■MttUUnFiih iilliili' ti ■ ■ ■ . . ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTH General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, In the United States of America, PORTLAND, OREGON, MAY, 1802. THE Presbyterian Church in the United States of America AGAINST r The Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D. RECORD OF THE CASE. INCLUDING THE APPEAL TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND ALL PAPERS PERTAINING TO THE CASE. FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Represented by GEORGE W. F. BIRCH, D.D., JOSEPH J. LAMPE, D.D., ROBERT F. SAMPLE, D.D., JOHN J. STEVENSON, JOHN J. McCOOK, > PROSECUTING COMMITTEE, Appellant . 0 ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTH General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, In the United States of America, PORTLAND, OREGON, MAY, 1892. THE Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against The Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D. RECORD OF THE CASE. INCLUDING THE APPEAL TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND ALL PAPERS PERTAINING TO THE CASE. FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Represented by GEORGE W. F. BIRCH, D.D., JOSEPH J. LAMPE, D.D., ROBERT F. SAMPLE, D.D., JOHN J. STEVENSON, JOHN J. McCOOK, PROSECUTING COMMITTEE, Appellant. PRESS OF DOUGLAS TAYLOR 8 WARREN ST, N. Y. INDEX. PAGE. Appeal to General Assembly*. 4 Proceedings in the Presbytery of New York, in the case. 24 Dr. Birch’s resolution to consider Dr. Briggs’ Inaugural Address. 24 Dr. Hastings’ proposed overture as to action of Presbytery of Chester- 25 Dr. Briggs’ protest against appointment of Committee to consider Inaugural Address. 29 Report of Committee to consider the Inaugural, recommending judicial investigation. 31 Report of Minority of Committee to consider the Inaugural. 50 Judicial Investigation ordered.-. 58 Dr. Briggs’ Notice of Protest and Complaint to Synod against Report of Committee to consider Inaugural and action of Presbytery thereon.. 58 Prosecuting Committee appointed. 58 Dr. Briggs withdraws Notice of Complaint to Synod. 59 Prosecuting Committee reports progress. 59 Committee appointed to answer Dr. Briggs’ protest against appointment of Committee to consider Inaugural. 59 Dr. George Alexander’s motion to suspend the order of the day. 60 Report to Presbytery of Prosecuting Committee. 61 Dr. George Alexander’s substitute for recommendation of Prosecuting Committee. 64 Recommendation of Prosecuting Committee adopted. 68 Report of Committee to answer Protest of Dr. Briggs against appoint¬ ment of Committee to consider Inaugural. 68 Agreement between Dr. Briggs and Prosecuting Committee as to date of trial. 70 Trial arrangements. 7 ^ Service on Dr. Briggs of Charges and Specifications and Citation. *0 Charges and Specifications as served upon Dr. Briggs. 70 Citation to Dr. Briggs to appear for trial. 114 Stenographer, Official appointment of. H4 General Rules for Judicatories adopted. 115 Dr. Briggs declines to have Counsel. H ,:> INDEX. • • 11 PAGE. 115 Dr. Briggs makes return to Charges. ... Dr. Briggs files objections to Charges. Dr. Briggs’ Response to the Charges and Specifications. 115 Moderator decides Committee is a Committee of Prosecution representing the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and is an original party. Moderator’s decision as to status of Prosecuting Committee appealed from and sustained by the House. Dr. Henry Van Dyke’s Notice of Protest, Dr. Francis Brown’s Notice of Complaint and Dr. Briggs’Notice of Appeal against decision of Mod- erator as to status of Prosecuting Committee and action of the .73$ 146 Presbytery thereon. Dr. Henry Yan Dyke’s motion to dismiss the case. 146 Committee appointed to answer Dr. Yan Dyke’s protest. 146 Final Judgment of Presbytery dismissing the case. 147 147 Yote on Final Judgment. Prosecuting Committee give Notice of Appeal. 149 Yote of thanks to Prosecuting Committee. 149 Dr. Francis Brown gives notice of complaint against decision of Presby¬ tery to enter upon its records a motion by Elder Woodbury, which was lost, to discharge the Prosecuting Committee. 149 Stenographer s Minutes of the trial. 1^^ Dr. Francis Brown’s Notice of Complain 1. 257 Dr. Francis Brown’s Notice of Complaint II. 259 Report of Committee appointed to answer protest of Dr. Yan Dyke as to ruling of Moderator and action of Presbytery as to status of Pros¬ ecuting Committee. Certificate of stated Clerk authenticating proceedings. 