!;j|;f^i|ii^|!|;!i;i!iBiii;:);ii|iiii^^ 
 
 ' \ 
 
f v.L;!■^»+.Mier«sl55S'5alI?iU'^\ii■.^''Vc.t:l■*^:.v)*fe;,s,y:' V 
 
 ^,Zo.'o^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^1 a&t fHhtobsitH! ^ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 %. 
 
 Presented bpPvQ- 7S'rB.\i^u<7xr\\<2j .A ,^."X). 
 
 1^, 4 
 
 Di7nsion 
 Section ■ 
 
TiiK (uusrs 
 
 -IN- 
 
 t < 
 
^^- .-. ,^Le^ ,/^v4-^^v7 l^^/of-^^. 
 
 WHAT HAS CAUSED THE CRISIS? 
 
 Ill 1S(;<) the Old aiul New School hi-aiiches (jf the Pri3sl»yto- 
 liaii (hurtii reunited, adopting a " Pliin (jf Reunion," the Hrst 
 yentenee of which declaresi, '' each recognizing the other as a 
 sound and orthodox hody according to the Confession." At 
 that memorable epoch, which was hailed hy the entire Church 
 with devout congratulation and thanksgiving, who could have 
 imagined that before twenty years had elapsed a Professor in 
 (»ne ol' our theological seminaries — and that a seminary whose 
 most distinguished Director and most distinguished Professor 
 were prominent as leaders in ett'ecting the reunion — should pul>- 
 lish a volume impugning the orthodoxy of the accepted theol- 
 ogy of the Church, asserting that " modern Presbyti-rianism had 
 departed from the Westminster Standards all along the line;" 
 that " it is necessary to overcome that false orthodoxy which 
 has obtruded itself in the })lace of the AN estminster orthodoxy ; '" 
 that" the theology of a large proportion of the ministry of the 
 Presb^'terian churches stands in the way of progress in theology 
 and of true Christian orthodoxy, and there is no other way of 
 advancing in truth excejtt by removing the errors tliat obstruct 
 our path." 
 
 " This i)olcmic," as the author styles his work, had not for 
 its object, as might be sujtiHised, to i)ring the Church Ijack to 
 orthodoxy according to the Standards, but for an entirely diller- 
 ent — it might l)e said, the very opi)Osite — i)Urpose. With com- 
 mendable frankne.ss he says : , 
 
 "The time has come for the reconstruction of theology, of 
 |»olity, of worship and of Christian life ami work." 
 
He avows that 
 
 *' subscription to elaborate' creeds is tlie great sin of the Lutheran 
 
 and Reformed dhurehes.'' 
 
 He asserts that 
 
 " Presbyterians an; l^ound b}' their own history to meet the 
 Episcopalians on the platform of the Lambeth Articles — (1) the 
 Hoi}' Scriptures as the revealed word of God ; (2) the two Sac- 
 raments — Bai)tism and the Lord's Supi»er ; (8) the Nicene Creed 
 as the sufhcicnt statement of the Christian faith, and (4) the 
 Historic Episcopate. " 
 
 In a subsequent newspaper article, to which we shall have 
 further occasion to refer, he says : 
 
 "The E])iscopal Church lays aside her XXXIX Articles; 
 let Presbyterians lay aside the Westminster Confession." 
 
 It might have been supposed that the Directors of the Sem- 
 inary would have promi)tly informed the author that as a Pro- 
 fessor in a Presbyterian theological seminary it Avas not his busi- 
 ness to reconstruct the accepted theology and polity of the 
 Church, l»ut to maintain and defend them ; that if he could not 
 conscientiousl}' do so, he must find some other field of labor, 
 where he might prosecute his self-appointed work without dis- 
 turbing the peace of the Church. And yet — AVilliam Adams 
 was dead ; Henry Boynton Smith was dead. Instead of an ex- 
 pression of disapproval, a new professorship is founded, into 
 which the author is inducted that he might devote himself ex- 
 clusively to reconstructing the theology of the Church, by sul)- 
 stituting whatever he might regard as '' biblical "' for whatever 
 he might see tit to rei)udiate as " traditional."' 
 
