iBIliBiiii&WtaiKlMt! WsM N't * 
 
 |j^|||f|P||!|l!l!l|l!l||!il|g 
 
 wmm 
 
 m 
 
 ' \ 
 

 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 
 Presented by VCO- . IrfTS.Vi^^C^.X 
 
 Divtston .......Trrrrr.. >.««*» 
 
 Section <?S f ^^ 1 
 
K 
 
A REVIEW, 
 
 By thos. mcdougall, 
 
 OF 
 
 CERTAIN STATEMENTS 
 
 IN A BOOK, ENTITLED: 
 
 "the trial of dr. briggs before the general 
 
 assembly; a calm review of the case 
 
 by a stranger, who attended 
 
 all the sessions of the 
 
 COURT." 
 
 CINCINNATI, O.: 
 Elm Street Printing Co., 176 and 178 Elm St. 
 
 1894. 
 
A REVIEW, 
 
 By thos. mcdougall, 
 
 OF 
 
 CERTAIN STATEMENTS 
 
 IN A BOOK, ENTITLED: 
 
 "THE TRIAL OF DR. BRIGGS BEFORE THE GENERAL 
 
 assembly; A CALM REVIEW OF THE CASE 
 
 BY A STRANGER, WHO ATTENDED 
 
 ALL THE SESSIONS OF THE 
 
 COURT." 
 
 tINtlNNATI, O.: 
 
 Elui Street Friiiting Co., Nos. 176 and ITS Elm St. 
 
 1894. 
 
 \ 
 
/ 
 
A REVIEW, 
 By Thos. McDougall, of Certain Statements 
 
 In a Book, Entitled: 
 
 "The Trial of Dr. Briggs before the General Assembly; a Calm 
 
 Review of the Case by a Stranger, who Attended 
 
 All the Sessions of the Court." 
 
 ^'R. J. L' 
 
 Dear Sir : — You have written and published a book with the above title. 
 The intensely impersonal character, and the eminently fair and impartial atti- 
 tude claimed, as assumed by you, are evidenced by the following quotations : 
 
 "This only need be added : Neither the Rev. Dr. Briggs, nor any other 
 minister or member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States has had 
 any knowledge of the writing of this review. The writer has assumed the sole 
 responsibility for the writing of it, and for every sentiment it contains, and has 
 withheld his name that the views presented may be judged according to their 
 merits, apart from the influence of any name whether obscure or the reverse." 
 (Preface, last par.) 
 
 "Born of Scottish Presbyterian parents, early instructed in the Bible and 
 the Westminster 'Shorter Cattchism' after the old-time Scottish fashion; spe- 
 cially instructed in the standards of the Presbyterian Church by a thoroughly 
 evangelical and orthodox Scotch minister; subsequently instructed in theology 
 by the late venerable Dr. Charles Hodge and his associates during a three- 
 years' course at Princeton Theological Seminary ; for more than twenty years a 
 city pastor, ministering to people of undoubted intelligence and orthodoxy ; 
 for the past quarter of a century a reader of that witness for orthodoxy The 
 Presbyterian, — I found myself on the 18th of May last, in the ordering of 
 Providence, and without any pre-arrangeraent of mine, a visitor at the Wash- 
 ington Assembly. P. 33. 
 
 This, and succeeding generations who may become interested in this book 
 of yours, will not have as much difficulty in determining who you are, as has 
 been encountered in ascertaining who was the author of the letters of Junius. 
 If you really desired your views to be judged on tlieir merits and so withheld 
 
your name, why did you give such a modest recital of your experience, career 
 and education ? 
 
 On page 38, you say : 
 
 " Having had an opportunity since the close of the Assembly of review- 
 ing at leisure the official report of the Assembly, with other necessary docu- 
 ments, I have found that the impressions formed during the trial were not only 
 correct, but that they have been much deepened by a careful perusal of all the 
 arguments and evidence presented before the Court." 
 
 In view of this statement that you have examined the official report of the 
 Assembly with other necessary documents, thus intending to create the im- 
 pression that the statements made in subsequent pages of the book, so far 
 as they refer to matters of evidence and fact, are strictly accurate, and made 
 on full and calm reflection, your attention is called to the following, on pp. 
 124-5 : 
 
 "None of all the charges stirred individual commissioners as did these 
 two. The only case, so far as the present writer can remember, in which any 
 member of the court needed to be called to order during the trial, Avas in con- 
 nection with these charges. This was in the case of a lay commissioner who 
 took an active part in all the proceedings, and whose opinions and utterances 
 seemed to have weight with many in the court. In expressing his views on 
 these charges, he was deeply stirred, and with earnest gesture and elevated 
 voice began to relate an imaginary colloquy between Dr. Briggs and God, in 
 which he represented 'God Almighty' as declaring to Dr. Briggs that Moses 
 wrote the Pentateuch, and Dr. Briggs as replying that Moses did not. But at 
 this point he was called to order in the most quiet and considerate way by a 
 venerable father in the Assembly — the Rev. Dr. Storrs." 
 
 Should you write another book, or desire to communicate with the writer, 
 or treat yourself to another luxury by way of a calm review, he would be 
 pleased to have you state from what official report, or other source, you ob- 
 tained the information set forth in the paragrapli just quoted. Where do you 
 find that the writer ''oieeded to be called to order during the trial in connection 
 with these charges f Where do you find that the writer made any reference in 
 connectif)n with these charges, or at any time during the trial to Moses and the 
 
Pentateuch f Be kind enough to furnish us the source of your information in 
 the paragraph above quoted. If the other statements in your book are as far 
 from what actually occurred as is the foregoing, then little or no reliance 
 can be placed on them. 
 
 The official report of the three- minute speeches in the trial of the case of 
 Dr. Briggs on its merits, published by the Washington Post, makes no refer- 
 ence whatever to what the writer said. If you will examine the New York 
 Tribune Monthly for May, 1893, entitled, "The Trial of Dr. Briggs," you 
 will find on page 100 the following : 
 
 Thos. McDougall : 
 
 "If it be in order in this Presbyterian General Assembly, in this court, 
 permit me to direct your attention to the character of Almighty God and the 
 Lord Jesus Christ for omniscience, veracity and absolute truthfulness. Al- 
 mighty God said that Isaiah said thus and so ; Dr. Briggs says to Almighty 
 God, 'Isaiah did not say so.' Which will you believe? This is not a matter 
 of science, not a matter of history ; but the Almighty God, the Eternal 
 Jehovah, said in his written Word, in Luke, in John, in Romans, that Isaiah 
 said thus and so ; Dr. Briggs says, 'Almighty God, Isaiah never said it ; he 
 never wrote it ; he was not living when it was written.' This is not a formal 
 or technical question, it is a direct issue as to the veracity of the Eternal God." 
 