270 Notice to Dr. Briggs that case would be brought on for hearing before next General Assembly and reply.. and 272 New York, November 13 th, 1891 . To the Rev. Samuel D. Alexander, D.D., Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of New York. Dear Sir: The Prosecuting Committee, representing the Presby¬ terian Church in the United States of America, in the case of the Presbyterian Church against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., hereby gives written notice of appeal, with specifications of the errors alleged in the said case, from the decision and final judgment of the said Presby¬ tery of New York in dismissing the said case, as made at its meeting on the fourth day of November, A.D. 1891 , to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, to meet, as may be hereafter determined, at either Portland, Oregon, or Kansas City, Missouri, on the third Thursday of May, A.D. 1892 . The grounds of this appeal and the specifications of the errors alleged are hereto attached and made a part of this notice. By order and in behalf of the Prosecuting Committee, Appellant, George W. F. Birch, Chairman. APPEAL. New York, November 13th, 1891. To the Venerable the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Greeting: The undersigned, the Prosecuting Committee appointed by the Presbytery of New York, to represent the Presby¬ terian Church in the United States of America, in the case of the said Presbyterian Church against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., believing that the trial of the said Dr. Briggs is one of the most important in the history of the Presbyterian Church, by reason of the great and danger¬ ous errors contained in the Address of the said Dr. Briggs at his inauguration as Professor of Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary, delivered on the 20th day of January, 1891, upon which Inaugural Address charges and specifications were based and tabled and prosecution inaugurated by the Presbytery of New York in the name of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; and believing that the distinct and definite con¬ demnation of those errors by the Supreme Judicatory of the said Presbyterian Church is necessary in order to pre¬ vent their spread and influence in the denomination; and, while having the highest respect for the Synod of New York, believing that a special responsibility rests upon the General Assembly in cases that affect the doctrine of the Church, and concern the promotion of truth and holiness through all the Churches under its care, as set forth in Chapter XII., Sections 4 and 5, of the Form of \ 5 Government; and in view of the desirableness of the speediest settlement of this most important question, do hereby appeal to and request your Venerable Body to enter immediately upon the consideration and judicial investigation of the appeal, hereby presented, and to finally determine the case, so as to secure the purity and the peace of the Church at the earliest possible day. And in the further prosecution of the case on the part of the said Prosecuting Committee, the said Committee, the Appellant, respectfully sets forth: That on the thirteenth day of April, A.D. 1891, the Presbytery of New York appointed a Committee to con¬ sider the Inaugural Address of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., in its relation to the Confession of Faith, and that on May eleventh, A.D. 1891, the said Committee pre¬ sented to said Presbytery a report which is hereby referred to as a part of the record of the proceedings which culmi¬ nated in the decision and final judgment from which this appeal is taken. The said report was accepted, and its recommendation “ that the Presbytery enter at once upon the judicial investigation of the case” was adopted by the said Presbytery, and thereupon it was “ Resolved , That a Committee be appointed to arrange and prepare the neces¬ sary proceedings appropriate in the case of Dr. Briggs ? ’; « an d the Rev. G. W. F. Birch, D.D., Rev. Joseph J. Lampe, D.D., Rev. Robert F. Sample, D.D., and Ruling Elders John J. Stevenson and John J. McCook were appointed such Committee in conformity with the pro¬ visions of Section 11 of the Book of Discipline. That after the initiation of the prosecution by the said Judicatory, the Presbytery of New York, as above recited, the said Prosecuting Committee entered upon its duties. That in compliance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Book of Discipline, the Presbyterian Church in the 6 United States of America became an original party in the case, and was represented by the said Prosecuting Com¬ mittee, which said Committee, under Section 11 of the Book of Discipline, was charged with the duty of conduct¬ ing the prosecution in all its stages in whatever judica¬ tory, until the final issue be reached; and at a meeting of the said Presbytery, held on the eighth day of June, A.D. 1891, the said Prosecuting Committee reported progress, and informed the said Presbytery that charges and speci¬ fications would be tabled by the said Committee at the meeting of the Presbytery to be held in October, and the said Presbytery accepted the said report of progress. That at the meeting of said Presbytery, held on the fifth day of October, A.D. 1891, the said Prosecuting Committee presented a report which is hereby referred to as a part of the record of the proceedings which cul¬ minated in the decision and final judgment from which this appeal is taken. That the said Presbytery accepted said report and adopted its recommendations, and the charges and specifications in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., contained in the said report, were read in the presence of the Judicatory, and were served by the Moderator upon the said Rev. Charles A Briggs, D.D., together with a citation, citing him to appear and plead to the said charges and specifications