 The Chair was founded and the Professor api)ointed Novem- 
 ber 11th, 1890. He informed the Board of his acce}ttance of the 
 new professorshi}) January 7th, 1891. INIuch light is thrown on 
 our in(}uiry as to the causj of the existing disturbance of the 
 peace of the Church and the impending crisis, by the following 
 extracts from an article by the Profess or- elect, [)ublished in TJie 
 Independent of January 1st, 1891. Alter referring to the two 
 parties in the Church, the conservatives and progressives, he 
 says : 
 
•' Tlu' conservatives are, lor the most part (leiioiniiiatioiial- 
 ists, ]»ut the pro^'ressives are imliHerent to (leiioiiiinatioiial ditf- 
 erence. 'I'lie |)i'o<:ressivts have hroken throuijli the harriers, und 
 are ri'inoviiijr tlie o!)struetions with <ireater (lili^rciiei- a>ul iiiore ra- 
 pidity than the conservatives can restore them. 'I'hey are now 
 the most powerful jiarty. Tiie only hope of the (conservatives 
 is to unite the conservatives ot" all denominations a<j;ainst the 
 projiressives ol'all denominations. But so soon as this is aiteonj- 
 ]»lished the denominatictus will pass out ot existence, and two 
 ;:reat ]>artics will divide Christianity hetween them. The old 
 controversies are dead and huried ; it is impossihle to revive 
 them. Those dillerences that <iave the denominations their cx- 
 istenci' liave lost their importance. 'Ihc Jiedj/cs arc so drij <ind 
 lirittle llitit (till/ iiuin <ij ncrrc iiKtijudlk (/iroitf/li t/ieia iritlioitl a nay itch. 
 
 ft OilliJ lurd.s rilK STIMri..\Tlo.\ OF A (iUKAT TIIKoLOUICAL (ONTHO- 
 
 VKKSY, or of a (jrcat inond reform, to fuse the broad firof/rcffi^irc party 
 Into (I solid cnthii.sia-'^iic //(a.ss. The .sif/n-s of the times indicate that we 
 arc rapidli/ approachinci .such a crisis, that irill dcstroij dcnominatioii- 
 "llsiii and make the Church of Christ one.'''' 
 
 The italics are ours. In the interest of the trutli on the 
 important subject of our incjuiry we emphasize the avowed 
 
 .J views and anticipations of the reco^nii/.ed lender of the ])ro<i;res- 
 sives, at the time he assumed the resjjonsihle duties of a Pro- 
 fessor of i)il>lical Theology in a I'reshytcrian thcolo<);ical semi- 
 nary. 
 
 Three weeks alter this announcement of an impending 
 crisis, and of the causes which were renderin<!; it inevitahle, with 
 the implication that in view of the ultimate result it wiis desira- 
 hle, on January 20, 1891, the Professor was inauijurated. His 
 .\ddress on that occasion lias now hecome historic, .\ftcran in- 
 troduction in which the late eminent President of the Seminary 
 
 I is referred to as " one of the prophets of his time, who foresaw 
 that the revision movement was coming, and a transformati(ni of 
 ihii)lii(iji icas neeessari/,'' [Italics ours] he announ<-cd as thesuhjcK^t 
 of the Address a theme most ai)i)ropriate to the occasion ''The 
 Authority of Holy Scrijiturc " 
 
 We presmne the statement will not l>e called in (piestion 
 that the Address was a painful surprise to those who helieve the 
 Scriptures arc the word of Cuh\. the iid'allihle rule of faith and 
 
() 
 