 The Rev. Dr. H. M. Siorrs. — I rise to a point of order, and I wish it taken 
 down. This man has been before us; is the charge now made against him 
 true? Is it veracious? Has Dr. Briggs said any such thing? That is the 
 question, sir. My point of order is that any man here has a right to the 
 defence of his personal character against unwarranted statements. This is a 
 charge of blasphemy upon Dr. Briggs. 
 
 Mr. McDougall. — Let us see. I will answer you, Mr. Storrs. This man 
 has said here that Isaiah did not write half the book that bears his name. 
 
 Dr. Storrs. — Mr. Moderator — 
 
 Mr. McDougall. — And it is that matter I am going to discuss. 
 
 Dr. Storrs. — Mr. Moderator, before a man can say anything of this sort, 
 he must locate the particular language or statement ; otherwise, it is a general 
 statement, and becomes an accusation of blasphemy for which there is no 
 pardon. 
 
 Several members undertook to speak. 
 
 The Moderator. — Hold on, I will keep the order. 
 
 A Member. — I want to know, Mr. Moderator, v/hether you are presiding 
 officer or not. 
 
The Moderator. — I am trying to be if you will allow me. Now let Mr» 
 McDougall show these quotations that justify his remarks. Proceed, Mr» 
 McDougall. 
 
 A Member. — I make this point : Is this quotation in the Inaugural 
 Address ? 
 
 Mr. McDougall. — It is in the printed document that has been presented 
 here. 
 
 Several members attempted to interrupt. 
 
 Mr. McDougall. — Brethren, if you will be quiet I will tell you where it is. 
 It is in the charges and specifications— the statement that Isaiah did not write 
 half of the book that bears his name ; and it is in the defence of Dr. Briggs — 
 the statement that Isaiah did not write the latter part of that book. If that is 
 not Dr. Briggs' statement, I will withdraw my charge. 
 
 Two things are clear from this report : First, that the moderator decided 
 that I tvas in order, and did not decide that I "needed to be called to order;" 
 Second, that I said nothing on the subject of Moses and tJie Pentateuch, but 
 confined my statements solely to the sixth or what is called the "Isaiah 
 charge." 
 
 As to the quiet and considerate way in which the Rev. Dr. Storrs raised 
 the point of order, as these terms are comparative, and as what is quiet and 
 considerate to one man may be the opposite to another, depending altogether 
 upon whose side the point is made, I suggest that in the interest of truth and 
 correctness of statement, it is better to omit such adjectives altogether. 
 
 On page 125, speaking of the fourth and fifth (should be the fifth and 
 sixth) charges, you say : 
 
 " It is possible that Dr. Briggs may not be correct in all his conclusions 
 regarding the authorship of parts of the Pentateuch and parts of the Book of 
 Isaiah. He may have made mistakes, such as all students are liable at times 
 to make, or such as any minister may sometimes make in his interpretation of 
 the text from which he preaches ; but that he has fallen into any vital erro(r, 
 or that he has cast any slight upon any part of the inspired Word, either in 
 the course of his study or in the conclusions he has reached, is the reverse of 
 what has been proved by all the records of the case." (Italics ours).^ 
 
 The judgment of the General Assembly, quoted in your book on pp. 166— 
 168, finds that the teachings of Dr. Briggs as to the authorship of the Penta- 
 
teuch and parts of the Book of Isaiah, "ivere vital error): contrary to the essential 
 doctrine of Holy Scriptures, and the standards of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, which said erroneous teachings strike at the vitals of 
 religion." Yet, in the light of that judgment of the Supreme Court of our 
 church, you calmly say " that Dr. Briggs has not fallen into any vital error, or 
 cast any slight upon any part of the inspired Word," and that your conclusion 
 is proved by all of the records in the case. 
 
 The judgment of the Supreme Court is a part of the record, and to a legal 
 mind the most important part. You join issue with that solemn judgment, 
 and say that "the views and teachings of Dr. Briggs touching the authorship of 
 parts of the Pentateuch and parts of the Book of Isaiah do not cast any 
 slight upon any pait of the inspired Word are not vital errors, and that this 
 is proved by all the records of the case." What your meaning of the records 
 of the case is, I fail to understand, if it does not include the judgment. Per- 
 mit nie to call your attention to what is called the Isaiah charge, and which to 
 the ordinary mind is a conclusive (Jemonstration that the teachings of Dr. 
 Briggs are not in harmony with the Word of God, or with the faith of the 
 Presbyterian Church or of Evangelical Christendom. 
 
 THE ISAIAH CHARGE. 
 
 Charge six was as follows : 
 
 "The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the 
 Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D. D. , being a minister of the said Church, and a mem- 
 ber of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching that Isaiah is not the author 
 of half the book that bears his name, which is contrary to direct statements of 
 Holy Scripture and to the essential doctrines of the standards of the said 
 Church, that the Holy Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of God by the 
 consent of all the parts, and that the infallible rule of interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture is the Scripture itself." 
 
 The specification was as follows : 
 
 "In an inaugural address, which the said Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., 
 delivered at the Union Theological Seminary, in the city of New York, Jan. 
 20, 1891, on the occasion of his induction into the Edward Robinson Chair of 
 Biblical Theology, which address has been published and extensively circulated 
 
with the knowledge and approval of the said Rev. (Jharles A. Briggs, D. D., 
 and ha-5 been republished by him in a second edition with a preface and an 
 ap|iendix, there occurs the following sentence : 
 
 Page 33, lines 14-15 : 
 
 " Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name." 
 
 In his defence before the New York Presbytery, p. 181, Dr. Briggs 
 specifies the half of the Book of Isaiah which he claims was not written by 
 Isaiah, as follows : 
 
 "The great prophecy in the last twenty-seven chapters bears no title. It 
 is anonymous. There is nothing about it, therefore, to indicate that its editor 
 or original author designed that it should be regarded as b}'^ Isaiah." 
 