at an adjourned meeting of the said Presbytery, to be held on November fourth, A.D. 1891. That after said report was presented to the said Presby¬ tery and the charges and specifications therein contained had been read and pending action upon said report, the Presbytery entertained a motion to arrest the judicial proceedings and to discharge the Committee from further consideration of the case as follows : “ Whereas , the Presbytery of New York, at its meeting 7 in May last, on account of utterances contained in an inau¬ gural address delivered January 20, 1891, appointed a Committee to formulate charges against the author of that address, Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., and, whereas, since that action was taken, the accused has supplemented those utterances by responding to certain categorical ques¬ tions. * * * “ Therefore , Resolved , that Presbytery, without pro¬ nouncing on the sufficiency of these later declarations to cover all the points concerning which the accused has been called in question, with hearty appreciation of the faithful labors of the Committee, deems it expedient to arrest the judicial proceedings at this point, and hereby discharges the Committee from further consideration of the case.” On the aforesaid motion to dismiss the case as expressed specifically in the words “ to arrest the judicial proceed¬ ings 5 ’ and ‘ ‘ hereby discharges the Committee from further consideration of the case, 5 ’ the Presbytery by a yea and nay vote refused to adopt the above resolution and to dis¬ miss the case. That on the said fifth day of October, A.D. 1891, the said Presbytery adjourned to meet on the fourth day of November, A.I). 1891, the day upon which the said cita¬ tion was made returnable, and that at said adjourned meet¬ ing on the fourth day of November, A.D. 1891, the said Presbytery was charged as a Judicatory in accordance with Standing Rule Number XL. of General Rules for Judicatories, and thereupon the said Presbytery proceeded in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., as recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the said Presbytery on said fourth day of November, A.D. 1891, which minutes are hereby referred to as a part of the record of the proceedings which culminated in the decision and final judgment from which this appeal is taken. 8 That on said November fourth, A. D. 1891, the said Dr. Briggs presented a paper purporting to be objections to the sufficiency of the said charges and specifications in form and legal effect, and that said paper was largely an answer to said charges or an argument upon the merits of the case, and was denominated by the said Dr. Briggs himself, a ‘ ‘ Response to the Charges and Specifications submitted to the Presbytery of New York, by Prof. Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D.,” and that the said Pres¬ bytery thereupon permitted members of the said Presby¬ tery to discuss the merits of the main question on behalf of the accused before and without permitting the Prose¬ cuting Committee to be heard on the merits of the case. That a question as to the status of the Prosecuting Com¬ mittee was raised, and the Moderator decided that the Committee was properly a Committee of Prosecution in view of the previous action of the Presbytery, and was in the house as an original party under the provisions of Section 10 of the Book of Discipline. That an appeal was taken from the decision of the Moderator, the question was divided, and the Moderator was sustained in the point, that the Committee was in the house as a properly appointed Committee of Prosecution, and also sustained in the point that the Committee, as representing the Pres¬ byterian Church in the United States of America, was an original party in the case. That on said November fourth, A.D. 1891, the said Presbytery made and entered on its records its decision and its final judgment in the said case in the following words, to wit: “ Resolved , that the Presbytery of New York, having listened to the paper of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against him as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect; and, 9 without approving of the positions stated in his Inaugural Address, at the same time desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church, and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Standards, and of his disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words, deem it best to dismiss the case, and does so dismiss it. ’ ’ That the said Presbytery also proceeded, as is more specifically set forth in the grounds of appeal and in the specifications of errors of the said Presbytery hereinafter alleged in accordance with Sections 95 and 96 of the Book of Discipline, and that some of the proceedings of the said Presbytery were omitted in whole or in part from the minutes of the said meeting on the said fourth day of November, A.D. 1891. From the aforesaid action of the said Presbytery of New York on the said fourth day of November, A.D. 1891, in dismissing the case, which was, so far as said Presbytery is concerned, the final judgment of the said Presbytery in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., in