declaration of the latter sort, before which it would be very difficult to set up valid opposition. The dis- tinction between the minister and professor, between the man and his teachings, vanishes the moment it is touched. It is simply impossible to pronounce the teaching heretical without condemning the man also ; and it is simply impos- sible to condemn the teacher without pronouncing judgment on the minister also. But this is clearly inadmissible under our Form of Government. The obvious principle in the case, as the precedent of 1836 affirms, is that the Assembly cannot do by indirection what it cannot do directly and under con- stitutional warrant, and for such a declaration and distinc- tion as this there can be no constitutional warrant whatso- ever. The declaration of the first sort is still more obviously in- admissible so long as the Presbytery to which such a teacher is amenable, regards and treats him as orthodox. At this point the Assembly is powerless. The experience of the Southern Church in the case of Prof. Woodrow ought to be a sufficient guide and warning here. It is not needful that the person implicated be already undergoing judicial exam- ination before the only body on earth competent of pro- nouncing upon him ecclesiastically. The simple fact that he stands unimpeached before that body, is enough to for- bid the Assembly from assuming any judicial prerogatives in his case. No difference of this sort can be recognized in our Form of Government, between one minister and another, between a teacher in a seminary and a pastor in his pulpit, and any attempt to set up such a distinction can only end in trouble. In a word, the Assembly is absolutely precluded by our constitution from pronouncing an opinion by mere resolution upon the good standing of even the humblest minister in our Church. The compact of 1870 thus betrays its weakness in what- ever aspect it may be regarded. To say the best that can be said, the only two grounds on which the Assembly can 112 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. possibly act under it are doubtful and dangerous grounds. It loads the Church with a responsibility which is pleasant enough so long as there is no occasion to wield it, but which is as certain as fate to bring in trouble wherever there is fair room for doubt as to either the capacity or the orthodoxy of any candidate for professional service. The experience of the current year will inevitably be repeated in every like case as long as the compact lasts. Differences of interpreta- tion as to its intent and scope will always arise, as they have unhappily sprung up in this instance. Diversities of judg- ment and more or less dissatisfaction with the result will al- ways make their appearance, and whatever may be the effect upon the seminary involved, the Church is sure to suffer much more than it gains. Add to this calm statement that " the compact of 1870 " was no legal compact at all, but simply a friendly agree- ment, and Dr. Morris' argument becomes irresistible. Let us now turn to Auburn. This seminary, unlike Lane and Union, was already under ecclesiastical control, namely, that of four adjacent synods. Here also there was doubt and scruple respecting the legal aspect of the agreement of 1870. It was not until 1873 that Auburn consented to enter into the arrangement. The following was its official action in the case : The committee to whom has been referred the question as to whether the proposal of the General Assembly to submit the election of professors in the seminary to the control of that body can be complied with without a change of the charter of this institution, would respectfully report, that they have carefully examined said charter, and sought legal counsel on the subject. They find that the board of com- missioners is invested with the sole and ultimate authority to appoint its professors, and they cannot legally delegate this power to any other body. They are, however, convinced of the THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 113 fact that they may in their primary action make a conditional appointment, subject to the approval of the General Assem- bly, and that the right of such approval may be accorded to and recognized from that body without necessarily interfer- ing with their ultimate authority. The committee regard the seminary as standing in an organic relation to the Gen- eral Assembly through its commissioners, who are themselves ecclesiastically amenable to the action of that body, and that, therefore, there is a generic propriety in submitting their appointments conditionally to its advisory action. They further find that it comes within the sphere of power accorded to the board by the charter that they make what- ever by-laws and regulations they may regard as essential for the prosperity of the seminary ; and, therefore, deeming it desirable that this institution be classed on an equal basis with others of a like character as under the patronage and supervision of the General Assembly, the committee would hereby present and commend for adoption by the board the following by-law, viz. : " That hereafter the appointments of professors in this seminary be primarily made conditional upon the approval of the General Assembly, and that such appointments be complete and authoritative only upon secur- ing such approval." — (Minutes of the Board of Commission- ers of Auburn Seminary, meeting May 8, 1873.) (2). But while at Lane, and, later, at Auburn also, the agreement of 1870 between Union Seminary and the Gen- eral Assembly excited at the time serious doubt, and was adopted only in a modified form upon the advice of able legal counsel, the agreement yet met with general acquies- cence as a " suitable arrangement." For twenty years it remained, as we have seen, quiescent and undisputed. No- body challenged either its legality or its expediency, and this for the simple reason that the power with which it clothed the Assembly was never used. For several months before the meeting of the Assembly of 1891, it is true, the 114 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. veto power was widely discussed in the religious papers, but chiefly as to its direct bearing upon the case of Dr. Briggs, not as to its legality or its wisdom. Only after the action of the General Assembly were men's eyes opened to discern its real character. That action, as is apt to be the case with all unfair and arbitrary exercise of power, aroused thoughtful public opinion in a high degree, and precipi- tated, so to say, conclusions and a judgment touching the whole matter which years of ordinary discussion could not have reached. The public reason and conscience, under certain condi- tions, give their verdict very quickly, and in a way not to be gainsaid. I believe it will prove to have been so in the present instance. No arguments are likely to shut again the eyes — and their name is legion — which were opened so wide by the action at Detroit. Not alone Union Seminary and its oldest and best friends, but thousands of the best and most discerning friends of Christian scholar- ship and reasonable liberty of theological inquiry and teach- ing throughout the country, felt that a hard blow had been struck at a great interest common and equally dear to them all. It would be easy to illustrate the intensity and strength of this feeling by numberless testimonies, given in private letters and coming from all parts of the Union. I have myself read scores of such letters, some of them written by men noted for their fine culture, their piety, their zeal for the truth as it is in Jesus, and their unusual weight of character. Of the public testimonies and protests called forth by the action at Detroit, time would fail me to speak at length. Two or three only must suffice ; and I give them just as they appeared, without, of course, holding myself responsible for all they contain. The first is from the pen of the Eev. C. H. Haydn, D.D., LL.D., pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Cleveland, Ohio, a man THE ACTION AT DETEOIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 115 whose name stands for whole-souled devotion to the king- dom of Christ. Dr. Haydn was a member of the Assem- bly at Detroit, and chairman of its Standing Committee on Foreign Missions. Of the veto of Dr. Briggs he said, ad- dressing his own people : Had the Union Seminary acquiesced in this veto, I