 And on page 147 : 
 
 "The two passages from the earlier collection are not in question, because 
 I do not deny that Isaiah wrote them ; but only those from Chapters 40-66. If 
 these New Testament writers testify that Isaiah wrote these passages, then the 
 testimony of the New Testament is against the opinion that I have expressed, 
 that Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name ; but these 
 writers testify no such thing." 
 
 And on page 150 : 
 
 "Thus of the sixty-six chapters, we may attribute to Isaiah not more 
 than twenty-seven chapters. Thirty-nine chapters, making the larger half of 
 the book, were not written by him, as all the critics acknowledge. My thesis 
 is therefore proven, that Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his 
 name." 
 
 To sustain these charges the prosecution cited certain passages from the 
 New Testament, which are as follows : 
 
 Matt. 4; 14, 15. —14, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
 Esaias the prophet, saying, 15, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Neph- 
 thalini, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. 
 
 Matt. 12; 17, 18.— 17, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
 Esaias tlie prophet, saying, 18, Behold my servant whom I have chosen ; my 
 
beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased : I will put my Spirit upon him, and 
 he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. 
 
 Luke 3 ; 4 — As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the 
 prophet, saying. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way 
 of the Lord, make his paths straight. 
 
 Acts 28 ; 25, 26. — 25, And when they agreed not among themselves they 
 departed after that Paul had spoken one word. Well spake the Holy Ghost by 
 Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26, Saying, Go unto this people, and say. 
 Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and 
 not perceive, 
 
 John 12; 38, 41. — 38, That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be 
 fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom 
 hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 41, These things .said Esaias, when 
 he saw his gliry, and spake of him. 
 
 Rom. 10; 16, 20. — 16, But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For 
 Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 20, But Esaias is very 
 bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not ; I was made mani est 
 unto them that asked not after me 
 
 \VH.\T THE CHARGE IS. 
 
 These citations from the New Testament are positive, explicit declarations 
 that the words quoted were spoken and written by Isaiah, and by no one else. 
 Dr. Briggs contended that theee words did not mean any more than " the Book 
 of Isaiah says," "spoken through the Book of Isaiah," "the word of the Book 
 of Isaiah " By what rule of construction intelligible to a sound mind, the 
 statement that " Isaiah said" is synonymous with "The Book of Isaiah said" 
 when the person so claiming, denies that Isaiah, in fact, said or was the author 
 of what bears his name, it is impossible to ascertain. Here in the Bible, which 
 Dr. Briggs declared to l)e the Word of God, the Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testament, are to be found explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal statements that 
 Isaiah said certain words, and yet Dr. Briggs says, Isaiah nev«r did say these 
 words, he never spoke them. He was not in existence when these words were 
 written, and was not in fact their author. 
 
 This raises a direct issue of fact betwe n the authors of these statements 
 and Dr. Briggs. If the statements were inspired by God and are a part of the 
 Word of God, then the issue of veracity is between God and Dr. Briggs. It 
 is not contended by Dr. Briggs and his school that the translation of these 
 
10 
 
 verses is imperfect and errant. It is not contended that they are not a part of 
 the original Bible. It is only confidently asserted that these statements, as 
 they appear in the Word of God, are not true, and that Isaiah never wrote the 
 words which are thus attributed to him. 
 
 THE APOSTLE PAUL VS. DR. BRIGG8. 
 
 If the statements made in Matthew, Luke, John, Acts and Romans are 
 the statements of uninspired men, and not a part of the Word of God, then the 
 question arises whether these writers had less means of knowledge at their com- 
 mand than Dr. Briggs. Whether, for instance, the Apostle Paul, the writer 
 of Romans, was less able to determine the authorship of Isaiah than Dr. Briggs. 
 Paul lived nearly two thousand years ago. He therefore lived that much 
 nearer the time of the existence of the author of the Book of Isaiah. He was 
 a Jew, learned in all the knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. He was cer- 
 tainly the peer in intellect and scholarship of any mind of modern times. 
 
 As Locke, in his essay on the "Understanding of St. Paul's Epistles," 
 speaking of the Apostle Paul, well says : 
 
 "He was, as it is visible, a man of quick thought and warm temper, 
 mighty, well versed in the writings of the Old Testament and full of the doc- 
 trine of the New." 
 
 Again he says 
 
 "This was enough to persuade me that he was not a man of loose and 
 shattered parts, incapable to argue, and unfit to convince those he had to deal 
 with. God knows how to choose fit instruments for the business he employs 
 them in. A large stock of Jewish learning he had taken in at the feet of 
 GaJmaliel ; and for his information in Christian knowledge, and the mysteries 
 and depths of the dispensation of grace by Jesus Clnist, God himself had con- 
 descended to be his instructor and teacher. ...... 
 
 "This being only the safe guide (under the S irit of God that dictated 
 these sacred writings, etc. . . . - . . 
 
 "For, granting that he was full stored with the knowledge of the things 
 he treated of, for he had light from heaven, it was God himself furnished him, 
 and he could not want; allowing also that he had ability to make use of the 
 knowledge givei for the end for which it was given him, etc. 
 
 "He fully possessed the entire revelation ho had receivid from God, had 
 
11 
 
 thoroughly digested it, all the parts were formed together in his mind, into one 
 well contracted, harmonious body, etc." 
 
 The Apostle's statements therefore in Romans 10; 16 20,"For Esaias saith," 
 and "Esaias is very bold and saith," are more authoritative than those of Dr. 
 Briggs, even on the ground of uninspired scholarship, for wiih at least equal 
 intellectual equipment and scholarship he lived two thousautl years nearer the 
 time when the Book of Isaiah was written. It is to be noted that Dr. Briggs 
 does not dispute the authorship of the latter half of the Book of Isaiah on the 
 basis of any te.«timony which he can show wAs not in the possession of or availa- 
 ble to the Apostle Paul The arguments of Dr. Briggs from style, biblical 
 theology, historical situation, and the New Testament, were all equally availa- 
 ble to the apostle. 'Therefore, it would seem to any ordinary mind, that as 
 between the Apostle Paul, uninspired, and Dr. Briggs, the opinion of the 
 former should be taken in preference to that of the latter, especially as Dr. 
 Briggs himself, in 1876, when he translated the commentary on the Book of 
 Ezra, entertained the same opinion, and has only hitely changed his mind. 
 
 CLAIMS OF MODERN SCHOLARSHIP. 
 