 practice — at least a tjurpritjc to those who were not familiar with 
 previous utterances of the Professor. With wisdom as to method, 
 if not as to object, the work of reconstructing the theology of the 
 Church was commenced at the foundation. Instead of a defense 
 of the autlioritv of the Holy Scriptures against tlie current 
 assaults of rationalists and infidels, the whole trend of the Ad- 
 dress was to invalidate the connnon faith in their infallibility 
 and supreme authority. The supernatural element in their in- 
 spiration was minimized, the evidential character of miracles 
 and predictive i>ro|tliecy depreciated, and the reason and the 
 Churcli — Itut i)rominently "the reason including conscience and 
 the religious feeling" — presented as sources of divine authority, 
 and so far as indicated in the Address, co-ordinate with tJie Scriptures. 
 The Address was received with favor and commendation 
 b}'^ rationalistic newspapers and periodicals, and by the unevan- 
 gelical religious press and pulpit. It was, with scarcely an 
 exception, disapproved and condemned by the press of all 
 evangelical Churches. Without preconcert upwards of sixty 
 presbyteries overtured the General Asseml)ly to take action in 
 regard to it. On the recommendation of the Committee on 
 Theological Seminaries the Assembly of 1891, by a vote of 
 seven-eighths of the Assembly, exercised its veto i)Ower according 
 to the compact between the Assembly and the Seminary, and 
 expressed its disapproval of the appointment of the Professor. 
 A substitute ior the recommendation of the Committee on 
 Seminaries, {)roposed l)y the minority, referred to the utterances 
 of the Inaugural as "certainly ill-advised and as having dis- 
 turbed the i)eace of the ('hurch " and reconnnended 
 
 *• that a committee be appointed, (1) to confer Avith the Directors 
 of the Seminary in I'egard to the relation of the Seminary to 
 the Assembly ; (2) to request the Directors to reconsider their 
 action ; and (3) to advise that in any case the Professor be not 
 allowed to give instruction during the year previous to the 
 meeting of the next Assembly. " 
 
 It was therefore virtually the unanimous judgment of the 
 Assemblv that the ol)iectionable utteranc^es of the Inaugural 
 
were disturhinu the peace of the Church, and their continuance 
 could not l)e tolerated in a Professor in a PreshA'terian theolt>gi- 
 cal seminary. 
 
 In view of tliis action, and of a Presbyterian minister's 
 ordination vow of " subjection to his brethren in the Lord," it 
 might have been expected that the disturbance of the peace of 
 the Church would be speedily terminated by the resignation of 
 the Prolessor or action of the Directors. Instead of this, a 
 technical issue is raised by the Directors as to the legality of the 
 action of their predecessors in office — that is, as to the legality 
 of their own action as a corporate body — in entering into the 
 compact in accordance with whidi the Asseml)ly had exjiressed 
 its disapjiroval of the appointment of the Professor. The action 
 of the Assembly was accordingly ignored in fact, though not in 
 form, the Professor being retained in tlie discharge of the duties 
 of the new professorship without assuming the title. It is proper 
 here to remark that, in view of the decided sentiment of the 
 Assembly, as expressed during the discussion of the report of 
 the Committee, by both those who favored the rej)ort and those 
 who i)referred the substitute, it is unquestional>le that had there 
 been no compact, the Asseml)ly, by a practically unanimous 
 vote, in the exercise of its constitutional power " of rei)roving 
 and bearing testimony against error in doctrine, and of sup- 
 jiressing schismatical contentions and disj)utations," would have 
 "Xpressed its condemnation of theobjectionalile utterances of the 
 I iiaugural in far more emphatic terms than a simple disapproval 
 of tlie appointment of the Professor. 
 
 The committee appointed by the Assemldy to confer with 
 the Directors of the Seminary, having failed to adjust the iioints 
 at issue in the interpretation of the compact, reported the result 
 to the Assembly of 181)2. A new committee was accordingly 
 appointed to propose to the Directors to refer the matters at 
 issueto approved arbitrators, whose judgment should be accepted 
 by both parties as authoritative and final. Instead of awaiting 
 a conference with this committee the Directors obtain an ex-parte 
 legal o[»inion, and on the strength of it the compact which had 
 
8 
 
 originally Ijeeii [iroposed l>y the Seininarv Directors, the validity 
 of which liad for twenty years been recognized without question, 
 during which time the Seminary, under the conditions of the 
 compact, had received large endowments, is declared by the Di- 
 rectors to have lieen null and void ab initio. Assuming that by 
 this ex-parte legal opinion they were released, not only from all 
 moral as well as legal o))ligation of the compact, but also from 
 ordination vows, " to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the 
 purity and peace of the Church," and "to be in subjection to 
 their l)rethren in the Lord,'' and notwithstanding the practically 
 unanimous judgment of the highest judicatory of the Church 
 deliberately expressed, the disai)proved Professor is retained, 
 and his ai)pointment as Prolcssor of Bil)]ical Theology con- 
 firmed. 
 