question whether a twelvemonth would have gone by before men in at least three other seminaries would have been called to account in one way or another, and liberty within the lines of Holy Scripture would have had a set-back from which it would not have recov- ered in a quarter of a century. Princeton would have tri- umphed all along the line, and nothing could well be worse than to have Princeton dominate the thinking of the Presby- terian Church. Already, to my view, it begins to dawn that Princeton's ecclesiastical lawyer has overreached himself, and unwittingly aided the very cause that he thought to put under the ban of the Church. My next extract is from a letter of the Rev. Robert W. Patterson, D. D., of Chicago, now past his seven and seven- tieth year. Dr. Patterson is a venerated patriarch, as he was for more than a generation the New School leader, of the Presbyterian Church in the great Northwest. He was moderator of the General Assembly in 1859, and was also a member of the New School branch of the Joint Committee on Reunion. If there be another man in the whole Interior who stands higher in the estimate of his ministerial brethren, or whose judgment in matters relat- ing to the order and prosperity of the Presbyterian Church, is entitled to greater weight, I do not know his name. Here is what Dr. Patterson says : I am distressed about our seminaries. The plan of allow- ing the General Assembly a veto on appointments is, I am persuaded, unwise. I question with many as to the fitness of Dr. Briggs for the place to which he was elected by the 116 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. Union directors, but I think it very unsafe for the Assembly to veto the action of such a board, especially when a trial of the professor-elect is pending. It must necessarily be in a great measure a prejudgment of the judicial case. And in most instances of veto, a judicial case will be likely to follow or to be actually pending. Besides, it is not clear that in ordinary cases the Assembly is as competent a judge as a well-selected board. Moreover, if the Assembly were the more competent body, it could not fail to awaken dangerous antagonism for it to exercise such authority. It is not like a veto of a nomination / it is a veto of an appointment, so far as the board can make one, and it is, therefore, an injurious judgment against the professor- elect and also against the board electing. And, still further, it is likely to create a wide sympathy for the injured parties, and give currency to the very errors which it was designed to prevent. This is evidently so in the present case, in which grossly partisan action has been taken. The proper check upon unwise appointments is the discipline of the Church, if serious errors are taught by the appointee. The New School Church never lodged any veto power in the Assembly. Such power ought not now to be continued ; it is virtually the trial of a man without process and without forms of law. Not one quotation from Dr. Briggs was made in the debate at Detroit, so far as I heard, and no reasons were given in the final judgment. This was monstrous. Along with this emphatic expression of opinion I will quote some passages in the same strain from a private letter of Dr. Patterson : I have not liked Dr. Briggs' utterances, especially the tone of them. But I regard the action of Princeton in the mat- ter as a startling illustration of the grievous injustice that will always be liable to be done to a professor-elect and to a seminary, so long as the power of v eto remains with the A THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 117 sembly. It is a sort of lynch-law condemnation on technical- ity, without trial and with no reasons responsibly alleged, but with utterly untrue reasons implied or assumed I see no escape from a like injustice in any case where a veto can be plausibly demanded. First, get up a clamor, and then have a one-sided committee appointed to report that something must be done at once, or the Assembly will be held as ap- proving, and give no reasons, leaving every man to sustain the report for his own reasons, or on the ground of his own prepossessions. This is a receipt for crushing out any and every appointee that happens to incur popular displeasure on a question about which the Church is sensitive. How easy to apply the guillotine in every such case ! and if the candi- date for decapitation cannot be easily answered on the main points, the motive is greater to dispatch him by votes I have written simply because I feel like it. I do not agree with Dr. Briggs on some important questions, but I would not, if I could, overrule the directors in regard to any such question, and no more would I concede this right to the Assembly. We cannot afford to have our able men brushed aside by popular clamor, even if on some points they may have gone too far. If they become heretics, let their heresy be judicially proved. But let not the Assembly prejudge indi- rectly its future disciplinary action. The day has passed for settling critical questions by votes of councils or assemblies. But it is possible to distress and distract a whole denomina- tion for a generation by attempting this impossibility. The numbers will increase of those who will say with Dr. Van Dyke : " If we cannot have orthodoxy and liberty both, let us have liberty." I will give one more testimony and protest. It is from a letter of the Rev. S. M. Hamilton, D.D., addressed to Dr. Field, editor of The Evangelist, and dated Louisville, Ky., June 5, 1891. Dr. Hamilton for more than half a generation was pastor of the old Scotch Church in Fourteenth 118 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. St., New York, where he won the confidence, respect, and love of his ministerial brethren and of all the churches by his charming personal qualities, by his fine scholarship, and by his solid Christian character and services : The outside public have received a very definite impres- sion that our highest ecclesiastical court has acted unfairly and unjustly towards one of our foremost Biblical scholars. The issue will not increase the respect of the world for the Presbyterian Church. She has suffered immensely more than Dr. Briggs. Thoughtful men are saying — I have heard them — that our Church will not allow her scholars to make a thor- ough study of the Bible by the modern scientific methods unless they first bind themselves to come to no conclusions, save such as are acceptable to a certain theological school in the Church. Such an impression — and it exists and is spread- ing — is calamitous, not to the Church only, but to religion it- self. Add to this the feeling which is abroad, that the Assem- bly has condemned an eminent professor without assigning any reasons therefor, and on the report of a committee not a member of which was a friend of the professor or of Union Seminary, and the injury to the reputation of our Church cannot be calculated. I have been on terms of intimate friendship with Dr. Briggs for years. I have lived with him, I have walked the mountains with him, I have talked with him for hours together, and I say deliberately that he has done more to make the Bible a real living book to me, the true Word of God, than all other ministers and teachers I have known in the whole course of my life. His friendship is one of the things for which I shall always have reason to be thankful. In my judgment Dr. Briggs is the most inspiring teacher of the Bible our Church possesses. No vote of any Assembly can impair his reputa- tion among the Biblical scholars of Christendom. (3). The action at Detroit was an eye-opener with regard to the unwisdom of trying to regulate theological opinion and THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 119 teaching by popular vote. The instant the attempt is actually made, its futility is demonstrated. I doubt if the vote at Detroit really moved theological opinion a hair's breadth. Nor will it be at all more effective in the matter of theolog- ical instruction. Unless further enlightened respecting divine truth by deeper study and fresh inspirations of the Eternal Spirit, Princeton, and Union, and Lane, and all the rest, will continue to teach in 1892 what they taught in 1890. As aforetime, they will take counsel of Holy Scrip- ture and of the venerable standards of the Presbyterian Church, as also of the old creeds of Christendom. They