 It is difficult to see how so-called modern scholarship can lay any just claim 
 to new or additional evidence as to the authorship of the latter part of the Book 
 of Isaiah, or superior intellectual ability in applying the rules of evidence on 
 the question of authorshij), to that of former generations. The Apostle Paul, 
 and I he scholars of his generation, so far as the authorship of the latter half of 
 the Book of Isarah is concerned, were as competent to determine that author- 
 ship on the evidence then ejcisting, as any of our modern scholars. The 
 progress of the ages has added no new evidence to the fact of authorship, and 
 certainly has not added anyihing to the intellectual gifts of the race. Certain 
 claims of so-called modern scholarship and progriss might be called, to some 
 extent, modern fads. Some of its claims are so saturated with egotism, and so 
 blinded with unconscious self righteousness as to disqualify the claimants and 
 victims from using aright the information they possess, and from making that 
 careful and judicial analysis of facts essential to correct conclusions worthy of 
 true scholarship. Surely in the matter of the scholarship affecting the Jewish 
 scriptures and the authorship thereof, the Apostle l*au!, uninspired, was the 
 
12 
 
 superior of Dr. Briggs, and as between him and Dr. Briggs, on the question of 
 who wrote certain words in the Old Testament, we would naturally believe 
 Paul, even when uninspired, in preference to Dr. Briggs. 
 
 Did the apostle believe Isaiah wrote and spake the words as stated by him 
 in Romans 10 ; 16-20? Did he know he did not speak them when he said be 
 did? If the apostle knew that Isaiah was not the author of and never spake the 
 words, when he said he did, he deliberately told what was untrue. Dr. Briggs 
 says, " Defence," p. 147: 
 
 "If these New Testament writers testify that Isaiah wrote these passages, 
 then the testimony of the New Testament is against the opinion I have 
 expressed that Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name, etc." 
 
 Does not this make a square issue? If Dr. Briggs is right that Isaiah did 
 not write or speak these passages, and he affirms Isaiah did not, and if the New 
 Testament writers affirm he did, then the latter told what was not true, either 
 ignorantly or wilfully. 
 
 god's truthfulness involved. 
 
 On the other hand, believing as we do and as the great majority of Christ- 
 endom does, that the passages cited from Matthew, Luke, John, Acts and 
 Romans were inspired, then the question is one involving the truthfulness of 
 the author of the inspired word. 
 
 You will certainly admit that God knew who wrote the passages in ques- 
 tion. God being omniscient, knowing the end from the beginning, and know- 
 ing who wrote the disputed passages, the issue is between God and Dr. Briggs. 
 
 It is to be borne in mind, as we have already said, that these statements 
 thus inspired by God are parts of the book which Dr. Briggs, by his ordination 
 vow, in order to obtain admission into the Presbyterian ministry, declared to be 
 the Word of God. There was no reservation of these passages as being unin- 
 spired, and not a part of the Word of God made by Dr. Briggs when he took 
 the ordination vow. By the term^ of that vow, he is precluded and estopped 
 from saying that these passages are not a part of the Word of God, and that 
 their authors in writing them were not inspired. 
 
 If it be true that Isaiah never said these words, and that the Holy Ghost 
 never spake these words by Isaiah the prophet, then God must be the author 
 
18 
 
 of untruth, and that not in a matter of opinion, or speculation, but in a direct, 
 positive, unequivocal statement of fact. Will any man dare to assert that the 
 knowledge of Dr. Briggs as to who wrote these words, Isaiah or a "Great 
 Unknown," is superior to the knowledge of the omniscient God? 
 
 "The Book of Isaiah said" could not mean "Isaiah said" if the portion 
 of the book bearing his name was not in fact written by him, and he was not 
 believed to be its author. If in fact the whole of the book bearing the name 
 of Isaiah was written by Isaiah, it might well be said that the words "Book of 
 Isaiah says" and "Isaiah says" are equivalent. But to claim that "Isaiah 
 said" and "The Book of Isaiah said" mean the same thing, when the per.«on 
 using the first phrase does not believe that the passages cited, or the portions 
 of the book containing the passages cited, were really written by Isaiah, is a 
 contradiction on a question of fact, and involves the veracity or lack of consci- 
 ence or sense of the person making the statement. 
 
 EXPLANATIONS AND THEORIES. 
 
 The attempted explanations and theories of Dr. Briggs leveal a curious 
 state of mind. Here is one claiming to be a scholar whose function it is to 
 state facts correctly, and make his statements clear, plain and easily under- 
 stood, asserting that "The Book of Isaiah says" is equivalent to the statement 
 " Isaiah says," while denying that the passages and the portions of the book in 
 which the passages in question are found, were really written by Isaiah. And 
 further, that the God-given, God inspired declarations of Matthew, Luke, 
 John and Paul: "Spoken by Esaias the prophet," "The ivords of Esaias the 
 prophet," " Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet imto our fathers, 
 saying," " The saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake," 
 '.' These things said Esaias," " For Esaias saith," " But Esaias is very bold, and 
 saith," mean nothing more than that Esaias never said any such things ; the 
 Holy Ghost never did speak the words cited unto the fathers by Esaias, but 
 only that these statements are to be found in a book bearing by tradition 
 Isaiah's name, the latter part of which, including these passages, Isaiah did 
 nut write, and was not living when the words thus attributed to him were 
 spoken. 
 
 Is it within the power of a sane mind to imagine a course of reasoning, 
 
14 
 
 and invent a line of argument and teaching more completely d structive of the 
 distinctions between truth and falsehood, and which more violently shock the 
 sense of common honesty than this, thereby rendering faith in the Bible 
 and its author impossible? 
 
 Did God know when he inspired the writers to make the statements that 
 Isaiah did say, did speak these words, that Isaiah did not speak any such 
 words ? Then God is the author of untruth. Were these statements by the 
 sacred writes uninspired? Then the statements made by them were either made 
 in ignorance, or were wilfully false. Where do we find that these statements 
 were the uninspired declarations of Matthew, Luke, John and Paul? On what 
 evidence is pr, Briggs able to convict these writers of ignorance or falsehood? 
 If he has succeeded in convicting them of either ignorance or falsehood, of 
 what value are their other writings? What faith can be placed in the New 
 Testament Scriptures penned by them? 
 
 We stand amazed at the awful presumption involved in the cool assertion 
 that Isaiah never spake the words thus attributed to him in Matthew, Luke, 
 John, Acts and The Romans. We are appalled at the audacity of men who 
 thus challenge the omniscience and veracity of the Eternal God. 
 