 A movement in the Presl)yterian Church to reconstruct its 
 theology — which is a very diffeient thing from a revision of the 
 Confession — might be ignored so long as it could be regarded as 
 the vagary of an individual. But when it is indorsed by a theo- 
 logical seminary, and the reconstructor placed in a position of 
 prominence and influence for the very purpose of prosecuting 
 his assumed vocation more efficiently, Fresbyterianism being what 
 it ix, the progress of the movement must, sooner or later, bring 
 its leader into collision Avith the constituted authorities of the 
 Church. No one can say that in the present case there has been 
 undue haste on the part of the authorities. Those interested in 
 the movement have gravely maintained that on the i)rinciple of 
 the civil-law statute of limitation no effort should now be made 
 to arrest the movement because the effort was not made sooner. 
 
 That a trial for heresy is to l)e deprecated is unquestion- 
 able. It is equally unquestional^le that if the fundamental 
 ])rinci})les (»f the Presl)yterian Church government were faith- 
 full}^ regarded by office-bearers in the church, trials for heresy 
 would never occur. l)Ut it is also unquestionable that if these 
 principles and regulations founded on them are persistently dis- 
 regarded and violated, loyalty to Presltyterianism and fidelity 
 
f) 
 
 to ordination vows icniler a trial lor licrcsy a ri<i;hteous 
 necessity. 
 
 What is Preshyterianisni ? It is not Con«i;re;,Mtionali.sin. 
 This simple fact is of itself a conclusive reply to those who de- 
 nounce the arraignment of Dr. Briggs by his presbytery and 
 the api)eal of the Connnittee of Prosecution. The discussion of 
 this case reveals that a misconcei)tion as to what Presbyterian- 
 ism is prevails to a consideralde extent not only among outsi- 
 ders but even in the Prcsl)yterian ministry. To coi'rect this mis- 
 concei»tion wc call attention to the fundamental principles of 
 Presbyteriaiiism as indicated in the following extracts from 
 '■ The Form of (iovcrnment,' the ecclesiastical Constitution of 
 the Presbyterian Church. (Italics in the (quotations ours.) 
 
 " God alone is the Lord of the conscience, and hath left it 
 free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are 
 in anything contrary to his word or beside it in matters of faith 
 and wt)rship: Therefore the right of jirivate judgment in all 
 matters that respect religion is universal and unalienable."' 
 
 " In perfect consistency with the al)Ove principle of connnon 
 light, every Christian Church, or union or association of par- 
 ticular churches, is entitled to declai'c the terms of admission 
 into its (•(iiin)vntion, and the <[ualitications of its ministers and 
 members, as well as the whole S3'stem of its internal government 
 which Christ hath appointed. In the exercise of this right they 
 may err in nuiking the terms of communion either too lax or 
 too narrow; yet even in this case they do not infringe upon the 
 liberty or the rights of others but onl}' make an imi»roper use of 
 their own." 
 
 ■•()ur l)less('(l Saviour, lor the edification of the \isible 
 Church, hath api)ointed oHicers not only to preach and admin- 
 ister the sacraments but also fo exercise disci jiline for the preser- 
 vation of l)oth truth and duty."' 
 
 "■ Xo o})inion can be moi'c pernicious and absurd than that 
 which brings truth and falsehood on the same levid and repre- 
 sents it as of no conse<iuence what a man's o])inions are."' 
 
 " Under the conviction of the aliovc princii»le, they think it 
 necessary to make etl'ectual provision that nil who are adinUted as 
 taichers be sound in thcfdith.'' 
 
 " If the preceding scrii)tural and rational principles l)e sted- 
 fastly adhered to the rif/or and strictness of its discijdiae will con- 
 tribute to the glory aii(l ba]ipincss of any church."' 
 