will still read diligently the writings of the great masters of divinity, whether of ancient, or medieval, or later ages ; they will try to discern the signs of the times ; and they will exer- cise themselves in working out more fully their own honest thought. But they will take very little note of what was said, or voted, on the subject at Detroit. When in 1845, at Cin- cinnati, the Old School General Assembly, led by some of the strongest men in that branch of the Presbyterian Church, decided by a vote of 173 to 8 — a majority not of 7 to 1, as at Detroit, but of more than 20 to 1 — that what was called "Romish Baptism" is spurious and unchristian, Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton, in spite of the brilliant Dr. Thorn well, and of Dr. L. ~N. Rice, and of Dr. Junkin, and of nearly the whole Assembly, not only went right on teaching his stu- dents the old Protestant view, but he attacked the decision of the Assembly as wrong in fact and false in doctrine, demonstrating, with most cogent reasoning, that, notwith- standing her errors, the Church of Rome is still a branch of the Christian Church, and that baptism duly adminis- tered by her, is Christian baptism. Dr. Hodge knew very well that if such questions were to be decided by a majority vote in a popular assembly, instead of being decided ac- cording to the truth of history and the voice of Scripture, the occupation of the theological professor is well-nigh clean 120 UNION" SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. gone forever. This veto power is like one of those terrible pieces of new ordnance of which we have read lately so much. It is not only a most formidable instrument for destroy- ing an enemy, but of self-destruction as well, unless handled with consummate skill. Setting five hundred men, mostly untrained for the task, to firing it off all together, even un- der the direction of an ecclesiastical expert, is extremely dangerous and against all the lessons of even worldly pru- dence. Do I mean, then, that it is no function of the Presby- terian Church to bear faithful witness against prevalent er- rors in doctrine and practice, or, if necessary, in the way of godly discipline, to put upon them the stamp of her cen- sure and condemnation ? No, that is not my meaning. It seems to me one of the highest functions of a church of Jesus Christ to bear constant, earnest witness for Him and His truth, and to put the mark of her strong disapproval upon all errors contrary thereto. This is one great end for which the Church exists in the world. When she ceases to be a witness-bearer and the enemy alike of false doctrine and evil practice, her glory is departed. The question is : How shall she best fulfil this duty ? And here there is need of the wisest discrimination, of large experience, of the amplest knowledge, of much self-restraint, and of Christian justice, candor, and magnanimity in their finest expression. It is far from my meaning, I repeat, that the Presbyterian Church, or any other church of Christ, is not bound to hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints ; to stand up for soundness both of doctrine and morals; to bear wit- ness against error ; and to be very jealous for the honor of God and His inspired oracles. No church can here exceed the measure of her duty. Nor do I in the least question that the Presbyterian Church, in the performance of this solemn duty, may often speak and act most effectually A WORD IN CONCLUSION. 121 through the voice and votes of the representative assembly. The popular voice and vote, thus expressed, is a ruliug principle in our American system of republican govern- ment; and it is a ruling principle no less in American Presbyterianism — the source in large measure of its won- derful elasticity, freedom, and working power. Nobody shall surpass me in admiring it and its splendid achieve- ments. But alike in the civil sphere and in that of religion there are some things, which in their very nature, belong to the domain and jurisdiction, not of the many, but rather of the select few. There are questions in the civil order which the judges of the land, not the legislators, alone are author- ized and competent to decide. And so in the religious sphere there are matters which only learned divines and scholars — specially trained, chosen, and set apart for the purpose — are qualified to pass judgment upon. Such, for example, are many of the questions raised by what is called the higher or literary criticism of the Bible. ~No popular vote, however honest rnd intelligent, can decide them ; nor are ordinary scholars, however learned, competent to decide them. They must be decided, if at all, by the ablest sort of trained minds, just as there are questions in law, in finance, in every department of science, which only experts of the highest class are qualified to settle for us. {i). A word in conclusion. I have thus endeavored to consider the action at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs in its bearing upon Union Semi- nary and upon the Presbyterian Church. It has been my aim to tell the truth, so far as possible, and nothing but the truth. And it has been my aim, also, to do this in a frank and Christian way. Certainly, it would have been much easier to write in a freer style. If my language savors now 122 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. and then of severity, or even ridicule, it is because the truth seems to me to demand such language. No reasonable man could have supposed that the friends of Union Seminary were going to keep silent, or that when they did speak they would speak with bated breath. If trained in no special awe of a General Assembly, they do stand in awe of God and His truth, of Christian justice, and of that glorious liberty wherewith their divine Master has made them free. What then, in view of the whole situation, ought to be done ? It is not for me to answer this question further than to say, that, in my opinion, it is high time for the alumni and friends of Union Seminary to come to a good understanding among themselves, to act in concert, and to adopt such measures as shall give the whole world assurance of their determination to join hands with the Board of directors and Faculty of Union Seminary in maintaining the character, honor, and chartered rights of the In- stitution. Whatever prejudice or suspicion against Union Seminary prevails in the Presbyterian Church is, as I believe, largely the effect of ignorance or misapprehension. Union Semi- nary stands firm on her original foundations as an institu- tion of Christian theology in the service of the Presbyterian Church and of the Church Universal. Taking the inspired Word of God as her rule of faith and practice, she is striv- ing in all things for the faith and furtherance of the Gos- pel ; first in our own land, and then over all the earth. These are her ambitions, and she has no other. With every other school of divinity, of whatever name, she desires to keep step to the music of the whole church militant in fighting the battles of truth and righteousness, here and everywhere. Especially does she desire to march and fight in fellowship with all other seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. She is ready to say to them, in the words of Henry B. Smith, A WOED IN CONCLUSION. 123 — words penned before the reunion, but still fresh and true as ever : Let us advance with open brow to meet the greater ques- tions which are fast advancing to meet us. Let us not make so much account of Old School and New School ; and even if we believe the substance of the Old is better, let us not deny that the earnestness, the philosophic spirit, the advanc- ing movement, the wider aims of the New, are of inestimable good. Who can so afford to be patient as the orthodox, who know that the right faith will in the end surely triumph. Let us eschew the arts of intrigue, of defamation, and innu- endo. These are easily learned. They are the offspring of fear or of hate. They show a timorous or a dogmatic spirit. Let us not deny until we understand, or insult feelings be- fore we know their reason, for it is easier to be extreme than to be candid, to denounce than to examine. In the spirit of love and wisdom let us maintain cogency of argument, energy of faith, and urgency of zeal. APPENDIX. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EDWARD ROBINSON CHAD? OP BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, held November 11, 1890, the following preamble and resolution were adopted by a unanimous vote : Whereas, The Honorable Charles Butler, LL.D., President of the Board of Directors of this Seminary, has made provision for a perma- nent fund for the purpose of establishing and endowing a chair in this Seminary, to be called the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology : Now therefore, Resolved, That a new professorship shall be and is hereby created, which shall be called the "Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology"; that the income of the endowment of one hundred thousand dollars given to this Seminary by the said Charles Butler in the manner mentioned in his bond, dated April 25, 1890, shall be applied solely to the support of said chair, according to the provisions of said bond. The President of the Faculty suggested that the Board, in courtesy, should ask Dr. Butler to express to us freely his wishes with reference to the action just taken. Thereupon President Butler addressed the Board of Direct- ors as follows : " The formal establishment by the Board of ' The Edward Kobinson Chair of Biblical Theology ' fulfils the object de- sired in the provision which I have made for its endowment. I beg to express my satisfaction and gratitude for this action. It is in accord with the views of the distinguished Christian (124) APPENDIX. 125 scholar in whose memory the chair is founded. In a letter to the Board, dated January 20, 1837, accepting the Professorship of Sacred Literature, he said : * The Constitution properly requires every Professor to declare that he believes the Scrip- tures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This is placing the Bible in its true position as the only foundation of Christian theology. It follows as a necessary consequence that the study of the Bible, as taught in the department of Biblical Literature, must be the foundation of all right the- ological education.' This new Chair of Biblical Theology seems to me to realize the sentiment embodied in this quota- tion, in a form which, if he were now present with us, would receive his benediction. It embalms his memory indissolu- bly with the life of this Seminary, and will ever be an inspi- ration to its students in their ' search of the Scriptures/ " In regard to the incumbent of this Chair, I avail of the courtesy of the Board to express my wish that it may be one who sat as a pupil at the feet of that eminent teacher, and I regard it as a felicity to the Seminary that there is one here who has been trained within its walls, and who, by his ripe scholarship and purity of character in Christian faith and practice, has won the confidence and affection of his associate Professors, of this Board of Directors, and of the students who have come under his teaching during these years of faithful and devoted service. "From what I have said, you will anticipate that my wishes will be fully gratified in the appointment of the Bev, Charles A. Briggs, D.D., as eminently qualified to fill this Chair. In this expression of preference, it gives me the greatest pleasure to say that I do but voice the views and wishes of our late revered President of the Faculty, Koswell D. Hitchcock. Dr. Briggs was his choice for this Chair. " I cannot doubt that the highest interests of this Semi- nary, and, what is more, those of the Kedeemer's kingdom on earth, will be promoted by this realization of the plans of 126 APPENDIX. these two Christian scholars, both as regards the foundation of the Chair and the selection of the suggested incumbent/' THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INCUMBENT. At the conclusion of President Butler's address, Henry Day, Esq., offered the following resolution, which was unan- imously adopted : Resolved, That Professor Charles A. Briggs, D. D., be transferred from the Davenport Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Lan- guages to the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology. Professor Briggs, having been duly advised of the action above recorded, addressed a communication to the Board, under date of January 7, 1891, accepting the new Chair to which he had been transferred. It is as follows : 120 West 93d St., New York, January 7, 1891. Gentlemen of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary, New York: I thank you for the mark of confidence expressed in your choice of me to fill the Edward Eobinson Professorship of Biblical Theology. There is no Chair that so well suits my tastes and my studies for the past twenty-five years. Under the advice of the Faculty, I have been building up the depart- ment of Biblical Theology for some years past. But I had reached the limit of new work. I could not advance further until relieved of the Hebrew work. In accepting the new Chair, I propose to push the work of the department rapidly forward, and to cover the whole ground of the Chair at as early a date as possible. I give over the work of the Hebrew Chair to my pupil, colleague, and friend, Dr. Brown, with confidence, that building on the foundations I have laid, he will make marked improvement upon my work. Biblical Theology is, at the present time, the vantage ground for the solution of those important problems in religion, doc- APPENDIX. 127 trine, and morals that are compelling the attention of the men of our times. The Bible is the "Word of God, and its author- ity is divine authority that determines the faith and life of men. Biblical scholars have been long held in bondage to ecclesiasticism and dogmatism. But modern Biblical criti- cism has won the battle of freedom. The accumulations of long periods of traditional speculation and dogmatism have been in large measure removed, and the Bible itself stands before the men of our time in a commanding position, such as it never has enjoyed before. On all sides it is asked, not what do the creeds teach, what do the theologians say, what is the authority of the Church, but what does the Bible itself teach us ? It is the office of Biblical Theology to answer this question. It is the culmination of the work of Exegesis. It rises on a complete induction through all the departments of Biblical study to a comprehensive grasp of the Bible as a whole, in the unity and variety of the sum of its teaching. It draws the line with the teaching of the Bible. It fences off from the Scriptures all the speculations, all the dogmatic elaborations, all the doctrinal adaptations that have been made in the history of doctrine in the Church. It does not deny their propriety and importance, but it insists upon the three-fold distinction as necessary to truth and theological honesty, that the theology of the Bible is one thing, the only infallible authority ; the theology of the creeds is another thing, having simply ecclesiastical authority ; and the theol- ogy of the theologians, or Dogmatic Theology, is a third thing, which has no more authority than any other system of human construction. It is well known that until quite recent times, and even at present in some quarters, the creeds have lorded it over the Scriptures, and the dogmaticians have lorded it over the creeds, so that in its last analysis the au- thority in the Church has been, too often, the authority of certain theologians. Now, Biblical Theology aims to limit itself strictly to the theology of the Bible itself. Biblical theologians are fallible men, and doubtless it is true, that 128 APPENDIX. they err in their interpretation of the Scriptures, as have others ; but it is the aim of the discipline to give the theol- ogy of the Bible pure and simple ; and the inductive and historical methods that determine the working of the depart- ment are certainly favorable to an objective presentation of the subject, and are unfavorable to the intrusion of subject- ive fancies and circumstantial considerations. It will be my aim, so long as I remain in the Chair, to accomplish this ideal as far as possible. Without fear or favor I shall teach the truth of God's Word as I find it. The theology of the Bible is much simpler, richer, and grander than any of the creeds or dogmatic systems. These have been built upon select por- tions of the Bible, and there is a capriciousness of selection in them all. But Biblical Theology makes no selection of texts — it uses the entire Bible in all its passages, and in every single passage, giving each its place and importance in the unfolding of divine revelation. To Biblical Theology the Bible is a mine of untold wealth ; treasures, new and old, are in its storehouses ; all its avenues lead, in one way or anoth- er, to the presence of the living God and the divine Saviour. The work of Biblical Theology is conducted on such a comprehensive study of the Bible, that while the Professor builds upon a thorough study of the original texts, his class must use their English Bibles. A thorough study of the English Bible is necessarily included in the course. If the plan of the work is carried out, the student will accompany his Professor through the entire English Bible during his Seminary course, and will be taught to expound a large num- ber of the most important passages in the light of all the passages leading up to them. In conclusion, allow me to express my gratitude to the venerable President of the Board of Directors for the interest he has ever taken in my work, for the honor he has shown me in nominating me for the Chair he so generously founded, and for attaching to the Chair, with such modesty and consid- eration, the name of Edward Bobinson, my honored teacher, APPENDIX. 