 As for you, posing with your "Calm Review," let me suggest that you 
 make another review, and reverse your conclusions when you say : 
 
 "It is possible tliat Dr. Briggs may not be correct in all his conclusions 
 regarding the authorship of parts of the Pentateuch and parts of the Book of 
 Isaiah. He may have made mistakes, such as all students are liable at times to 
 make, or such as any minister may sometimes make in his interpretation of the 
 text from which he preaches ; but that he has fallen into any vital error, or that 
 he has cast any slight upon any part of the inspired word, either in the course 
 of his study, or in the conclusions he has reached, is the reverse of what has 
 been proved by all the records of the case." 
 
 Tlie condition of mind involved in a direct challenge of the veracity of 
 God by one who has subscribed to the ordination vow of the Presbyterian min- 
 istry, is difficult to understand. God is absolute truth. Nothing that is his 
 can, in the nature of things, be a mis-statement of fact. No consideration of 
 any kind would justify God, the Eternal Word, the Eternal Truth, in stating 
 certain portions of the Book of Isaiah to have been written by Isaiah, when in 
 
15 
 
 fact they were not so written ; or even countenancing, without correction or 
 protest, in his word, statements that are untrue, with reference to these 
 portions. 
 
 What kind of a conception of God has a mind that assumes that Christ 
 would do this for any reason, and yet claim that he can remain in the Church 
 as a minister loyal to his ordination vow, while declaring that Christ is God 
 manifest in the flesh, sinless and inerrant. 
 
 A CONCEPTION OF GOD. 
 
 Apart altogether from the ordination vow of Dr. Briggs, and his explicit 
 dealaration that the Bible is the Word of God, and that these passages form 
 a part of that Word, would any man of sound mind say that what you call the 
 mistakes of Dr. Briggs in his conclusions touching the authorship of parts of 
 the Book of Isaiah, are not vital errors, and do not cast any slight upon any 
 part (if the inspired Word? It would be interesting to have your conception 
 of God, and what would constitute a slight upon his Word. The conception 
 of God as revealed to us in his Word, and declared in the standards of the 
 Presbyterian Church, is absolutely inconsistent with the idea of errancy, mis- 
 take or falsity of statement, or a lack of knowledge e-sential to a correct state- 
 ment of fact. 
 
 Omniscient, knowing all things, infinite in truth, incapable of error, 
 falsity or mistake, how can it be said that such a God inspired a creature to 
 write for him, as a part of his Word, the statement that Isaiah said thus and 
 so, when in fact, Isaiah never did say or write such words. Some of us might 
 be panloned for saying that the conception of God involved in the teachings of 
 Dr. Briggs touching the inspired Word of God, are such as to render God un- 
 worthy of the worship and confidence of the race. Why should any human 
 soul be asked to risk its eternal destiny on tiie word of a God who either did 
 not know what he was saying when he inspired the statements that Isaiah said 
 thus and so, or else deliberately mis-stated the facts. 
 
 THE ISSUE DIRECT AND CLEARLY DEFINED. 
 
 There is no room in this Isaiah charge for speculation or different con- 
 structions of language. The passages cited in the specifications contain 
 
16 
 
 affirmative, unequivocal declarations that a certain man wrote or spoke certain 
 words, as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. As we have said, no question 
 is raised as to the correctness of the translation of these words; it is not claimed 
 that they were not a part of the original manuscript. The Word of God no- 
 where indicates that these statements are other than a part of it, and a necessary 
 part of it. The ordination vow of Dr. Briggs covered the passages cited to 
 sustain the charge, and yet we are told by one who assumes an air of great 
 impartiality, superior intelligence, and calmness of review, that while Dr. 
 Briggs may not be correct in all his conclusions regarding the authorship of 
 parts of the Book of Isaiah, none of his mistakes constitute vital error, or cast 
 any slight upon any part of the inspired Word. 
 
 Can this mind, so evenly balanced, so colorless in its conceptions as to be 
 able to write what it calls a calm review, tell us what is vital error, if teaching 
 that denies God's omniscience and veracity is not such? Or how a slight can 
 be cast upon the Word of God, if not by denying the truth of certain explicit 
 statements contained therein ? 
 
 It may be freely conceded that in the absence of any declarations in the 
 Bible as to who wrote certain parts of the Book of Isaiah, the question of their 
 authorship would be wholly unimportant, it being admitted that they are a 
 part of the AVord of God, but that Word speaks directly and positively on the 
 authorship, and it is these statements that Dr. Briggs challenges. It is to be 
 noted that Dr. Briggs in his defence admits the prophecy to be a part of the 
 Word of God, while he denies the Isaiah authorship. If, therefore, the 
 prophecy is a part of the Word of God, inspired by him, and if another part 
 of the same Word, inspired by the same God, declares that these prophecies 
 were written by Isaiah, and Dr. Briggs demonstrates that this is untrue, he 
 destroys the Word of God, and renders it unworthy of belief. 
 
 In our opinion, as a member of the court which decided the cases, and as one 
 who read Dr. Briggs' defence before the New York Presbytery, before rendering 
 the decision, it does not seem possible to believe in the omniscience and veracity 
 of God, and believe that the passages cited in the specifications are a part of the 
 Word of God, and at the same time maintain that Isaiali never wrote or spake 
 the words which are therein declared to have been written or spoken by him. 
 
 As the writer said on the floor of the General Assembly, when these 
 charges were under consideration on their merits, "The question is, which will 
 
17 
 
 we believe, God or Dr. Briggs ? And now we ask, who knows best as to the 
 authorship of the Book of Isaiah. If it be conceded that the omniscient God 
 knows best, this question is settled in favor of the authorship of Isaiah, for it 
 is so declared by him in his inspired Word. Either the Bible is God's Word or 
 it is not. Who the penmen were may be of little moment. They were but 
 the instruments for conveying to the race the message of the Eternal God. 
 To cast doubt on his omniscience, to question his veracity, is to destroy faith 
 in that book on which rests the eternal destiny of the race, and this doubt is 
 cast by those who say that the statements of God in his Word that Isaiah is 
 the author of the passages cited in Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and Romans, 
 as aforesaid, are untrue. 
 
18 
 
 The Final Judgment; and the Action of the 
 Assembly in the Case. 
 
 The following are quotations from your book : 
 
 "Had the Assembly of 1893 observed distii>ctions of terms, and made 'a 
 careful analysis of the real meaning of Dr. Briggs under each charge ' as the 
 Assembly of 1836 did in the case of Mr. Barnes, the verdict of acquittal by 
 the New York Presbytery would have been sustained by the Washington . 
 Assembly." (P. 187.) 
 
