ffliprai'fS MUMS i'j^' •:•' '^' 1- i'Hs-u^ 
 
■ ^^^K ;>.',_*; 
 
 ^.lo.'olj 
 
 "^ 
 
 •ArtS.*^ 
 
 »« 
 
 ^jt Wt ®fo«>%tai ^ 
 
 %; 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 **« 
 
 S^ 
 
 C^ 
 
 Presented bT^ro- ~ST;5).\J\jCAA\<2^Va ."I^-Ti. 
 
 Division 
 
 Section 
 
INAUGURATION OF DR. C. A. BRIGGS, 
 
 AT UNIOxN SEMINARY, NEW YORK. 
 
 By FRANCIS R. BEATTIE, D. D. 
 
THE INAUGURATION OF DE. C. A. BRIGGS AT UNION 
 SEMINARY, NEW YORK. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church in this coimtry is making history rapidly. 
 In aggressive work at home and in extensive efforts abroad, the differ- 
 ent members of the Presbyterian family are purchasing for themselves 
 a good report at the present day. Our brethren of the great Northern 
 bi'auch of Presbyterianism, however, are just now engaged in what will 
 doubtless make some important history in the near future. They have 
 entered, in a carefull}- guarded way, upon the revision of the historic 
 doctrinal symbols of Presbyterianism, and a lax'ge and representative 
 committee is now preparing a report for the next General Assembly, 
 which meets in Detroit in May. 
 
 The echoes of the revision discussion of a year ago had scarcely died 
 away when an event occured which can hardly fail to have great signifi- 
 
THE INAUGURATION OF DR. C, A. BRIGG8. 271 
 
 cance. That event is the inauguration of Dr. Charles A. Briggs as 
 professor of Biblical Theolog-y in Union Theological Seminary, New- 
 York, and the delivery of an address by him on that occasion. Mr. 
 Charles Butler, president of the Seminary Board, gave $100,000 to found 
 and endow this chair ; and in connection therewith he nominated Dr. 
 Briggs as its first incumbent. The Board confirmed the nomination, 
 Dr. Briggs accepted the post, and was transferred from the Hebi'ew 
 chaii- to that of Biblical Theology. He entered upon his duties at once, 
 and on the 20th of January, 1891, was solemnly and fonnally installed, 
 in the presence of a large and distinguished assembly gathered in the 
 Seminary Chapel. After the opening exercises Dr. Briggs accepted 
 the doctrines and polity of the Presbyterian Church, in the following 
 terms : 
 
 "I believe the Sciptures of the Old and New Testament 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 Seminar}', solemnly and 
 sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith, as 
 containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do 
 also, in like manner, approve of the Presbyterian Fonn of Government, 
 and I do solemnly promise that I will not teach or inculcate anything 
 which shall appear to me to be subversive of the said system of doc- 
 trine, or of the principles of said Form of Government, so long as I 
 shall continue to be a professor in the Seminar^'." (Italics mine.) 
 
 The newly inducted professor was then addressed by Rev. Dr. Frazer 
 of Newark, N. J., who was a classmate of Dr. Briggs, in the class of 
 1864, in Union Seminary. 
 
 Then followed the inaugiu-al address, which, we are told, occupied more 
 than an hour- and a half, and was delivered with great freedom, fervor, 
 eloquence and power. An authorized syllabus of the address has been 
 pubhshed in several papers, and it may be taken for granted that most 
 of our readers have already seen it. It is not necessarv-, therefore, to 
 copy it in extenso in this note, which can only be a mere sketch at 
 best. 
 
 The publication of an authorized syllabus of the addi'ess rendere it 
 a reUable and legitimate subject of discussion. The religious and other 
 journals of the North have been discussing its merits veiy freely, and 
 the Soutliern branch of the Presbyt«'rian Church has naturally a deep 
 interest in the great movements which afiect the church at the North. 
 That interest, moreover, will assuredly be of the kindest and most 
 fraternal nature. Whilst we must diller most decideiUy with the posi- 
 
272 THE PRESBYERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 tions taken by Dr. Briggs, aud cannot but deplore the signs of radical- 
 drifting from the historic moorings of Presbj'terianism which his ad- 
 di'ess indicates, we would still cherish the hope that in due time it wiU 
 be made evident that the following which Dr. Briggs has in his own 
 church is very small. 
 