behalf of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, we, the undersigned, the Prose¬ cuting Committee in the said case, do hereby appeal to your Venerable Body, the General Assembly of the Pres¬ byterian Church in the United States of America, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 94 and 102 of the Book of Discipline. The grounds of this appeal are as follows : 10 FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL. Irregularity in the Proceedings of said Presbytery of New York. (Section 95, Book of Discipline.) SPECIFICATION FIRST. In this, that the said Presbytery of New York, while proceeding in said case under the provisions of Section 22 of the Book of Discipline, permitted the accused to read in the hearing of said Judicatory before he was required to plead c 6 guilty 5 ’ or “ not guilty, ’ ’ and admitted to its records and consideration, a paper which purported to be objections to the sufficiency of the charges and specifica¬ tions in form or legal effect, but which was in fact, and is as denominated by the said accused, a u Response to the Charges and Specifications submitted to the Presbytery of New York by Prof. Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D.,” which paper is hereby referred to as a part of the record of the proceedings which culminated in the decision and final judgment, from which this appeal is taken, which paper or “ Response ” consisted to a great extent of statements of fact or arguments on the merits of the case. That the said statements of fact or arguments on the merits of the case should not have been admitted or considered by the said Judicatory at this stage of the trial, and the admission and consideration of the said paper or “ Re¬ sponse 5 ’ in so far as said paper was an answer upon the merits, to the charges and specifications, and in so far as it was in fact a presentation of the case upon its merits for the defense of the accused, was an error and irregular. SPECIFICATION SECOND. In this, that the said Presbytery of New York during the proceedings of the said Presbytery in said case under the provisions of Section 22 of the Book of Discipline and 11 before the said accused was required to plead “ guilty,” or “ not guilty,” and when the said Presbytery should have considered nothing but the preliminary objections raised by the said accused as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect, per¬ mitted the Rev. Henry Van Dyke, D.D., Rev. Francis M. Brown, D.D., Rev. J. Hall McXlvaine, Jr., D.D., Rev. Thomas S. Hastings, D.D., Rev. Henry M. Field, D.I)., and Rev. Spencer L. Hillier, members of the said Presby¬ tery, to make pleas for the defense of the accused, which said pleas involved the merits of the case, while your ap¬ pellant, acting as a Prosecuting Committee, was heard only touching the sufficiency of the charges and specifica¬ tions in form and legal effect, and was debarred from pre¬ senting either testimony or argument touching the merits of the case, although your appellant, the Prosecuting Com¬ mittee, offered to the said Judicatory to prove and sustain each and every one of the charges and specifications by competent evidence, and out of the Scriptures and by the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, but without receiv¬ ing such evidence or hearing the arguments of the said Prosecuting Committee in support of the same, the Judi¬ catory voted to dismiss, and did dismiss, the case. (See Report of Official Stenographer, pages 51-59, 62, 66-68, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 92, 93, 98, 110, 120.) * SPECIFICATION THIRD. In this, that the said Presbytery, by rendering the said decision or final judgment, dismissing the case, prevented amendments from being made to the said charges and specifications, although your appellant, the said Prosecut¬ ing Committee, stated to the Judicatory that the Prose¬ cuting Committee could, in a very few minutes and with- * These figures refer to the pages of the Official Stenographer’s Report, as type written, hut the references can be readily found by turning to the corre¬ sponding numbers in the margin of the Stenographer’s Report, as printed at p. 150 of this record. 12 out changing the general nature of the same, amend the said charges and specifications so as to completely obvi¬ ate any objections raised by said Dr. Briggs, so far as said objections had any force or relevancy, as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form or legal effect, and proposed, in the furtherance of justice, that the Com¬ mittee should be permitted to make such amendments. (See Deport of Official Stenographer, page 41.) SPECIFICATION' FO URTII. In this, that the said Presbytery in its decision and final judgment voted to dismiss the case, not because the Pres¬ bytery had determined that the charges and specifications were insufficient in form or legal effect, but because it, the said Presbytery, was “ desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church, and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs touching his loyalty to the Holy Scripture and the Westminster Standards, and of his dis¬ claimers of interpretations put on some of his