1(1 
 
 The ''eti'ectual jji-ovisioii '" made for .SDundnesM in the faith 
 of "all who are admitted as teachers " is as follows : 
 
 " No candidate, except in extraordinary t-ases. shall l)e 
 licensed unless he has studied divinit_y at least two 3'ears under 
 some approved divine or professor of theology. " 
 
 He is examined, among other things, in " theology," and is 
 not licensed unless his examination is " sustained." He is 
 further required to avow not only that lie helieves "the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and New Testaments to lie the word of God. 
 the onl}' infallible rule of faith and practice," but also that he 
 '■ sincerely receiyes and adopts the Confession of Faith as con- 
 taining the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." 
 When a licentiate applies for ordination he is again examined in 
 " theology " ; he is required to renew the licensure vows just 
 mentioned and to assume among others the following : " Do you 
 promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?" "Do you 
 promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of 
 the Gospel and the purity and peace of the Church, whatever 
 persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?" 
 We may remark in passing that the latter clause of this latter 
 vow indicates that the framers of the Form of Government an- 
 ticipated the consequences of fidelity in maintaining the purity 
 and peace of the Church, of which the recent trial has furnished 
 a notable illustration. 
 
 \'ows similar to the above arc rc(|uired of elders and 
 deacons at their ordination. 
 
 In reference to these ordination vows it should lie oliserved, 
 the ethical principle is api)licable that a promise is binding in the 
 sense in lohich the p?'07»^^tT believes the promisee understands him. 
 One who receives ordination to the ministry from a presbyter}' 
 is bound b}' the promises reciuired by and given to the i)resby- 
 tery, not in whatever sense he may be able to put upon the 
 words of the vows liut in the sense in Avhich he believes the}' are 
 understood and intended by the presbytery. 
 
 The above quotations from " the Form of Government," and 
 others that might be added, clearly indicate the distinctive char- 
 acteristic of the Presbyterian Church as a branch of the Church 
 
11 
 
 of Jesus Clirist, nanu-ly, a common kaitii j'ormvlalcd in a Confes- 
 sion con(aintn(/ uhat JWibi/lcridns believe is the si/stem of doctrine 
 taiKjht in t/ie Holy Scriptures. For Iheiviaiiitenaucc and defense uf 
 this coiiiiiion faith the form of t^overnnicnt is liasccl on the i)rin- 
 eii»le iiHi)hed in the vow of .sul)jection to l)rethren in the liOrd. 
 namely, the ride of the majority constitutionally exprcKised, including 
 the intei'pretafion of the doctrinal Standards. 
 
 In the extension of the Church the maintenance of the 
 ]»rineii)Ie is provided tor Ijy a series of judicatories, each lower 
 judicatory l)eiu<r under the sui)ervision of and responsihle to 
 the judicatory immediately al)Ove it in the series, from the low- 
 ist whose jurisdiction is over a single congregation, to the high- 
 est whose jurisdiction is over the entire Church. 
 
 The simple statement of these fundamental itriiuiples of 
 l'resl)yterianism and the regulations founded on them, exposes 
 tlie fallacy of the contention that the decision of a question of 
 doctrine hy a single preshytery should he accepted by the entire 
 Cliurch ns authoritative and final— a contention the more re- 
 markahle as tlie fallacy had l)een made palpahle l)v conflicting 
 decisions l»y two presbyteries on substantially the same issue. 
 It also exposes the fallacy of a kindred contention, that because 
 in a civil court if one tried for crime l)e convicted he may ai)peal 
 to a higher court but if ac(|uittcd there can be no ap])ea], 
 therefore, if the (jucstion whether certain doctrinal teach- 
 ing is inconsistent with the Standards l)e decided by a jtres- 
 bytery in the affirmati re there maybe an appeal to a higher judi- 
 catory, but no ap])eal if the decision is in the neyative. 
 
 As to the main (piestion under consideration — the responsi- 
 bility for the disturl)ance of the peace of the Church and the 
 graver crisis still imjtending — the above statement of Presby- 
 terian i)rinciples and regulations founded on tiiem would seem 
 to settle the (piestion l)eyon(l the i)ossibility of a reasonal)le 
 doubt. A Presbyterian minister receives ofhcial authority to 
 preach and to teach from a presbytery, after having given to the 
 presl)ytery certain ))romises — these promises l)eing binding in 
 the sense in which helielieves thej' are understood and intemled 
 
12 
 
 l»y the presliytery. Not only docs he thcreliy l)ccoinc responsi- 
 ble to the ju'eshyter}', hut the jur.-^liijtcr;/ fherclnj heroine-^ rc--<iK)ih'^tblc 
 to God, the Churchy and the wurld for Jiis tcacJiivg. What then is 
 the duty of a Preshytevian niinister if, suhsecjuent to his ordi- 
 nation he should he led to entertain views which he has reason 
 to helieve might have prevented his ordination had they l)een 
 at that time held and avowed — if, moreover, he re<!;ard these 
 views as so important and his conviction of them so decided 
 that lie feels it his duty to teach and to })reach them? 
 