 The subject of the address is, " The Authority of the Scriptures," 
 but the discussion leads over a wide field, and the friendly aud un- 
 friendly critics seem to differ greatly as to the aim and scope of the 
 address. Before we let the address in a measure speak for itself, some 
 gleanings from Northern exchanges may be of interest to our readers, 
 as showing the trend of opinion regarding it near the scene of its de- 
 Hvery. The New York Evangelist, which has always been a strong 
 advocate of revision and a warm supporter of Dr. Briggs, has an article 
 which seems to combine the laudatory and apologetic elements in about 
 equal proportions. It says: "No abstract can do any justice to its 
 learning, comprehensiveness, eloquence, and spirituality," and then it 
 goes on to explain and interpret the utterances of Dr. Briggs in such 
 statements as these : " The main purpose of the address was to show 
 that Biblical theology proves the authority of Scripture." . . . "The 
 point was emphasized that the authority' of Scripture is the authority 
 of God, not of man ; that bai'riers which prevent men from feeling this 
 divine authority are of human rearing and need to be removed." . . . 
 "The way was prepared for this main discussion by a consideration of 
 the different avenues by which divine authority has actiially, in human 
 history, come to men, the church and reason having as a matter of fact 
 shared this service with the Bible." Then the apologetic tone comes 
 out more clearly, thus: "If any one should suppose that Dr. Briggs 
 meant to imply that the Church and Heason were of equal rank with the 
 Bible as channels of divine authority, the entire address, with its un- 
 reseiTed exaltation of the Scriptures, would be the only needed an- 
 swer." After several similar statements are made the comforting 
 assurance is given, that " Some minds wiU probably be relieved by the 
 distinct statement — needless to those who know Dr. Briggs best — that 
 he does not find a second probation in the Bible, and may be led to 
 consider without prejudice whether in his (Dr. Briggs') behef in a pro- 
 gressive sanctification after death there is not a helpful truth." 
 
 The New York Observer at the date of this writing has simply 
 given an account of the inauguration ceremony aud a careful outline 
 of the address. This vigorous journal will no doubt have said some- 
 thing clear and strong before this falls under the reader's eye. The 
 
THE INUAGURATION OF DK. C. A. I5RIGG8. 273 
 
 Herald and Presht/ter iu its article does uot take very strong gi'ound 
 for or against the address. Such statements as the following arrest 
 the reader's eye: "The inaugural address brings out in bold rehef the 
 peculiar views of the author." . . "He announces no new views." . . 
 "Public opinion will now be more definite and accurate. "NVe may ex- 
 pect that those who are dissatisfied will be more demonstrative than 
 ever." . . . "Dr. Briggs is a leader in our church of a movement that 
 is wide-spread in the religious world." At the close of the article the 
 bearing of all this on the revision movement is alluded to iu the foilowing 
 tenns: ""We are as much afraid of too much revision as of too little. 
 We want nothing that impairs the system of doctrine. Those who 
 sympathize with Dr. Briggs' peculiar views we feel sure will find no 
 comfort iu the report of the Eevision Committee, and none in the action 
 of the General Assembly upon it." The Christian Intelligencer, of New 
 York, under the caption of Dr. Briggs' Vagaries, notes eleven points, 
 makes some pertinent comments, and concludes its short article thus: 
 "His address will gladden erroristsof all sorts, and give a painful pang 
 to many devout hearts. It will put upon the Theological Seminaiy which 
 has honored him a very heavy burden." The New York Independent, 
 in an able and temperate article, makes the following severe state- 
 ment concerning the address in general, after alluding to various im- 
 ix)rtant particulars: "The general type and drift of this address, 
 taken as a whole, seems to us as calculated to shed more darkness than 
 light, and to raise more difiiculties than it removes, and is better 
 adapted to suggest doubts than it is to estabhsh and coutu'm faith; 
 and, hence, to deepen rather than to clear up the fog on the subject of 
 rehgion." As might be expected. The J*re$hi/terian has a strong arti- 
 cle, in which the views set forth iu the address are vigorously assailed. 
 This article also ix)ints out the inconsistency of accepting, as Dr. 
 Briggs does, the Confession of Faith, and then annoimcing such views 
 as are set forth iu the address. At the conclusion of the paragraph 
 on this point it is stated that "it is not given to many men, as we be- 
 lieve, to plunge into inconsistencies with such a fatal facility." The 
 tone of the whole ai-ticlo may be gathered very well fn)m this state- 
 ment: "What a sorrowful thing it is to see a man of so much learning, 
 of so much real attractiveness, so finely qualified for opening up to 
 young men the great historical revelations of God, made through the 
 ages by inspired men, advance t«j his new position in the church with 
 such words of contempt for his companions in ministerial and church 
 life, and of exulting applause for their foes on his lips ! It is simply 
 
274 THE PEESBYTERIAN QUAETERLY. 
 
 a matter for unfeigned lamentation." Other expressions of opinion 
 from the East might be given, but space forbids, and at this date 
 (February 10th) we have not been able to get our hands on an ex- 
 pression of opinion from the breezy West, or from the genial Pacific 
 coast. ^Tiat has been gleaned, however, will present a general view 
 of the opinions formed of the address soon after it was given to the 
 public in its authorized syllabus. 
 