129 the greatest name on the roll of Biblical scholars of America, and the most widely known and honored of her professors. I shall regard it as my high calling and privilege to build on his foundations, and to advance the work that he carried on as far as it can be advanced in the circumstances of our time. The names of Edward Robinson and Charles Butler will be entwined into a bond of double strength to sustain me in the delicate and difficult work that I now undertake to do. Faithfully, C. A. Briggs. n. THE INAUGURATION. Tuesday Evening, Jan. 20, 1891. President Charles Butler, LL.D. presided. After devo- tional exercises, at the request of Mr. Butler, the President of the Faculty made a brief preliminary statement, as follows : "As has been announced, last May the President of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary, Charles Butler, LL.D., provided for the endowment of a new Chair in the sum of $100,000. " On the basis of this munificent gift, at the recent meet- ing of the Board, the new Professorship was formally estab- lished, to be known, in accordance with the request of Pres- ident Butler, as The Edward Robinson Professorship of Biblical Tneology. This was designed by Mr. Butler to be a memorial of his long-time friend, the late Edward Robinson, D.D., LL.D., the first Professor of Sacred Literature in this insti- tution, who honored that Chair and this Seminary by his long and distinguished service from 1837 to 1863. " The President of the Board suggested that it would be in accord with his own wishes and with those of his friend, the late President Roswell D. Hitchcock, D.D., LL.D., if the Board should transfer the Rev. Professor Charles A. Briggs^ 130 APPENDIX. D.D., to the new Chair just established. By a unanimous Tote the Board at once adopted the suggestion of their Pres- ident, and transferred Professor Briggs from the ' Davenport Chair of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages ' to the ' Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology.' Dr. Briggs, having sig- nified his acceptance of this transfer, his inauguration will now take place." President Butler addressed Professor Briggs as follows : " On behalf of the Board of Directors, and in accordance with the Constitution of the ' Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York,' I call upon you to * make and subscribe ' the * declaration ' required of each member of the Faculty of this institution." Thereupon Professor Briggs made the 'declaration' as follows : "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; and I do now, in the presence of God and the Directors of this Seminary, solemnly and sincerely receive and adopt the Westmin- ster Confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do also, in like manner, ap- prove of the Presbyterian Form of Government ; and I do sol- emnly promise that I will not teach or inculcate anything which shall appear to me to be subversive of the said system of doctrines, or of the principles of said Form of Government, so long as 1 shall continue to be a Professor in the Seminary." Thereupon President Butler said : " In the name of the Board of Directors, I declare that Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., is inaugurated as the Incumbent of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical The- ology. " On behalf of the Board of Directors, the Charge to Pro- fessor Briggs will now be delivered by the member of the Board duly appointed for this service, — the Kev. David E. Frazer, D.D., the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Newark, N. J." APPENDIX. 131 the charge. My dear Brother Briggs : Before attempting to discharge the duty which, by your kind consideration, has been devolved upon me, permit me to tender my heartfelt congratulations : First, upon the estab- lishment of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theol- ogy ; a consummation so devoutly wished for alike by your- self and by our revered Hitchcock. We all share in your joy, and recognize the new departure as a long and a right step in advance in the history of our Institution. In the orderings of God's providence every age has its own peculiar problem to solve, the solution being wrought out from the standpoint of its own pressing needs. It is a marked characteristic of our day that the Bible is now studied as never before in the world's history, and the establishment of this new department is in the line of this development, and is answerable to this modern demand. For, if I understand aright the function of Biblical Theology, it does not conduct a simple, grammatical exercise ; it does not discuss the vari- ous textual readings ; it does not study the opinions of the Fathers or the deliverances of the Church ; it does not for- mulate a body of systematic divinity grouped about some chosen central principle. These are important and legiti- mate topics of study, hence are properly cared for in our curriculum. They will doubtless be very helpful as external aids in the prosecution of the work of this Chair, but the peculiar province of Biblical Theology is to study the Word ; to determine what God intends to say in His Word, and then to formulate these hallowed teachings. Such being its province, I need not pause to show that Biblical Theology is the normal response to that modern critical spirit which refuses to accept anything upon the basis of authority, and insists upon tracing everything back to its genetic principle and its efficient cause. Neither need I tarry to discriminate sharply and accurately between the 132 APPENDIX. functions of Biblical and Systematic Theology. If you, my dear brother, have any especial interest in or desire for in- formation on this general subject, I would respectfully refer you to a work on " Biblical Study," which is published by the Scribners, and was written by one who has served long and well in, and has just been transferred from, "the Dav- enport Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages " in this Institution ; and, if you are not acquainted with the work, I can assure you that the time spent in its perusal will not be wasted, for you will find therein an admirable and exhaustive discussion of the subject. But I want to congratulate you, secondly, upon the fact that you are to be the incumbent of the new Chair, a position for which you are pre-eminently qualified by reason of the peculiar character of your past studies. I am very well aware that you would much prefer to have me discuss the general topic of Biblical Theology, and to dwell upon the claims it has to a place in our curriculum, rather than to hint the name of, or make any reference to the Professor who is to occupy the new Chair. But if anything of a personal character should be said, please remember, my brother, you have no one to blame save yourself, since, passing by abler men, you have kindly insisted that your old friend and class- mate should deliver the Charge, as you enter upon the awful responsibilities of your new position. And as the class spirit asserts itself, I will say, despite your unspoken protest, that the class of '64 is proud of its representative ; that it rejoices in your well-deserved success, and that it appropriates to it- self a peculiar glory by virtue of the events of this hour. Little did we dream, when we sat at the feet of that honored man whose name gives dignity to your new Chair, as also at the feet of those other scholarly and godly men, Henry B. Smith, Thomas H. Skinner, Boswell D. Hitchcock, and Henry H. Hadley, men whose presence was a benediction, whose instruction was an inspiration, whose memories are revered and hallowed, that there was among us, going in and out APPENDIX. . 