words,” whereas, the question of the sufficiency in form and legal effect of the charges and specifications, being a prelimi- naiy objection, should have been formally passed upon or determined by the said Presbytery as provided for by Section 22 of the Book of Discipline before dismissing the case in the manner aforesaid. SPECIFICA TION FIFTH. In this, that at the meeting of the said Presbytery held October fifth, A.D. 1891, the said Presbytery by a yea and nay vote refused to dismiss the case, by arresting the judicial proceedings, and discharging the Committee from furthei consideration of the case, that the vote to dismiss the case taken at the adjourned meeting on November fourth, A.D. 1891, was taken without action on the pre¬ liminary objections to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications as to form and legal effect, and without a reconsideration of the vote not to dismiss, which was 13 taken on said fifth day of October, A.D. 1891, and there¬ fore the vote to dismiss taken upon the said fourth day of November, A.D. 1891, was wholly illegal and null and void. SPECIFICATION SIXTH. In this, that the mode of procedure in the said Presby¬ tery in the consideration of the said case was practically to hear the case of the accused upon its merits before and without hearing the presentation of evidence in support of the said charges and specifications. SPECIFICATION SEVENTH In this, that in the paper or “ Response ” to the charges and specifications submitted by the accused, statements and arguments touching the merits of the case, referred to in the said action and final judgment of the said Pres¬ bytery as a ground for the said dismissal of and final judgment in the case by the use of the following words, to wit, “ declarations made by Dr. Briggs, touching his loyalty to the Holy Scripture and the Westminster Stand¬ ards, and of his disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words, 5 ’ were made and were given by the Pres¬ bytery the force of sworn, approbated and subscribed testimony (contrary to the provisions of Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the Book of Discipline), whereas, the said Dr. Briggs, in making or giving the said declarations and disclaimers referred to in the said final judgment, was neither sworn as a witness, nor cross-examined by the Prosecuting Committee, nor by any member of the Court. SPECIFICATION EIGHTH. In this, that the said accused was permitted to present and file objections to a portion of the report of the Prose¬ cuting Committee made to the Presbytery on October 5th, A.D. 1891, said portion being denominated by the said accused “ The Preamble ” ; and in that the said Presbytery or some of the members thereof considered the objections 14 of the said Dr. Briggs to the said Preamble a ground in whole or in part for the votes of the said members to dis¬ miss the case or for the said decision of the said Presby¬ tery, whereas the said portion of the said report or so- called Preamble was no part of the said charges and speci¬ fications and was not served upon the said Dr. Briggs as a portion of the said charges and specifications to which he was cited to plead. SPECIFICATION NINTH. In this, that the said decision and final judgment of the said Presbytery dismissing the said case before the said Prosecuting Committee was permitted to present evi¬ dence in support of the said charges and specifications pre¬ vented the said Judicatory from going into private session, the parties, their counsel and all other persons not being members of the body being excluded, for the “ careful deliberation ” required by Section 23 of the Book of Dis¬ cipline, before the Judicatory shall proceed to vote and to judgment. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL. Receiving Improper Testimony. (Section 95, Book of Discipline.) SPECIFICATION FIRST. In this, that in the paper or “ Response ” to the charges and specifications submitted by the accused, statements and arguments touching the merits of the case, referred to in the said action and final judgment of the said Presby¬ tery as a ground for the said dismissal of and final judg¬ ment in the case by the use of the following words, to wit, “ declarations made by Dr. Briggs, touching his loyalty to the Holy Scripture and the Westminster Standards, and of his disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words,” were made and were given by the Presbytery the 15 force of sworn, approbated and subscribed testimony (con¬ trary to the provisions of Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the Book of Discipline), whereas, the said Dr. Briggs, in mak¬ ing or giving the said declarations and disclaimers referred to in the said final judgment, was neither sworn as a wit¬ ness, nor cross-examined by the Prosecuting Committee, nor by any member of the Court. SPECIFICATION SECOND. In this, that statements and arguments were made by the Rev. Henry Van Dyke, D.D., Rev. J. Hall Mcllvaine, Jr., D.D., Rev. Thomas S. Hastings, D.D., Rev. Francis M. Brown, D.D., Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D., and Rev. Spencer L. Hillier as to the views and the orthodoxy of the said Dr. Briggs, which said statements and arguments are contained in the official stenographer’s report of the trial, which report is hereby referred to as a part of the record of the proceedings which culminated in the decision and final judgment from which this appeal is taken, and which said statements and arguments were given by the Presbytery the force of sworn, approbated and subscribed testimony, while the persons above named as making the said statements and arguments were not sworn as wit¬ nesses nor subjected to cross-examination by the Prosecut¬ ing Committee, nor by any member of the Court, as re¬ quired by the provisions of Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the Book of Discipline. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL. Declining to Receive Important Testimony. (Section 95, Book of Discipline.) SPECIFICATION FIRST In this, that the said Presbytery, in making the said decision and final judgment from which appeal is now 16 taken, made said decision and final judgment before any evidence was admitted in support of the said charges and specifications, although your appellant, acting as a Prosecuting Committee, was before the said Judicatory and was prepared and affirmed its ability and readiness to sustain by competent evidence each and every one of the said charges and specifications, while, notwithstanding such presence, such affirmation and such offer of the said Prosecuting Committee, said Committee was not granted any opportunity to present such testimony or evidence in support of the said charges and specifications. (See Re¬ port of Official Stenographer, pages 62, 66 and 67.) FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL. Hastening to a Decision Before the Testimony was Fully Taken. (Section 95, Book of Discipline.) SPECIFICATION FIRST. In this, that the said Presbytery rendered a decision and final judgment in the case by dismissing the same befoie any proper or competent evidence whatever was taken by or submitted to the Judicatory in behalf of the accused to disprove the said charges and specifications. SPECIFICATION SECOND. In this, that the said Presbytery in making a decision and final judgment dismissing the case from which appeal is now taken, rendered a decision in the said case before any evidence was taken in support of the said charges and specifications, although the Prosecuting Committee was. before the Judicatory prepared and affirming its ability and readiness to sustain by competent evidence each and every one of the said charges and specifications. (SeeKeport of Official Stenographer, pages 62, 66 and 67.) 17 FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL. Manifestation of Prejudice in the Conduct of the Case. (Section 95, Book of Discipline.) SPECIFICATION FIRST. In this, that the said Presbytery received and was moved by unsworn and improper testimony in the making of the decision or final judgment of the said Presbytery, said improper testimony being statements and arguments for the defense of the said accused, touching the merits of the said case, to wit: the aforesaid 4 ‘Response to the Charges and Specifications submitted to the Presbytery of New York, by Prof. Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D.” SPECIFICATION SECOND. In this, that several members of the said Presbytery, hereinafter named, who voted to dismiss the said case did so vote for reasons other than the insufficiency of the said charges in form and legal effect, and presented to the said Presbytery, as reasons for voting to dismiss the said case, statements as follows: Rev. Henry Van Dyke, D.D., said: “ First of all, is it for the interest of peace and unity and purity in the Church to try a man for his ecclesiastical life unde]’ circumstances which are calculated to exert a prejudice against him ? It is not necessary to allude to all these circumstances to-day—confusions in the atmosphere that have enveloped this matter from the very first; tur¬ bulent voices from ways which have been indicated to-day. It is not necessary for us to state these circumstances. Here is the preamble, which contains a serious and pain¬ ful allegation, which it is not even proposed to prove. * * * Is it for the interest of the peace and unity and purity in our Church to proceed to try a man for his life who has just made the professions of fundamental belief that have been made in the course of this paper that has 18 been read here to-day? * * * Will it tend to unify and to purify our Church to take a man who holds those beliefs, to put him on trial for his ecclesiastical life? A heresy trial is a great evil. The history of the Church proves it. It begets distinctions, suspicions, jealousies and strife. I admit that there are cases where it is a necessary evil, but to embrace the evil without a necessity is a sin against our brother, against the Church and against the work. * * * It is as clear as light that the Divine inspiration and the supreme authority of all the Holy Scriptures is not called in question to-day.” * * * (See Report of Official Stenographer, pages 51-59.) Also Rev. J. Hall Mcllvaine, D.D., said: ‘‘ That Inaugural Address contains nothing that he had not put in his books before. His books did not disturb the peace of the Church to any great extent, * * * and we have this Inaugural Address; but it was not to disturb the peace of the Church. It was the taking of phrases from it, the culling of words from it here and there, misrepresenting and misinterpreting them, sending them through the newspapers which breaks through the report, making them suspicious of heresies in the Presby¬ tery until no one knew what Dr. Briggs had said. I remember a member of one of the Presbyteries wrote to me and said, ‘ What in the world are you standing by Dr. Briggs for, when he does not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures? 5 and I wrote back to him, 4 You know no more about this case than one unborn.’ That is the case with three-quarters of the Presbyteries in the Assembly. It was through misrepresentations of Dr. Briggs’ sayings and his position, that this whole country was stirred up. * * * Is it wise at this time, when so many different points are under discussion ?—for example, here is this question of Moses and the Pentateuch—it is not wise for this Presbytery to array itself against a very large 19 part of the scholarship of the world. * * It is not the time to settle these questions about Moses and the Pentateuch.” (See report of Official Stenographer, pages 79-86.) Also Rev. Thomas S. Hastings, H.D., said: “ As I have listened to that remarkable paper which Dr. Briggs presented to us this morning * * * I could not see how any man who had in his heart a desire for the honor of the Church and her Blessed Head could permit this trial to go on. * * * I do desire that this case should stop where it is; and that this beloved brother should be permitted to go back again to the important work to which the Lord has called him, for I have lived long enough to know that a heresy trial burns over the ground, and blasts, and curses everything that is fairest and best—for the sake of these beloved pastors and the Churches which they represent, I desire that this case may stop where it is. * * * Sixty-three Presbyteries throughout the country have been interfering with the rights and prerogatives of this Presbytery in a way unparalleled in the history of the Church. * * * We approach this trial with the impossibility of fairness star¬ ing us in the face, because, without hearing, without judicial procedure, and without respect to the original right of the Presbytery, the stigma of the Court, the highest Court of our Church, has been put upon my be¬ loved brother; and if there were no other reasons than that, I, for one, should be here to argue that we cannot fairly try the case. Justice is impossible under the cir¬ cumstances ; * * * Then I must say I have one other reason for arguing for the dismissal of this case. I know Dr. Briggs’s views probably as well as any man in this house. I know that those charges are not true. I mean to say nothing against the character or integrity of the Committee; but I know of my own knowledge that he is not guilty under those charges and specifications.” (See Report of Official Stenographer, |3ages 92-94.) 20 Also Rev. Francis M. Brown, D.D., said: ‘ ‘ I would like to say that no restriction whatever is put around any member of the Presbytery in explaining his views to as great length as he pleases in any proper way. The public prints are open. It is simply a question as to whether this Presbytery, in view of all these facts, sees fit to arrest the debate and dismiss the case.” (See Report of Official Stenographer, page 120.) Also Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D., said: “I am afraid of this Committee. * * * We have created a Committee over which we have no power what¬ ever. We are in an omnibus, and they have the reins, and will drive us whither they will. This is the very reason that I want to ask the Presbytery to stop here. If we can stop it let us stop it now.” (See Report of Official Stenographer, page 98.) Also Rev. Spencer L. Hillier said: ‘ ‘ I am persuaded many of us, like myself, in the inter¬ est of peace and justice and righteousness feel that we want this matter adjusted and finished on a proper basis. We want to give a full and free and thorough expression of our faith and confidence to Dr. Briggs in what he has said.” (See Report of Official Stenographer, page 110.) SPECIFICATION THIRD. In this, that the said Prosecuting Committee in the fur¬ therance of justice was not given opportunity to present amendments to the said charges and specifications, although the said Prosecuting Committee proposed to amend the same according to the provisions of Section 22 of the Book of Discipline. (See Report of Official Stenographer, page 41.) SPECIFIC A TION FO UR III. In this, that while the merits of the said case were pre¬ sented by and for the accused under the guise of sub- 21 mitting objections to the sufficiency of the said charges and specifications in form or legal effect, the said appellant, acting as a Prosecuting Committee, was not permitted to introduce testimony or evidence in support of the said charges and specifications, although the said Committee was prepared so to do, and affirmed its ability and readi¬ ness to sustain, by competent evidence, each