 But it is high time that we had passed on to deal with the address 
 for ourselves. No elaborate review of it can be made in the limits of 
 this note, much as we feel inclined to enlarge. 
 
 As ah'eady stated, the subject of the address is " The authority of 
 the Scrij)tures." This theme is discvissed in a broad way under four 
 heads: I. The sources of authority in religion. II. Barriers to the Bible. 
 m. The Theology of the Bible. TV. The harmony of the soui'ces of 
 authority. The tii'st is discussed vmder three particulars, the second 
 under six, the third under eight, and the fourth in a general way. 
 Before saying a few things regarding some of the views announced in 
 the address, two obvious remarks may be made concerning its general 
 spirit and tone. 
 
 In the first place, there are certain criticisms made at the expense of 
 the reverent regard which many people have for the Scriptures that 
 seem to us to border on the profane. We are assured by our report 
 that the address throughout " breathed a spirit not merely of theo- 
 logical earnestness, but also of high religious fervor." Then another 
 report tells us that Dr. Briggs gave utterance to the following: " The 
 Bible is no better than a mass-book for stopping a bullet : and is not 
 as good as holy water for putting out a fii'e." This may have been in- 
 tended as a bit of pleasantry by Dr. Briggs to relieve the fatigue of a 
 long address, in which it must have often been difiicult for the hearer 
 to be siu'e of the meaning of the sjDeaker ; still our deep rooted convic- 
 tion is that such pleasantry must outrage the feelings of reverence for 
 the word of God, which have a place in the earnest Christian heai't. 
 If a man has not fertility enough to make a joke to rest an audience 
 without alluding in this way to the Scriptures, it is surely better to 
 have no jokes at all. Wit is proper enough in its place, and there 
 may be no sin in a hearty laugh, but only harm can come from levity 
 or irreverence concerning sacred things of any kind. 
 
 The other general remark relates to the depreciatory tone in which 
 the Scriptures and our reverent I'egard for them are repeatedly spoken 
 of. This produced a painful impression on our mind the first time 
 
THE INAUGURATION OF DR. C. A. BRIGG8. 275 
 
 the syllabus was perused, and repeated perusal of the statements made 
 has not removed in the least degree that impression. "We are told that 
 '' the Bible has been treated as if it were a baby, to be wi-apped in 
 swaddhng clothes, nursed and carefully guarded, lest it should be in- 
 jured by heretics and infidels." The insinuation is made that Protes- 
 tant theologians, even, are guilty of this abuse of the Bible. What 
 must be the effect of such an expression on a man who already has 
 httle regard for the Scriptures ? Then the high regard in which the 
 Bible is held in the Christian church is called " Bibliolatry like imto 
 Roman Catholic Mariolatry and Hagiolatry." How far will such a re- 
 mark go to increase reverence for the Bible among Protestants? It is 
 boldy stated that " there are errors in the Bible which no one has been 
 able to explain away." How much will this fortify the average man 
 in his confidence in the Bible as the word of God ? Again, we are in- 
 formed that "the ethical conduct of the holy men of the Bible was such 
 that we would not receive them into our families, if thev lived amoncr 
 us and did such things now as they did then." This sounds very like 
 some utterances ■with which the perusal of infidel Hteratui'e has made 
 us famihar. 
 
 It may be that we are worshipping in great ignorance at the shrine 
 which Protestant bibliolatr}' has set tap, seeing that we have not yet 
 imbibed the results of advanced critical scholarship, although we have 
 stood by the stream and watched it flow past carrying a great deal of 
 rubbish in its ciu'reut, but we will continue to worship at the shrine 
 of God's holy word all our days, and hoi^e to die still a reverent bib- 
 liolater. It may also be that we are lacking that faith which enables 
 us to believe even where there are errors which cannot be explained 
 away, but we may still be allowed to believe that there were no erroi*s 
 in the autographs of the Bible since there is only hj-pothesis against 
 it. We ai*e also quite willing to admit that we have by no means at- 
 tained to that degree of ethical culture which enables us to criticize 
 the ethical precepts set forth in any part of the Scrii^tiu'es, and yet we 
 must confess that the tone of the address upon this point produced a 
 painful impression. W^e would not be surprised to learn that some 
 complimentary words have come to the eai-s of Dr. Briggs from quai'- 
 ters that are not at all well disposed towai'ds the ethics of the Bible. 
 