133 just as we went in and out, one who was destined to sit in Gamaliel's seat and to honor the exalted position by his scholarly attainments. Yet such was the fact, and although you wish I would not say it, still, as your classmate and on behalf of the class thus signally honored, I tender you our warmest and heartiest congratulations. And I propose saying still further, since I betray no confi- dence by the declaration, that it would have greatly rejoiced your heart and would have wonderfully inspirited you for your work could you have heard the cordial, tender, and ap- preciative words with which our venerable and venerated President of the Board of Directors (who is also the kind and generous patron through whose munificence the new Chair has been endowed, " Serus in coelum redeas"), placed your name, the only name placed in nomination for the position. And I am sure you would have been more than pleased could you have witnessed the unanimity with which the Directors ratified the nomination and transferred you from the Davenport Chair of Hebrew to the Edward Eobinson Chair of Biblical Theology. I congratulate you that the honored and revered Founder of the department wanted you in the department which he founded, and also upon the fact that you enter upon your new work in the enjoyment of the fullest confidence, respect, and love of the Directors of this Seminary. But I may not forget that this is your hour. Inasmuch as I cannot hope to impart any instruction respecting the peculiar and practical duties of your new position, I would be content to let these congratulatory words take the place of the more formal charge. In order, however, to meet the requirements of my appointment, and to stir up your pure mind by way of remembrance, I charge you : First. To have clear, well-settled, and accurately defined views of the nature, the scope, and the design of the Holy Scriptures. 134 APPENDIX. The Bible is to be your text-book, and the Bible claims to be the book of God. If this high claim cannot be main- tained ; if the Bible be not the book of God, as verily as Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then is it unworthy of our confidence. That Word which was in the beginning with God and was God, and which in the fulness of time began to be flesh, was, as the Incarnate Word, the God-man, very God and very Man. We do not understand this " great mys- tery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh." We do not attempt to explain it, but we accept it, we believe it, we rest our hopes of life, here and hereafter, upon it. And upon this same basis we can accept the Word written. It also is an incarnation. Great is the mystery of Eevelation, God manifesting His thought in the forms of human speech. Since holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, the Divine and human elements are co-ordinated in the Word written as well as in the Word Incarnated. We must recognize the Divine and human factors in the Scrip- tures, and assign a legitimate place to each and to both, but I need not charge you, my dear brother, to bear in ceaseless remembrance the fact, that just in the proportion that the Divine element is eliminated or is abnormally subordinated to the human, is the authority of the Bible circumscribed and the power of the Bible abridged. You will never forget that you have God's Word for your text-book, and you will never fail to teach it as the very Word of God. The scope of Biblical instruction is clearly set forth on the sacred page. Great mischief is often wrought by the notion that the Bible aims to cover the whole sphere of human knowledge, and that its authority is lessened by the conces- sion that there are some things which can be comprehended without its aid. We surely do not need the Bible to teach us that two and two make four, or that the whole is greater than any of its parts. The Holy Word has a distinct mission and a definite aim. It does not come to us as a teacher of physics or of metaphysics, but as a revelation : as a revela- APPENDIX. 135 tion of God : as a revelation of God to man : as a revelation of God to man concerning the highest and the dearest moral interests of man, alike for time and for eternity. It comes to man, not primarily to reason, but to reveal, and to reveal those high themes, which, by necessity of being, transcend the ordinary processes of human thought. While pervaded with an air of simplicity and honesty and truthfulness, it comes not primarily to persuade, but to command, and to command, not in view of the deductions of human reason, or in the light of conclusions reached by the processes of a speculative philosophy, but upon that simple, yet sublime, basis, " Thus saith the Lord God." The design of Revelation is summed up essentially in the Johannean statement, "these things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that be- lieving ye might have life through His name." As all roads led to Home, so all Scripture leads to Christ. The poetry, the prophecy, the precepts, the biography, the history of the Bible, find their true centrality in Him who was at once dust and Divinity, the Workman of Nazareth, the Prophet of Galilee, ' The Lamb of G6d which taketh away the sin of the world/ The final end and ultimate design of the Holy Scriptures are " to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus "; hence it is your business, my dear brother, from the Word written to educe the Word Incarnate, and I beg you to so present Jesus Christ to all who come to you for instruction, that they may go from your class-room to their great life-work, not only impressed with an abiding sense of the matchless beauty and the mighty power of that Divine Saviour concerning whom the Scriptures so abun- dantly testify, but also, and as the normal outcome of your teachings, with a fixed determination "to know nothing among men save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." But Paul forewarns " of things hard to be understood," of problems which must perplex the most acute mind and defy the grasp of the most profound intellect. Furthermore, in 136 APPENDIX. the interpretation of the Word, conflicting views respecting the exact significance of the revelation will arise. Who shall decide when learned doctors disagree ? To whom shall the ultimate appeal be taken ? Manifestly to the Spirit of the Living God by whom the declaration was prompted, and to whom the meaning is clear ; hence, I charge you, Secondly, Seek the aid of the Holy Ghost in your arduous and responsible work. I attempt no solution of the mooted question as to whether our Lord's promise that the Holy Ghost should lead believers in "the way of all truth," was restricted to the Apostolic College, and was literally fulfilled in the written revelation, or whether it pertains to believers in all time. But the Scriptures most clearly require that all believers should "live in the Spirit," " walk in the Spirit," "be filled with the Spirit." Christian consciousness bears witness that the abiding presence of the Spirit begets deep and vital spirituality, and Christian experience abundantly confirms the assertion that vital spirituality ensures a large insight of that truth which must be spiritually discerned. A willing- ness to do God's will must precede the knowledge of the doctrine, and this willingness of mind and heart must be be- gotten by the Holy Ghost. Pat peculiar honor upon the Divine Spirit and He will put peculiar honor upon you and your work. He will open your eyes to behold the wondrous things in God's law ; He will give you the witness of His presence in your own soul, and will enable you, in all meek- ness and humility, yet with the highest Christian positiveness, to say : I know whom and what and why I have believed, and am persuaded that my confidence rests not upon the wisdom of man, but upon the wisdom of God. And as you thus teach the Word of God under the guid- ance of the Spirit of God ; as day by day you present the truth as it is in Jesus to those who are to preach a cruci- fied Redeemer to dying men, may the Lord bless you and keep you ; may He equip you for duty, help you in the dis- APPENDIX. 