 "The sooner the world is assured that Dr. Briggs does not either hold or 
 teach a single one of the heretical doctrines for the alleged holding of which 
 he has been condemned and suspended from the gospel ministry, the better for 
 the Church and for the world at large." (P. 188.) 
 
 " My deep conviction is that Dr. Briggs has not been justly convicted of 
 heresy, but that, on the contrary, he has been condemned and suspended from 
 the ministry for deducing sound doctrines from the Word of God, — doctrines 
 which are contrary to nothing contained in the Westminster standards." (P. 
 195.) 
 
 " Is there no relief from such a position ? There is. It will be competent 
 for another General As.sembly, after due investigation, to say that the circum- 
 stances surrounding the trial of Dr. Briggs were such as prevented the Assem- 
 bly at Washington from being in proper possession of all the facts and 
 arguments presented, and that, as the result. Dr. Briggs was condemned for 
 holding heretical views, which he solemnly disavows, and for holding extra- 
 confessional views, which were only supposed to be heretical ; and that on a 
 more minute and extended examination of the evidence and arguments in the 
 case tlian it was possible for the Assembly at Washington to make, it has been 
 found that the accused did not either hold or teach heretical views, and that 
 therefore he be relieved of the sentence passed upon him." (P. 190-191.) 
 
19 
 
 Why did you write this book ? What \vg,s to be gained by publishing it 
 other than a brief notoriety ? Did you write it in the interest of the peace and 
 purity of the Church? Was it your purpose to secure that obedience to 
 authority tliat is essential to the maintenance of any Church ? Were you seek- 
 ing by this production to increase ift our beloved Church throughout all its bor- 
 ders, that respect for the decisions of its supreme tribunal to which they are 
 entitled, and which every minister and elder is under vow to accord to them? 
 Can you name anywhere a more uncalled for attack than you have thus made 
 against lawful authority, or a more insidious attempt to undermine the courts 
 of our Church and to disturb its peace? 
 
 The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is the Supreme Court 
 of one of the greatest denominations in Christendom. It was the Court that 
 tried Dr. Briggs, and was composed of over five hundred members selected 
 from among its ablest and best men, a Court of which you yourself have said 
 " many of its members were men of learning, and all of them were earnest and 
 conscientious men." That Court, after Bays of patient hearing, after according 
 Dr. Briggs all the time he asked for the presenation of his case, after the fullest 
 consideration, and after an agitation extending over years, found him guilty 
 and condemned his teaching by a vote of 383 to 116. 
 
 You, a stranger, if not an intermeddler, not a member of the Court, with- 
 out the obligaticms of a judge resting upon you, in this book that you call a 
 "calm review" deliberately declare the Assembly's decision wrong and unjust, 
 and say as to the judgment and sentence pronounced by that Court: 
 
 "My deep conviction is that Dr. Briggs has not been justly convicted of 
 'heresy, but that, on the contrary, he has been condemned and suspended from 
 the ministry for deducing sound doctrines from the Word of God — doctrines 
 which are contrary to nothing contained in the Westminster standards." 
 
 And furtlier, on page 189, you say: 
 
 " Nor has the wrong done been simply a wrong to Dr. Briggs. He may 
 be able to endure to be misunderstood. His consciousness of having to endure 
 this may itself be a source of comfort to him. He may look unto One infi- 
 nitely greater than all earth's divines, who was charged with being a blasphe- 
 mer and condemned by the leaders of the orthodox Church of his day, and 
 may feel that in having to bear a like cross after him he is infinitely honored." 
 
20 
 
 What is to be said of the position taken by you, that Dr. Briggs in his 
 trial and sentence is to be consoled by the trial and sentence of the Jord Jesus 
 Christ, as if the cases were in any sense parallel ? In what respect are they 
 parallel ? Who made you competent to determine that the 383 members of 
 the Assembly who adjudged Dr. Briggs guilty, and sentenced him, rendered 
 a wrong decision ? Who made you a court of last resort and that of infallible 
 judgment, thus to reverse the General Assembly ? 
 
 ERROR IN JUDGMENT NOT PRESUMED. 
 
 It is true, as you state in your book, " that Gelieral Assemblies sometimes 
 err," and it is true that even the Supreme Court of the United States has 
 been known to reverse its own decisions. But it is equally true that the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States and the Gener.il Assembly have rendered a 
 thousand times more decisions in which they have never reversed themselves, 
 and in an overwhelming majority of cases have rendered just and righteous 
 judgments. There is no presumption that courts err, the presumption always 
 is that their decisions are just. Who constituted you a tribunal to review 
 the judgment of the General Assembly, the Supreme Court of the Church? 
 What qualifications have you for that position ? Did it ever dawn upon you 
 while making this "calm review," that you could err, and that in promulgat- 
 ing these opinions, in publishing them, and in attacking the prosecuting com- 
 mittee and others you may have been guilty of an error, committed a stupend- 
 ous blunder, done irreparable evil and injury, and that you may have inflicted 
 a grevious wrong on the Church of Jesus Christ? 
 
 Frankly, is it possible for you to err ? 
 
 Is not this book, this calm review, as uncalled for, as unwarranted an 
 assault on the peace, purity and faith of our beloved Church as could be made? 
 
 It is true that all men are free to express their opinions touching any de- 
 cision by any Supreme Court, but it is also true that those who are members 
 of the Presbyterian Church, and especially those who are bound by its ordina- 
 tion vows, should, when her courts have spoken, loyally submit, although the 
 decisions may not meet with their approval. Decision and authority must 
 rest somewhere; there must be a court of last resort, and the Presbyterian 
 Church has constituted her General As-erably her supreme judicatory in the 
 
21 
 
 interpretation of her doctrines and constitution, and all loyal Presbyterians 
 accept her decisions as final. 
 
 Notwithstanding this, we find an unwise and needless agitation going on in 
 our Church, promoted and maintained by such publications as yours, and by 
 circulars and otherwise, and which finds expression in such resolutions as the 
 following : 
 
 "Resolved, That we view with apprehension the attempt of the General 
 Assembly to make new definitions by dogma and deliverance and by judicial 
 decisions, and express our conviction that no doctrinal statement which is not 
 explicitly contained in the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of the 
 Church, is binding on her office-bearers." Who determines finally what the 
 confession and catechisms mean, if it is not the General Assembly? 
 