 A few sahent points in the address are now selected for brief con- 
 sideration: 
 
 The first that meets us is the question of authority in mattere of 
 religion. Dr. Briggs tells us very truly that divine authority is the 
 
276 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 only authority to "svliich man can yield implicit obedience; then he 
 goes on to say (and it sounds strange to Protestant ears) that there 
 are three fountains of divine authority : 1. The Bible. 2. The Church. 
 3. The Reason. He says that "the great majority of Christians since 
 the Apostles' days have found God through the chui-ch or institutional 
 Christianity." He also states that "God makes himself known by the 
 forms of reason, the metaphysical categories, the conscience, and the 
 religious feelings," and that " he cannot deny the rationalists a place 
 in the companj^ of the faithful." He then sums up by adding that 
 "men are influenced by their temperaments and their environments 
 which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue." 
 
 In all this, and much more of a like nature in the syllabus, there 
 is so much ambiguity of expression and confusion of thought, that it 
 is by no means eas}' to tell what Dr. Briggs means, and so be in a po- 
 sition to offer satisfactory criticism. 
 
 In the first place. Dr. Briggs by no means makes it clear whether 
 he regards the Bible, the church and the reason as of coordinate au- 
 thority in rehgion. The syllabus does not inform us on this point, for 
 it seems almost studiously to avoid saying what a single sentence 
 w^ould have made plain. The Evangelist, which seems to know the 
 secrets of Dr. Briggs, interprets his position to be that " he gives the 
 Bible the first place." But it does seem strange that such a master of 
 expression as Dr. Briggs has shown himself to be in other writings 
 should leave his meaning so obscure upon a cardinal point like this. 
 "Why is the reader so puzzled to get at the real opinion of Dr. Briggs 
 in this case? His minimizing of the Bible and his exaltation of reason 
 look suspicious, and what is said towards the close of the address does 
 not remove the tmcertainty. He there speaks of the church and reason 
 as "the other seats of divine authority." "The Bible needs the church 
 and the reason ere it can exert its full power upon the life of men." 
 And growing eloquent, he adds : " I rejoice at the age of rationalism, 
 with all its wonderful achievements in philosophy. I look upon it as 
 preparing men to use reason in the last great age of the world." Such 
 statements as these, taken together, force us to the conclusion that Dr. 
 Briggs coordinates the authority of the chiu'ch and reason with that 
 of the Bible, if he does not regard them as equal sources of authority 
 in matters of faith and life. If this be so, then there is departure 
 from the historic faith of Protestantism, and from the Confessional 
 doctrine in regard to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and hfe 
 having divine authority. 
 
THE INAUGURATION OF DR. C. A. BIGGS. 277 
 
 In the second place, the news of Dr. Brij^'-gs on this question lead 
 to endless confusion and are not without real danger. If the church 
 be a source of authority, we at once ask what church, what branch of 
 the church, are we to look to? Is it to the Protestant, or the Koniish? 
 Then, if to the Protestant Church, which one of its many branches ai*e 
 ■we to hear and obey ? How can an eai*nest honest seeker after God find 
 assured certainty by this means? Must we all wait till "the church 
 of the futiu-e," of which Dr. Briggs writes so finely in Whither, has 
 been formed ? In like manner, if reason be made a source of authority 
 the same perplexity arises. "Whose reason, or what reason, is to be 
 taken as the authority ? Is it tlie natural reason and conscience, or is 
 it the reason of a man under the renewing grace of God? How on this 
 theory can an earnest seeker find certainty, unless he goes to the Scrip- 
 tures, and rests not on reason as tinal? Dr. Briggs is historian and 
 theologian enough to know that we have here the essential princi- 
 ples of Romanism and Rationalism respectively brought before us, if 
 not accejited, in the views he presents. And, further, it is evident that 
 if these three sources of authority should not agree, and they might 
 often differ, there is no final source of appeal, and the confusion is 
 complete. Unless the Scriptures, as the word of God, are taken to 
 be the one source of absolute authority, we have no escape from the 
 Romish doctrine on the one hand, or the Rationalistic on the other. 
 So far as we can see, the address of Dr. Briggs seems to build a broad- 
 gauge, down-grade road which logically leads to one or the other 
 of these destinations. Is Presbyterianism prepared to leave the safe 
 and narrow way which gives both the church and reason their proj^er 
 places in matters of religion, but sets the Bible in the seat of undivided 
 authority I 
 