137 charge of it, and when your great work is finished may His " Well done " be pronounced upon His " good and faithful servant." in. RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUSTAINING DR. BRIGGS, AS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 19, 1891. Resolved, That this Board has listened with satisfaction to the categorical replies rendered by Dr. Briggs to the questions submitted to him, and that it trusts that the manner in which he has therein dealt with the points that are in dispute will operate to correct the misapprehensions that are so widely current, and to quiet the disturbed condition of mind in which, as a communion, we are so unhappily involved. Resolved, The Directors of the Union Theological Seminary desire to express to Professor Briggs their high appreciation of his Christian courtesy in the consultations which he has had with the Committee of Inquiry in reference to the trying questions now under consideration. They will stand by him heartily on the ground of this re- port, and affectionately commend him to the leading of a common Master, having perfect confidence in his honesty of purpose. E. M. Kingsley, John Crosby Brown, Recorder. Vice-President. New York, May 19, 1891. rv. STATEMENT OF THE FACULTY OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. In view of the general comment and discussion called forth by the recent Inaugural Address of Professor Charles^ A. Briggs, D.D., the undersigned, members of the Faculty of Union Theological Seminary, deem it their duty to make the following statement : "With the conviction that Christian courtesy, modesty, and mutual respect for difference of opinion should characterize 138 APPENDIX. theological controversy, we distinctly recognize and depre- cate the dogmatic and irritating character of certain of Dr. Briggs' utterances in his Inaugural and in others of his writings : while, on the other hand, we do not recognize, even in these, any warrant for persistent misrepresentations of his views, and for the style and temper in which he has in many cases been assailed. I. — The views propounded by Dr. Briggs in his Inaugural are not new. They have all been stated by him in one or another of his published works, in articles in the Presbyterian Review, dur- ing his ten years' editorship, and in more recent contribu- tions to other periodicals. Moreover, for the past ten years, Dr. Briggs has been teaching Biblical Theology in the Seminary, and has been expounding to successive classes of students the statements for which he is now arraigned. The present excitement is, as we believe, due, largely, to the tone of the Inaugural Address, to certain unguarded expressions, and to an impression that the transfer of the author to the Chair of Biblical Theology would be subject to the veto of the General Assembly. II. — The address contains, in our judgment, nothing which can be fairly construed into heresy or departure from the West- minster Confession, to which Dr. Briggs honestly subscribed at his recent inauguration. (a). His words concerning "Bibliolatry " are not aimed at humble and devout reverence for the Word of God, but at the error, rebuked by the Apostle Paul, of revering " the letter " above " the spirit." (&). Dr. Briggs declares that, conjointly with the Bible, the Church and the Reason are sources of authority in re- ligion. He uses the term " reason " as embracing the con- science and the religious feeling. We object to the term " sources," since there is but one source of divine authority — God himself. We prefer to say that the Bible, the Church, APPENDIX. 139 and the Reason are media and vehicles through which we recognize and receive the divine authority. This is the generally-accepted Protestant position. Every Church in Christendom admits that the Church is a medium of divine authority. The Confession of Faith declares that " unto the catholic, visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God." That the reason, in the broad sense in which it is explained by Dr. Briggs, is also an organ to and through which the divine authority is conveyed, is assumed in Scripture and in the Confession, and is the necessary postulate of a divine revelation to man. It is the only point in the natural man to which the qualities of God's character, the operations of His power, and the right-reasonableness of His claims can appeal : and it is distinctly declared and assumed by St. Paul to be the recipient of such appeals ; to be the subject of the divine Spirit's illumination ; and to become thus the proper instrument for discerning, comparing, and judging spiritual truth. If the reason has no such function in re- ligion, it is superfluous to assert that " Scripture is profitable for teaching, for discipline, and for upbuilding in righteous- ness." Spiritual righteousness implies an intelligent and rational perception and reception of the law and truth of God. The living sacrifice which is "holy and acceptable unto God " is a "rational service." But Dr. Briggs does not, with the Romanist, exalt the Church above the Bible and the Reason. He does not, with the Rationalist, place the Reason above the Bible and the Church. Neither does he, as has been often charged, co- ordinate the three sources. His position is the Protestant and the Presbyterian position, assumed in his subscription to the declaration of the Confession, that the Scriptures are " the only infallible rule of faith and practice," and asserted in his address in the words : " Protestant Christianity builds its faith and life on the divine authority contained in the 140 APPENDIX. Scriptures." That Protestant Christianity too often depre- ciates the Church and the Eeason is an entirely distinct statement, involving a question of fact ; and the statement and its discussion in no way affect Dr. Briggs' endorse- ment of the Protestant doctrine of the supreme authority of Scripture. To assert, as has been so often done, that Dr. Briggs is aiming to undermine the divine authority of Scripture, is preeminently unfair. Not only this Inaugural, but all his published writings, teem with the most positive and uncom- promising expressions of love and reverence for the Bible. (c). The consistency of Dr. Briggs' position as to the supreme authority and divine quality of Holy Scripture, is in no way affected by his views of the nature of Inspiration. While asserting the plenary inspiration of Scripture, he denies that inspiration involves absolute inerrancy — literal, verbal accuracy, and perfect correspondence of minor details. In this view there is nothing original or new. It is the view of Calvin, and of an overwhelming majority of Prot- estant divines in Europe and America. It was propounded at least eight years ago by Dr. Briggs in his "Biblical Study." Inspiration, in the sense of literal inerrancy, is nowhere claimed for Scripture by Scripture itself. It is contradicted by the contents of Scripture in the form in which we have it. It involves, logically, a minute, specific divine superintendence of each detail of the entire process of transmission — copying, translating, printing — and the pre- vention of all errors. It confronts those who maintain it not only with discrepancies of statement in the present text, but with the innumerable textual variations in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, and the variations between the Hebrew and the Septuagint. To meet these facts with the assertion of the inerrancy of the original autographs, is to beg the whole question in dispute, to lay down a purely arbitrary, a priori hypothesis, and to introduce into the discussion an entirely APPENDIX. 