 This important practical question Dr. Brigos was called on 
 to decide. For altho it he true that upward of sixty meml)ers of 
 the Preshytery of New York have placed upon record their judg- 
 ment that his notoriously ohjecti(niabIe views are within the 
 " limits of lil)erty allowed by the Constitution to scholarship 
 and o])inion," we presume they Avould, with possibly a 
 few exceptions, admit, that if a candidate for ordina- 
 tion were to avow as his belief that " there are three great 
 fountains of divine authority — the Bible, the Church and the 
 Reason," and should illustrate his meaning as to the authority 
 of the Church and the Reason by the cases of Newman and 
 Martineau ; or should state that he felt it due to himself and to 
 the presbytery to say that in avowing that he believes " the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of 
 God," he does not mean that the entire Scriptures are the word 
 of God but that they contain the word of God and that we must 
 determine Avhat portion /.•>• the word of God by the reason, includ- 
 ing conscience and the religious feeling ; also, in avowing that 
 he believes the Scrij^tures are "the infallil)le rule of faith and 
 practice " he wishes it to he understood he does not regard the 
 Scriptures as infallible in their historical or scientific state- 
 ments, there is not a presbytery in the Church that would 
 (»rdain the candidate and even in the Presl>ytery of New York 
 there would not be more than a dozen, Dr. Briggs included, in 
 favor of the ordination. 
 
 To the ({uestion above mentioned the answer clearly in- 
 dicatcil in the principles of Presbyterian Church government 
 
referred to un(juestional»ly is, that in llie case t^uitpo.sed it would 
 lie the duty of the nnnister— certainly under all ordinary eir- 
 cunistanees his duty — to seek an interview with his preshytery, 
 and state fully and frankly to his hrethren in the Lord from 
 whom he received ofHcial authority to jireach, and to whom In- 
 had vowed suhjection, the views he had reason to helieve they 
 miiiht regard as olijectional>le, and suhmit for their decision 
 whether helieving as he did and puhlicly avowing that helief, he 
 could remain in the ministry of the Preshyterian ("hurch. 
 Against the decision he or any mend>er of the preshytery would, 
 of course, have the constitutional rii-ht of "complaint"" to 
 Synod, and if needs he to the Assemhly. Should it he decided 
 that the views in (piestion were inconsistent with essential 
 <loctrines of the Standards he should then peaceahly withdraw 
 fi-om the Preshyterian ministry. 
 
 A minister in the case sup])Osed may decline to take the 
 course just mentioned. It is the course indicated in the terms 
 of the Act hy which the Westminster Confession was ado]>ted in 
 172'.». it is the course indicated in the Plan of Reunion of the 
 Synods of New York and Philadelphia in ITo.S. It is inii)lied in 
 the fundamental principjes of Preshyterian Church government. 
 It is involved in the ordination vows " to maintain the i»eace of 
 the Church "" and "to he in suhjection to hrethren in the Lord."" 
 It was formally reconnnended hy the Assemhly of 187N. And 
 yet there is no statute requiring it. A nunister therefore in tin- 
 case sujjpo.sed has the legal right to say, if any of "the hrethren "" 
 regard my views as incon.«istent with the doctrinal Standards 
 let them airaign mc for heresy and test the ([Uestion hy judicial 
 proc'css. 
 