 In the third place, Dr. Briggs confounds the question of the source 
 or seat of authoritv with two other questions. Sometimes it is con- 
 founded with the (juestion of the grounds or evidences that the Bible 
 unfolds a divine revelation, and at other times with the question of the 
 channels by which God makes himself known to men. Nearly all that 
 the syllabus contains under the section on "Barriers to the Bible,' 
 pertains to the question of the evidences or proofs that the Bible is a 
 supernatural revelation, and does not really touch the (juestion of (ni- 
 thorUij at all. A simple perusal of the address will confirm this remark. 
 But worse still, nearly everything said in the section on the "sources 
 of authority" relates to the way in which God makes himself known, 
 and not to the (question of authority in the proper sense. He speaks 
 
278 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 again and again of men "finding God," "devout seekers after God,'' 
 " avenues to God," etc., when the tojDic under discussion is that of 
 authority in religion, not that of the way or avenue to God. The church 
 and reason have then- office in making God known to men, and of 
 leading men to God, but they can only rightly discharge this office 
 when they set forth the contents of Scripture, which is the seat of au- 
 thority in matters of religious faith and life. The testimony of the 
 church and the resources of reason have value in presenting the grounds 
 or evidences that the Scriptures are of God and from God ; but when 
 this has been done, the voice of God speaking in these Scriptures is the 
 only source of authority which is binding upon men. Any authority 
 which the church or reason may have is derivative and subordinate. 
 If the question be asked what is the source of the authority of the 
 Scripture itself? we may very properly quote from the Confession 
 what Dr. Briggs quotes in connection with the question of authenticity 
 where the enquiry is as to what books constitute Holy Scripture. This 
 is a claim which Dr. Briggs has made in several of his writings, and it 
 is worth while pointing out that it is the former of these questions to 
 which the statement in the Confession relates, while Dr. Briggs quotes 
 it in support of his views on the latter. Let the quotation speak for 
 itself. " The authority of the Hol}^ Scripture, for which it ought to be 
 believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or 
 church, but Avholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof; 
 and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God. 
 {Co77f. Chap. I, Sec. IV.). 
 
 In the fourth place, the views set forth in the syllabus are impracti- 
 cable, and in^ the end must leave men without any assured authorita. 
 tive rule. If in actual application the church, the reason and the 
 Bible are in conflict upon any point, which must yield, and where is the 
 arbiter among the disputants? If each is admitted to be authorita- 
 tive, on what ground can any one of the three be compelled to submit 
 to another? From this dilemma there is no escape. But again, even 
 reason and the church are fallible and may err in their deliverances, 
 and in this case they at least are not always unfailing and reliable 
 guides. On what groimd can they rightly claim to be trustworthy 
 sources of authority? But worse than all, so far as Dr. Briggs' views 
 are concerned, an unconscious but merciless consistency finds the Scrip- 
 tures in the same condition, for he tells us that " there are errors in 
 the Bible which cannot be explained away." With a fallible church, an 
 imperfect reason, and a Bible with remediless errors in it, we are 
 
THE INAUGURATION OF DR. C. A. BRIGG8. 279 
 
 assuredly in a sad plight, so far as the source of authority in religion 
 is concerned. 
 
 But we must jDass on to make a few remarks on the views contained 
 in the syllabus regarding some of the " Bamers to the Bihle.' He 
 names six of these, as follows: 1. Superstition. 2. Verbal Inspiration- 
 3. Authenticity. 4. Inerrancy. 5. Violation of the Laws of Natui-e' 
 6. Minute Prediction. After reading what the syllabus sets forth con" 
 cemiug these so-called "Imrriers," our conviction is that, should Dr. 
 Briggs succeed in removing these imaginary bai'riers from the Bible, 
 the effect will l)e not to let the earnest seekers after God find him 
 more easily or speedily, but to allow the enemies of our faith to pour 
 in over the broken down barriers, and turn fruitful fields into a wilder- 
 ness. 
 
 What we have to say will be confined to one of these "barriers," 
 and that is the important one of "Verbal Inspii'ation,' and along with 
 it, of course, that of " Inerrancy." 
 
 The syllabus takes strong ground against verbal inspiration, but 
 not any stronger than may be found in some of Dr. Briggs' other writ- 
 ings. He does not tell us what particular phase of the verbal inen-ant 
 inspii'ation is before his mind ; but whatever it is, it is rejected without 
 any ceremony. It is evident that he intends to go fuiiher than to re- 
 ject the purelj' mechanical dictation theory of verbal inspiration, for if 
 he only did this, few, perhaps, would find fault with him. That he 
 intends to set aside every phase of the verbal theory is made very 
 plain from his one-sided and ineffective criticism of the Princeton 
 divines in Whither, and the repetition of similar views in the syllabus 
 before us. 
 