 A PARALLEL CASE. 
 
 ■ The Supreme Court of the United States is the judicial and final interpreter 
 of the Constitution of the United States, and its judgments are final and binding 
 on all who live under that Constitution. What would you think of a body of 
 lawyers who, having submitted their causes to that court for decision and 
 having been defeated after patient and full trial, would meet in a caucus or 
 convention and solemnly resolve "that they view with apprehension the 
 attempt of the Supreme Court of the United States to make new deffinitious 
 of law, by deliverance and by judicial decision, and expressing their convic- 
 tion thaf no law is binding which is not explicitly contained in the statutes of 
 the United States enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution ? 
 
 Would you not treat such conduct as childish ? Is it childish on the part 
 of lawyers and manly on the part of ministers? 
 
 Had the General Assembly decided, by a vote of 388 to 116, to sustain 
 the appeal of Dr. Briggs, it would have been interesting to have read your 
 "caZm review" and the opinions of those of your school who are seeking a 
 reversal. Instead of the resolution being that you and your school view with 
 apprehension the attempt of the General Assembly to make new definitions by 
 dogma and deliverence, we would have had a resolution that you view with 
 gratitude the conduct of the General Assembly in the case of Dr. Briggs, by 
 deliverance and by "dicial decision confining itselt strictly to the Constitu- 
 tion, as you nterpret i . 
 
22 
 
 Is it not idle to be assailing the decisions of the Supreme Conrt, the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, because they do not run our way and do not suit our pre-con- 
 ceived opinions? The case of Dr. Briggs was not decided on any technical 
 grounds or misunderstanding of his views, as you charge. Dr. Briggs assailed 
 certain parts of the Word of God and declared them to be untrue. He assailed 
 the faith of our Church in the Word of God. The issue was not one of mis- 
 construction or misurjderstanding of his teachings. His statements were clear 
 and well defined, as I have shown in the matter of the Isaiah charge. He and 
 his school challenge the omniscience and veracity of God and the truthful- 
 ness of the Bible. They claim it is errant, and false in its historical statements. 
 Their assaults upon that book are utterly destructive, to the ordinary mind, 
 of any faith in its statements. 
 
 Do you believe that Isaiah said the words that in JNIatthew, Luke, John, 
 Acts and Romans are attributed to him? If you do, you cannot agi^e with Dr, 
 Briggs. If you do not, then you challenge the knowledge and veracity of the 
 writers, and if you believe these siatements are a part of the Eternal Word, 
 you challenge the omniscience and veracity of the Eternal God. 
 
 OUR CHURCH AND THE BIBLE, 
 
 The position of the Presbyterian Church on this point is unmistakable. 
 She declares that God gave a revelatidU of His will to the race, the Word of 
 God, the Bible. She declares that the revelation thus given was a fixed quan- 
 tity, a unit, a book, and is the product of the Eternal God. When given by 
 hira to the race, it was absolutely inerraut. The copies which we now possess 
 and use, if they do contain mistakes or iliscrepaucies, contain only such mis- 
 takes and discrepancies as must have arisen from translation or copying which are 
 not, and cannot be, a part of the Word of God. Just as the mistaken and dis- 
 crepancies which may exist in the copy of the statutes of any State are not a 
 part of the statute themselves, nor are the legislators the authors thereof. It 
 is not these mistakes and discrepancies Dr. Briggs and his school assail, it is 
 the statements historical and otherwise of the original, or what is conc^eded muet 
 have been a part of the original. 
 
 Those of us who lay uo claim to scholarship, are amazed at the audacity 
 and lack of originality in the present attacks u[)()ii the Word of God by reason 
 
23 
 
 of alleged errors. Nearly all of these alleged errors have been shown to be the 
 stock in trade of Paine and Voltaire, and Dr. Briggs and his school are simply- 
 peddling the stale rationalistic chestnuts of Paine and Voltaire. They do not 
 say thiit any seeming mistakes are the work of human hands, and are therefore 
 not a part of God's Word. They say that the claim that they did not exist in 
 the original Word that caine from God cannot be maintained. 
 
 Let them say that if any errors or discrepancies exist in the present copies 
 of the Bible they are not a part of the Word, as that Word was given by God, 
 and that if there are any mistakes or discrepancies they aa-e, and must be, the 
 work of human hands, and they will then be in harmony with the faith of the 
 Church. Bear in mind that we do not concede that it has been satisfactorily 
 proven that there are errors, mistakes or discrepancies in the Bible, as we now 
 have it. for none of the so-called mistakes have been demonstrated to be 
 such. Essential to the faith of the race in the Word of God is the belief 
 that the revelation which the Eternal God gave to the race is as inerrant 
 and free from mistake as its divine author, and that when our copies are freed 
 from all of errant man's alleged mistakes and discrepancies in copying, trans- 
 lating and transmitting, if there be such, we have now the inerrant Word of 
 our inenftant God. 
 
 YOUR CONDUCr. 
 
 In what you claim ns zeal for the truth, and your desire to promote 
 the peace and purity of the Church and in your cabn and impartial review, 
 let me ask you why you spake of the General Assembly and the Prosecuting 
 Committee as follows: 
 
 "Judging as a disinterested observer, the majority of the Assembly never 
 properly apprehended Dr. Briggs' position. They never succeeded in looking 
 at the matters in dispute from his point of view." P. 31. 
 
 "Those who spoke as representing the views of the minority, appeared to 
 see the case from the same point of view with my.self, and to reason correctly, 
 while the representatives of the majority seemed to view it from a wholly dif- 
 ferent standpoint, and to reason accordingly." P. 38. 
 
 "The prosecuting committee utterly failed to meet Dr. Briggs here. They 
 said several things as if in reply, hut their statements are so indefinite and 
 conflicting, etc." P. 49. 
 
24 
 
 "The unsoundness of the position taken by the prosecution is made still 
 more apparent by the violence they do to Scripture in their attempt to maintain 
 their position." P. 64. 
 
 "If this be not sufficient to prove the correctness of the position the prose- 
 cution once and again almost tauntingly attributed to Dr. Briggs, turn to the 
 thirteenth chapter of the First Book of Kings, and read at the eighteenth 
 verse." P. 91. 
 
 *' We may be thankful that the above statement by the prosecution is a 
 mis-statement." P. 99. 
 