 For reasons satisfactory to himself I)i\ Hriggs. we doulit not 
 dcliliei'atcly and conscientiously, saw lit to take tlic iattci- course. 
 We Were careful ahove to say we regarded the former course as 
 the projier course " under all ordinary circumstances. "' We can 
 ri'ailily understand why l)r. P>i-iggs sliouM regard the circum- 
 stances in his case as extraordinary. In his article in Tin' 
 Iinlependent on the eve of his inauguration, he assumes that (Iw 
 
14 
 
 oi'ijanic unity of the Church is a consuiiiniution not only devoutly 
 to be wished, l)ut for whieli it is a duty to strive, by removing 
 the obstructions that are in the way. The great obstacle is 
 " denoniinationalisni," of course including Presbyterianism. To 
 reach the desired goal, denominationalisni, with the exception 
 of denominationalism based on tiie so-called ''Historic Episco- 
 })ate," must be removed. He says : 
 
 " TJie differences that gave the denominations their exist- 
 tence have lost their imi)ortance. The hedges are so dry and 
 brittle that any man of nerve may walk through them without 
 a scratch. It only needs the stimulation of a great theological 
 controversary to fuse the broad progressive party into a solid 
 enthusiastic mass. This rapidly approaching crisis will destroy 
 denominationalism and make the C'hurch of Christ one." 
 
 M'ith this concei)tion of " the hour and the man "' of nerve 
 needed for it, is it strange that a conspicuous leader in the pro- 
 gressive movement, indorsed in his work of reconstructing the 
 theology and polity of the ("hurch by the Directors and Faculty 
 and patrons of one of the most venerable and influential of 
 American theological seminaries, should regard his case as ex- 
 traordinary and as justif3'ing a virtual challenge of arraignment 
 for heresy ? 
 
 By amicably submitting his progressive views to his ecclesi- 
 astical brethren and, in case of their disapproval, withdrawing 
 from the ministry of the Church, he would indeed prevent any 
 serious disturbance of the peace of the Church, but " a great 
 theological controversy " that loould agitate and distract the 
 Presbyterian Church is the one thing needful to destroy the 
 most formidable form of denominationalism — Presbyterianism ; 
 and if the distraction can he protracted by raising issues as to 
 technicalities of form and order, and thus }n-eAent for another 
 year a decision of the main issue by the General Assembl}^, then 
 the continuance of the disturbance of the peace of the Church for 
 another year is not only an ecclesiastical privilege but a Christ- 
 ian duty. Should a matter comparatively so unimportant as an 
 ordination vow "to maintain the peace of the Church," prevent 
 men of nerve from In-eaking down the hedges of the Presbyterian 
 
15 
 
 Chuivh wlifii l'r('.sl)yteri;inisin fjtand.s in the way of a iTsult so 
 important and desirable as the unity (jfthe Church on the hasis 
 of the "Historic p]itiscoj)ate? '' 
 
 We do not jiresunie to sit in jud}j:nient on Dr. lirig<:s for the 
 course he has seen fit to take ; " to his own .Master he standeth or 
 falletli." Hut havinjf taken his course intellitrently, deliherately, 
 and in full view of the inevitable consequences, for Dr. iiriggs 
 and his syiiipatliizers and in >nsyni])athizing defenders to attri- 
 bute tlie disturbance of the i)eace of the ("hurch and the graver 
 crisis still ini[)ending to his arraignment by his presbytery and 
 the actiiin of the prosecuting Committee is like South Carolina 
 and her synii)athizers and non-sympathizing defenders attribut- 
 ing the War of the Rebellion to Abraham liincoln. In fact, the 
 history of the deplorable conflict in the nation seems to l)e 
 repeating itself in the deplorable conflict in the Presbyterian 
 Church. In ISGO Union men throughout the South denounced 
 the secession of South Carolina, at the same time declaring if the 
 Federal (Jovernment shall undertake to coerce a State, in the 
 interest of State rights we siiall defend South Carolina. Just so 
 now many are saying, we disai)prove of the views of Dr. Briggs, 
 they are " certainly ill-advised and are disturbing tlie peace of 
 the Church," nevertheless if the Assembly shall undertake l)y 
 discipline to prevent Dr. Briggs continuing to teach and to 
 preach his objectionable views as a Presbyterian minister, in the 
 interest of freedom of thought and freedom in the expression of 
 oj)inion, we sliall stand l)y Dr. Briggs. In one respect the 
 revolutionary movements in the nation and in the Church are 
 not analogous. In the former the conflict was due to the 
 attempt of South Carolina to secede from the Union; in the 
 latter the conflict would cease if the disturber of the peace of the 
 Church would ])ut exercise his mKjuestioned right of seces- 
 sion. Ditterent cases require different treatment. L<l us have 
 peace.