 The following passages from the sj'Uabus and other reports of the 
 address show clearly that he rejects every form of the verbal theorj*. 
 He says, "There is nothing divine in the text, in its letters, words or 
 clauses. The divine authority is not in the style or in the words, but 
 in the concept, and so the tlivine power of the Bible may be transferred 
 into any language." A more extended report of the address in a 
 measure interprets this statement in the syllabus by adding, that "Wo 
 force our way through the language and the letters, the grammar and 
 the style, to the inner substance of the thought, for there, if at all, we 
 shall find God." Upon these views of Dr. Briggs thus expressed we 
 oflfer a few critical remarks, with no atteiajit to expand them. 
 
 In the first place, we might ask how it is jx)ssible to transfer the di- 
 vine power into any language, if that authority has not in the first in- 
 
"280 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 stance belonged to the language? If the divine autliority is not in the 
 text, the words or the style, how can Dr. Briggs consistently speak of 
 transferring the divine power into any language "? The denial, in this 
 way, of the ins^Diration verbally of the original text, renders it impos- 
 sible to introduce divine authoritj' into any subsequent set of words 
 employed to set forth the concept or thought. But we merel}' note 
 this in passing. 
 
 In the second place, it is difficult to understand clearly what Dr. 
 Briggs means by the "concept" in which the divine authority resides, 
 and whether he means the same thing by divine authority as is usually 
 denoted by inspiration. The second passage quoted above indirectly 
 defines the "concept" to be "the inner substance of the thought." 
 Speaking in plain terms, we may suppose that Dr. Briggs simply means 
 that the thoughts, not the words, are inspired. But even here we cannot 
 help asking again : Whose concept or thought is meant ? Is it God's 
 or man's ? If it be God's, how can we be sure that we have that con- 
 cept correctly before us, unless the words used to convey it be also 
 divine ? If it be merely man's concept, gathered from language devoid 
 of divine authority, then it can have no authority at all. It is likely 
 the former that Dr. Briggs means, and if so he must show how it 
 comes to pass that we can be sure of grasping that concept in which 
 alone the divine element is to be found. 
 
 In the third place, Dr. Briggs must refute a very influential school 
 of philologists who hold that the connection between thought and 
 language is not arbitrary, but definite. Miiller inay be taken as a 
 leading representati^'e of this theory. In a treatise published a few 
 years ago he argued strongly for this opinion, and in another issued 
 only last j'ear on " Natual Religion," he further fortifies his position. 
 In Lecture XIV. he says that "we think in words,' and that "a con- 
 cept cannot exist without a woi'd." We do not assert that Miiller is 
 right, but we say that Dr. Briggs must refute the learned philologist 
 before his way is clear for a complete rejection of verbal inspiration. 
 If the concept carries the word with it, then the inspiration of the con- 
 cept also involves the inspiration of the word. So, too, when we have 
 the word we can be so much more siu-e of the concept when both are 
 bound together; and if there be a divine element in the word, any 
 translation which truly reproduces the word carries the concept with 
 it, and gives at least a secondary divine authority to a reliable trans- 
 lation. All of this Dr. Briggs must clear away, else his theory is 
 wrecked. 
 