141 irrelevant factor, seeing that the errors and discrepancies re- main and the original autographs cannot be recovered. To make the inspiration of Scripture turn upon verbal in- errancy is to commit the Church to an utterly untenable position, and to place her apologists at the mercy of cavillers who are only too glad to evade broader and deeper issues and to shift the discussion to the region of mere verbal de- tails, where they are sure to have the best of the argument. Dr. Briggs holds and teaches the doctrine of the divine in- spiration, infallibility, and authority of the Holy Scriptures in all matters of Christian faith and duty, which is all that any evangelical divine is bound to maintain on that subject. The Westminster and other Confessions of Faith clearly and strongly assert the fact of divine inspiration, but wisely ab- stain from denning the mode and degrees of divine inspiration. The former is a matter of faith, the latter of human theory, on which there must be liberty if there is to be any progress. To impose upon a Christian teacher any particular theory of inspiration not sanctioned by the Bible itself, is tyranny. (d). Dr. Briggs is further charged with a departure from the Westminster Eschatology in teaching progressive sanctifi- cation after death. While we are not to be understood as accepting or endors- ing Dr. Briggs' conclusions on this point, it is sufficient to say that he is here in an open field, where, having expressly repudiated the doctrines of future probation, universal restoration, and the Bomanist purgatory, he is certainly en- titled to the largest liberty in the attempt to elucidate a subject so little understood, and on which the standards are open to differences of interpretation. The phrase " progress- ive sanctification after death " admits of a sound and ortho- dox interpretation ; but Protestant Eschatology, as defined in the Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries, is gener- ally admitted to be defective and in need of further develop- ment within the limits of that caution and reserve imposed by the comparative silence of Scripture on that mysterious 142 APPENDIX. period between death and resurrection. In the words of the late Henry B. Smith, written not long before his death : " What Bef ormed Theology has got to do is to Christologize predestination and decrees, regeneration and sanctification, the doctrine of the Church and the ivhole of Eschatology." III. After years of familiar acquaintance with Dr. Briggs and his teaching, we are moved to utter our emphatic pro- test against the spirit and language with which, in so many cases, he has been assailed. If, in any of his writings, Dr. Briggs, as is charged, has wantonly offended the honest con- victions of good men, or has in any other way sinned against the ethical code of Christian scholarship laid down in the New Testament, it is not our business to defend him therein. He must answer for it to his own conscience and to God. But in the public discussion of matters of opinion, it is nei- ther right nor decent that an earnest, learned, devoted scholar and faithful teacher, even though mistaken, should be at- tacked with virulence, contemptuous flippancy, and imputa- tions of unworthy motive. In too many instances it seems to have been assumed that all the sacredness of personal con- viction is upon one side ; that a higher critic can have no convictions or rights which the lower critic or the uncritical censor is bound to respect ; and that the fact of his differing with them justifies his opponents in laying aside in discus- sion the character of Christian gentlemen. "We know Dr. Briggs to be an earnest Christian, a devout student of the Bible, an indefatigable teacher and worker, and one who holds the standards of the Church with an in- telligence based on an exhaustive study of their history and literature. The numerous testimonies of his students during seventeen years prove that he inspires them with a deep reverence and enthusiasm for the Bible. In like manner we protest against the matter and temper of the assaults on Union Seminary. By its history of over half a century, by the character, standing, and services of its graduates, and by the amount and value of its contributions APPENDIX. 143 to Christian Literature, this Institution should be insured against such assaults. Its value to the Presbyterian Church needs no demonstration. From the days of Edward Bobin- son, the pioneer of Palestine exploration and the founder of American Biblical Lexicography, Union Seminary has stead- ily pressed forward on the lines of advanced Biblical study. Its Professors, in subscribing to the Westminster standards, have always been understood to do so with the concession of that measure of freedom which is the right of every Chris- tian scholar. They honor the venerable Confessions of past ages, but they place the Bible above the Confessions, and hold themselves bound, by their loyalty to Christ and to His Church, to follow the truth whithersoever it maj lead them. We assert and must insist upon the liberty exercised by the Keformers and by the early Church, to discuss the Scriptures freely and reverently and to avail ourselves of all the light which may be thrown upon them from any source. It is in the interest of God's truth to set forth Scripture as it is, and not to expose its friends and teachers to humilia- tion and defeat by claiming for it what cannot be substan- tiated. In the words of Ullmann, " Not fixedness nor revolu- tion, but evolution and reform, is the motto for our times." We maintain that human conceptions of the Bible and of its inspired teachings are subject to revision. To grasp the results of deeper research, and to apply them with caution, reverence, and boldness to the examination of Scripture is not only our privilege, it is our solemn duty in the discharge of the sacred trust committed to us by Christ and His Church. More light is yet to break from God's Word. We would be found ever upon the watch-towers to catch and to transmit its rays. No theological school can take any other attitude without neglecting its duty to the present age and losing its hold upon the rising generation of Biblical students. That such a method may dissipate or modify certain tradi- tional views as to the origin or date of the Books of Scrip- ture ; that it may expose and correct certain long-established 144 APPENDIX. errors of interpretation ; that it may modify certain theo- logical dogmas, is only what is to be expected from similar results in the past. But we have no fear for the Bible. The Word of God will come forth from the fire of reverent criticism as fine gold, with a new accretion of testimony to its divine origin, and a new power of appeal to the world. (Signed), Thomas S. Hastings {President), Philip Schaff, George L. Prentiss, Marvin R. Vincent. (Professor Francis Brown is at Oxford, superintending the publica- tion of his Hebrew Lexicon.) THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNION SEMINARY AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. A CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTARY TO " FIFTY YEARS OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. BY GEORGE L. PRENTISS, Professor in the Institution. NEW YORK: ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY, 38 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET. a^>4 3> : 9' , ^>^> i >^> _ > > 5> >> JB >3 V » 7> -^>> > j^ -> ^ ^ <> ^ » ■ ■ 1 m >> JK> J> J> >5 3> ) >" x — » > >> 2 ^> > x> > :■ ■> ;j^> o ■> >1 t» :><> >d :> > y^> > > >» >>:> • >? > J>> > IX> > » > "X> ► >} ^? ■ >> >^ J>> :>? ^ "-*» X- >> i "> 3?> c ^ :*> :- i J>3 ) -; >> »s>3 > 33 ) 33 ) >3 3 ■-> 3» > > >3 ) vv » 3e> 33 33 > x> ^ > 59 V, >V3> X> ^ 3> 3 >? J>3 3> ^> 3 > o 3> t>33 » >>33 3^ 3>3> 3 J> ±>3> :j* > > i • > .:■ :j y > 3 3 ■) 3 3 3 ' > : - ~> . • > ->> > >. 3 > -> ^3 3 ~> ) O 3 '33 3 > 3 "X> 33 3 3> >3 3 33 > > ' ■ £> 3 3 ? V ) ^33 1 3 o >>-S3i> 3 } 3 3 3 > :> £?:>">;> :ra>3 '■■■"> 3e> > 3 33 33 3 33 312*5 > > •-> 3 3 »3^ 3 ^ 33~>3> SO£> 3 :> 3 3 3 > ^1 > 3 > "3> 333> 333 o q»33 > 3 33 ^> > > > ;3>3» 3 . >3>312P 33 3 ■ 3 >33 3 > : Ym ^& ^> > 33>> 3»jS 3 3333 3- , 1)3XD3 n? > v ) O "> 3> l» :> • :> ^> >^o >_■ ) ' > >3» -o> ) • 3 : 3> O'J) >. > OD> » > ^ > j> ::> 3r - > > J>C3 5V 55> > 3> >> >3 3 V> ' » 533 ^ ^> ■ )0 3 3 3 >? ) 3 , ; »2> 3 >T> 2))) 3" 3) 3 33 1803 ^> > >^ 3 > y D ~>1^ ^33 )> 3 3^>3>)>> 3_>»^ ^ >3 3^ JJ3 ;J)3 3> V>3 >J» ^>^> 3333 3>^> ^3 ^ >25> >> '3 ^ ' o >3 33 3> > !> X> )3 33 3 >3 3> 3 ^' 3 > 3> 3> f>> \> ^> ^33 W> j>3^> > y _>? y ^ jjp 33 »"" ■ 33 "^V ) 33 33T m> 3^ m> 3^ 3 V33 -* -> >3 : 3> 33: 33 33 33 3g>3 '33 333?W^ » )JU>3J .3 332S>7>) 3 33>2>3m '3 >J>3I> 3' ' :> 3^^3 3» ^ 33 3> .3 33 ''3 3^0 3>33 3 ■ > mr> > -•■■ s> , )3j3 »3 -_ 3,3333 >v^ y&& 33 3>3> 3 3?- \; 333 \_ ;.> .»■ - 3 3: ; j3 3 33 1>3 33 33 ?j ►3 3£> 1> >3 ,33 3 >3 3>3 ■ ^ » n 3 32> J .'33: Jt 3>3> LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Ilillllllllltb 022 168 961 6 li