 "The prosecution contend that if the Bible contains within its pages any 
 of the false words of men "it lacks the one essential of infallibility, absolute 
 truthfulness of all its contents." One cannot but be amazed that intelligent 
 men should reason in such a way." P. 101. 
 
 "But it is unnecessary to gu on exposing the fallacies of the argument of 
 the prosecution by which they support equally fallacious charges." P. 102. 
 
 " The prosecution seem to have a sacred dread of the thought of using 
 their reason in matters of religion. In all soberness, I believe that this ac- 
 counts for the singularly unreasonable pasitions they have taken up in con- 
 nection w th this whole case." P. 105. 
 
 It must occur to the ordinary mind that there is an assumption of superior 
 knowledge and ability, and unconscious self-righteousness on your part, 
 in making these attacks on the Assembly and the prosecuting committee. 
 If you were so an.vious to serve the cause of truth and the peace of the 
 Church, why did you indulge in such uncalled-for, unjust and unwarranted 
 reflections on those who had no other interest in the case than fidelity to truth 
 and their ordination vows as they understood them ? 
 
 HYPER-CONSERVATIVES. BRO.^B LIBERALS. 
 
 In an age when those who voted against Dr. Briggs are sneeringly called 
 hyper-conservatives, and those who voted for him are proudly called broad libe- 
 rals, permit me to say that calling such names and indulging in such talk is the 
 chatter of children. Those who are called hyper conservatives have as much 
 right to the term "broad liberals" as those who arrogate to themselves the 
 
25 
 
 exclusive possession of that title. We yield to no man in our desire for true free- 
 dom. No class of men have made greater sacrifices for freedom, and for the 
 Church and her faith thau the men now sneeringly called hyper-conservatives. 
 It is not a question of names or of sentiment ; it is a question of what is right 
 and what is wrong; what is fundamental to the faith of our Church, and what 
 is essential to faith in God's truth, 
 
 OUR CETURCH STANDS FOR FAITH AND OBEDIENCE. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church has always stood for faith, for loyalty to her 
 standards, for obedience to authority, and for that true freedom whose highest 
 expression is implicit obedience to law. The trial and sentence of Dr. Briggs 
 were in entire harmony with the historic faith and conduct of our great denom- 
 iniation. Her people felt that her faith was vitally assailed by one who bore 
 her name and had obtained entrance into her ministry under a solemn vow 
 made in the sight of God to maintain that faith. 
 
 Without respect of persons, unawed by wealth or social position or the 
 fictitious notoriety of scholarship, the General Assembly tried the case of Dr. 
 Briggs in the fear of God, and rendered a just and righteous judgment. She 
 deprived him of no right, but with a patience born of God, she accorded to 
 him every right, and granted him a fuller hearing than would have been 
 granted in any civil court in the land. Without heat or passion, and impelled 
 solely by her sense of duty, our Church has reached a decision, which, in our 
 opinion, tvill never be disturbed, and which is vital to her existence and the 
 preservation of her faith in God and His Word. 
 
 THE AFTERMATH. 
 
 Have you read the articles of Dr. Briggs that have appeared in the 
 North jLmerican Review and in Uie Forum since the trial of his case, and his 
 utterances at the so called Parliament of Religions ? If so, do you not find in 
 these utterances the logical result of the teachings that were condemned by the 
 General Assembly at Washington, and are you not now sorry you have pub- 
 lished your book ? One of the papers of our Church that cannot be accused 
 of hyper-conservatism, has declared ' ' these utterances to be those of an un- 
 
26 
 
 balanced mind." Is our beloved Church to continue to suffer and be kept on 
 the waters of agitation and turmoil for such a man and such a cause? 
 
 Why should there be such persistent efforts made, by the misuse of 
 platitudes, and in the name of liberty and constitutional rights, for a reversal 
 of the decision of the General Assembly in the Briggs case, by those whose 
 entire time and service should be consecrated to the maintenance of the faith of 
 the Church, and the promotion of its peace and purity by obedience to the de- 
 cisions of its lawfully constituted courts? What would be gained by a reversal 
 of the judgment in the Briggs case? Would agitation cease on the happening 
 of such an event? Would not those whose judgment had thus been set aside 
 have the same right to agitate for a reversal of the reversal as the small minority 
 which is now so persistently seeking to set aside a decision, which is the delib- 
 erate conviction, after a full hearing, and years of consideration, of the great 
 majority of the Church ? Is there no court of last resort ; are there no final 
 decisions in judicial cases in our beloved Church ? 
 
 Why should the time and talents of some of our ministers and professors 
 be so largely devoted to this needless, fruitless agitation, and to examining the 
 Word of God with a powerful rationalistic microscope, apparently eager to 
 find, in the name of modern scholarship, specks cast by human hands upon the 
 pure diamond of the Word of God ? Having discovered such specks on the 
 surface of the diamond, why should they be so jubilant in declaring that these 
 specks are a part of the diamond itself, a part of the Word of God, and there- 
 fore the work of God ? 
 
 That Word of God has been attacked in like manner in the name of 
 scholarship in all ages since God gave it as His written word to the race for 
 the salvation of their souls. 
 
 Let me close with the words of the Rev. Archibald G. Brown, of London, 
 written January, 1894, from the Hotel des Anglais, Mentoue : 
 
 "The Word of God is being assailed from every quarter, and the holy 
 writings that Jesus loved and believed are being degraded to a mere 
 human literature. We want no one to help us under any false impression, 
 and therefore think it only honest to avow that to us the Bible is the 
 Word of God from Beginning to End. Jesus Christ is to us the 
 highest of all critics. He has stamped the Old Testament Scriptures as true, 
 and declared them to be all they claim to be. If he was mistaken, as some 
 
27 
 
 tell us, we .elect to be mistaken with Him. The very supposition is blas- 
 phemous. Within sight of where we sit is the window of the room in which 
 dear Spurgeon breathed his last. He has gone, but his witness against the 
 "down grade" still lives. In all parts of the world there are faithful souls 
 that sigh and cry as he did, because of the apostacy of the age. Pray God 
 that they may be multiplied, and that England may once again honor the 
 Bible, that has been the secret of her prosperity in the years that are past. 
 We have tluis frankly let you know just where we stand, and what we seek to 
 preach and teach by our own voice, and the voices of the missionaries. They 
 go from house to house with what we believe to be the infallible Word of God 
 in their hands. If this witness and testimony be yours also, we make bold to 
 ask your help." 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 THOS. McDOUGALL. 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, March 13, 1894. 
 
mm