THE IxVAUGURATION OF DR. C. A. BRIGOS: 281 
 
 In the fourth place, Dr. Briggs is not only m contiict with the con- 
 census of leading- Presbyterian theologians, but he has broken with 
 the traditions of even Union Seminaiy on this question. Dr. Briggs 
 is well aware that all the leading theologians of the Presbyterian 
 Church, both North and South, hold in its general outlines the theory 
 of verbal inspiration ; and all the great treatises from their pens set 
 forth this opinion. But Dr. Briggs thinks that these theologians, 
 especially the "Princeton divines ' and the "Southern scholastics," 
 have been erecting bamers about the Bible, and that his mission in 
 the chair of Biblical Theology is to break these barriers down, so that 
 men may easily tind a God, now half-hidden from view by verbal in- 
 spiration and other' obstacles. It is of more significance to note that 
 Dr. Briggs has broken with the traditions of Union Seminary by his 
 views on inspiration. The devout and philosophic H. B. Suiith will 
 be taken by most of the friends of Union Seminary to be a noble rep- 
 resentative man. Of him the late Dr. Hitchcock, of the same seminary, 
 once said, that " he was alike conservative and progressive in his theol- 
 ogy." Let las hear* Avhat he has to say in his Introduction to Christian 
 Tlieolof/y: "Inspiration is the divine influence upon the word and 
 idterance of man, through which the revelation from God is presented " 
 to men." And again: "Inspiration is that divine influence by virtue 
 of which the truths and facts given by revelation, as well as other 
 truths and facts pertaining to God's kingdom, are spoken or loritten 
 in a truthful and aiitlioritative manner." (P. 204.) In regard to verbal 
 inspiration, he adds: "Inspiration gives us a book properly called the 
 Word of God, inspired in all its jmrts. The inspiration is plenary' in 
 the sense of extending to all the parts, a7id of r.i-tendin;/ <dso to (he 
 words." (P. 209.) With the views of Dr. Shedd, till last year Pro- 
 fessor of Dogmatic Theology in Union Seminaiy, most of our readers 
 are familiar. He adopts the verbal theory in such terms as these: 
 "The suggestion of ideas inevitably involves the suggestion of words." 
 "Verbal inspiration is the truth, if thought is prior to and suggests 
 language." {/Jof/matic Theolorpj, pp. 89, 90.) He then argues at 
 length to show that words are not arbitrary signs of ideas, and so con- 
 firms his views of verbal inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture. 
 It is painfully manifest that Dr. Briggs has brcjken with the trailitions 
 of his own seminary, and it is to be feai'ed that the friends of the in- 
 8tituti(m are, in gi'eut luunbers, drifting from their old moorings, and 
 "we can only ask Whither/ 
 
 But the Umits of this note are more than exceeded, so that we must 
 
282 THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY. 
 
 forbear saying some things we had intended concerning the contents 
 of the Bibhcal Theology indicated in the syllabus. We had intended 
 to show that it is defective, not so much by what it says, as by what it 
 leaves unsaid, but it is enough to remark that unless he gives more 
 prominence to the objective redemptive facts which the Scriptures re- 
 cord, especially in regard to vicarious sacrifice in his teaching than is 
 indicated in the syllabus, his system will be very incomplete. Bibli- 
 cal Theology has a place and important work, but it must be biblical 
 in the strict sense, and not merely rational and ethical. 
 
 The views contained in the syllabus concerning "miracles" and 
 "prophec}'" may be understood when it is merely stated that the or- 
 dinary doctrines regarding them are considered "Barriers to the Bi- 
 ble" by Dr. Briggs. To speak of "mercj' as the favorite divine at- 
 tribute" is surely to forget that infinite perfection pertains alike to all 
 the attributes of Deity. He asserts that progressive sanctification 
 after death is the doctrine of the Bible, but he utterly fails to explain 
 whether this shall consist in the removal of some remains of sin, or 
 simply in growth in divine Hfe. If the latter, few will deny it ; but if 
 the former, he is hard by the door of purgatory. Election is merely 
 "the election of men to salvation by the touch of divine love." What 
 he means by this sentence is more than we can understand : " The Bi- 
 ble does not teach universal salvation, but it does teach the salvation 
 of the world, of the race of man ; and that cannot be accomplished by 
 the selection of a limited number from the mass." And how all this 
 can be harmonized with the doctrinal standards of the Presbyterian 
 Chiu'ch is a question which Dr. Briggs must answer. 
 
 Attention has been called by several journals to the fact that the 
 General Assembly must pass upon the election and installation of Dr. 
 Briggs, and that the Board of Union Seminary has forestalled the As- 
 sembly by settling Dr. Briggs in his chair. The Independent and the 
 Presbyterian both allude to this fact. From "Moore's Digest'' (p. 
 390), and from Minutes of Assembly for 1870 (p. 148), it is clear that 
 the Assembly has veto power in the case of Dr. Briggs.' This at once 
 raises and forces on the Assembly a distinct issue. If the Assembly 
 next May in Detroit should pronounce its veto, what will Union Semi- 
 
 ' Since this was ■written it has been claimed in certain quarters that the Assem- 
 bly cannot exercise its veto power in the case of Dr. Briggs, since he is merelj' 
 transferred from one chair to another, not elected for the first time. Should 
 Union Seminary not re^jort the election to the Assembly for action, it remains to 
 be seen what the Assembly will do in the premises. 
 
INAUGURATION OF DR. C. A. BRIGGS. 283 
 
 naiy do? But if the Assembly takes no notice of the matter, then it 
 will be admitted that a mau may hold the ^'iews of Dr. Bri^j^gs, and 
 teach them in a hi-^h position and yet be in good standing in the Pres- 
 byterian Church. Oui' brethren at the North cannot avoid the issue 
 thus raised, which in its practical results may be far more important 
 than the report of the Revision Committee. 
 
 We conclude this already too long note with a quotation from The 
 Independent, which cannot be regarded as an extreme or harsh critic : 
 ""What we have said has been said in sorrow, and with much regi-et, 
 and from a simple sense of duty. We do not think the address fitted 
 to the theme or the occasion, or adapted to do good service in the in- 
 terests of Biblical Theologj', and have felt constrained to put on record 
 our objections thereto. That sort of higher criticism which accepts 
 as true what it finds in the Bible, not because it finds it there, but be- 
 cause it is true, and hence rejects what in its judgment is not true, 
 even if there found, logically undermines the very foundations of a 
 supernatural revelation from God, such as the Bible purports to be, 
 and as we believe it to be. We beheve the Bible to be ' the word of God ' 
 in the sense of a supernatural inspiration, and hence believe that when 
 the meaning of its language is ascertained, the absolute law of faith is 
 supplied touching all matters therein embraced. If this be 'Bibliola- 
 try,' then so be it. It is just the kind of ' Bibliolatry ' which Christ 
 and his disciples clearly had in respect to the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures." Francis E. Beattie. 
 Columbia, S. C. 
 
VIII. CRITICISMS AND REVIEWS. 
 
 Gladstone's "Impkegxable Eock of Holy Sckiptuke. " 
 
 The Impkegnable Kock or Holy Sct.iptuke. By the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,. 
 
 M. P. Eevised and enlarged from Tlie Sunday-School Times. 12mo; pp. 358. 
 
 Philadelphia: John D. Wattles. 1891. 
 
 This work is Mr. Gladstone's latest contribution to the Christian literature of 
 our day. Its author has passed the ordinary limit of active life, "fourscore 
 years," yet the work before us shows no marks of failing intellectual vigor; but, 
 on the contrary, will add to the reputation of the great English statesman and 
 scholar with all thoughtful men. 
 
 Twentj'-five years ago M. Guizot, the great French statesman and historian, 
 published his Meditations on Christianity, a work of the same general character as 
 this of Mr. Gladstone. At that time M. Guizot was seventy-nine years old ; ver^' 
 nearly the age of Mr. Gladstone. In this work M. Guizot writes : ' ' For myself, 
 arrived at the term of a long life, one of labor, of reflection, and of trials — of 
 trials in thought as well as in action — I am convinced that the Christian dogmas 
 are the legitimate and satisfactory solutions of those religious problems which, as I 
 have said, nature suggests and man carries in his own breast, and from which he 
 cannot escape. " The dogmas of ' ' Creation, Providence, Original Sin, the Incarna- 
 tion and Redemption," he adds, "constitute the essence of the Christian religion, 
 and all who believe in them I hold to be Christians. " Of these he writes : 
 
 ' ' One leading and common characteristic in these dogmas strikes me at the 
 outset; they deal frankly with the religioiis jjroblems natural to and inherent in 
 man, and olfer at once the solution. The dogma of Creation attests the existence 
 of God, as creator and legislator, and it attests also the link which unites man to 
 God. The dogma of Providence explains and justifies prayer, that instinctive re- 
 course of man to the living God, to that supreme power which is ever present with 
 him in life, and which influences his destiny. The dogma of Original Sin accounts 
 for the presence of evil and disorder in mankind and in the world. The dogmas 
 of the Incarnation and Kedemption rescue man from the consequences of evil, and 
 open to him a j^rospect in another life of the recstablishment of order. Unques- 
 tionably the system is grand, complete, well-connected, and forcible ; it answers to 
 the requirements of the human soul, removes the burden which oppresses it, im- 
 parts the strength which it ne?ds, and the satisfaction to which it aspires. Has it 
 a rightful claim to all this power ? Is its influence legitimate, as well as eflica- 
 cious?" (Pp. 40, 41.) 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in speaking of the title chosen for his book, — " The Imprerjna- 
 ble Rock of Holy Scripture, " — writes : 
 
 "The words soimd like a challenge, And they are a challenge to some extentr 
 but not in the sense that might be sujiposed. They are a challenge to accept the 
 Scriptures on the moral and spiritual and historic grounds of their charsicter in 
 themselves, and of the work which they, and the agencies associated with them. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ' u U- > ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ij l^ *■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .v^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '_< r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : .^- ..:;J 
 
 
 
 
 ■-wutix 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 ^- 
 

 m^'M 
 
 mmmmmm