and every one of the said charges and specifications. (See Report of Official Stenographer, pages 41, 62, 66 and 67.) SIXTH GROUND OF APPEAL. Mistake or Injustice in the Decision. (Section 95, Book of Discipline.) SPECIFICATION FIRST. In this, that said decision and final judgment of the said Presbytery of New York, hereby appealed from, may be interpreted as an approval by the said Presbytery of the utterances in the Inaugural Address of the said Dr. Briggs for which he was and is called in question, and upon which the charges and specifications were based. SPECIFICATION SECOND. In this, that the said Presbytery of New York voted to dismiss and did dismiss and passed final judgment in said case, not because of the insufficiency of the said charges and specifications in form or legal effect, but for the mistaken and unjust reason expressed in the said final judgment in the following words, to wit: “ desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs, touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Standards, and of his disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words.” 22 SPECIFICATION THIRD. In this, that in the aforesaid decision and final judgment of the said Presbytery of New York in dismissing the said case the words ‘ £ without approving of the positions stated in his Inaugural Address ” and “ disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words ’ ’ are vague, in¬ definite and uncertain in their application and are in no sense a sufficient answer to or refutation of the alleged hurtful errors of the said Dr. Briggs contained in the said Inaugural Address upon which the said charges and specifications were based. SPECIFICATION FOURTH. In this, that the declarations made by Dr. Briggs touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Standards and his disclaimers of interpre¬ tations put on some of his words, to which reference is made in the resolution of the said Presbytery dismissing and expressing its final judgment in the said case are not, in any sense, a retraction or refutation of the hurtful errors contained in said Inaugural Address upon which the said charges and specifications tabled against him were based. SPECIFICATION FIFTH. In this, that by the dismissal of the said case by the said Presbytery of New York the earnestly desired peace and quiet of the church cannot be secured. SPECIFICATION SIXTH. In this, that the mode of procedure in the said Presby¬ tery in the consideration of the said case was, practically, to hear the case of the accused upon its merits before and without hearing the presentation of evidence in sup¬ port of the said charges and specifications. SPECIFICATION SEVENTH. In this, that the said decision and final judgment of the said Presbytery dismissing the said case before the said 23 Prosecuting Committee was permitted to present evidence in support of the said charges and specifications, prevented the said Judicatory from going into private session, the parties, their counsel and all other persons not being members of the body being excluded and prevented the “careful deliberation ” required by Section 23 of the Book of Discipline, before the Judicatory shall proceed to vote and to judgment. And in conclusion your Appellant prays your Vener¬ able Body, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, to receive and issue this appeal, and to take therein such action as in your wisdom may seem best, in order to secure and pre¬ serve the purity and peace of our Church. George W. F. Birch, Joseph J. Lampe, Robert F. Sample, John J. Stevenson, John J. McCook, Prosecuting Committee , Appellant. Presbytery of New York. 153 East 78th Street, November 16th, 1891. The Rev. Geo. W. F. Birch, D.D., Chairman of Prosecuting Committee. Dear Sir: I have received from the Prosecuting Committee of the Presbytery of New York, in due time, an Appeal to the General Assembly from the decision and final judgment of the Presbytery of New York, dismissing the case rendered November 4th, 1891, and have placed the same on file. S. D. Alexander, Stated, Cleric. 24 PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK IN THE CASE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA against THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Including all papers pertaining thereto. (Sections 24, 96 and 101 of Book of Discipline.) Meetino of April 13th, 1891. At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held April 13th, 1891, a paper in reference to the recent Inaugural Address of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., was pre¬ sented by the Rev. G. W. F. Birch, D.D., and adopted as follows: “Whereas, the Address of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., a member of this Presbytery, delivered on Tuesday evening, January 20th, 1891, on the occasion of his inau¬ guration as the “ Incumbent of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology” in the Union Theological Seminary (which Address has since been published by said Seminary), has been very generally criticized as con¬ taining statements which are seemingly contrary to the teachings and spirit of our Confession of Faith, and Whereas , this Address has also been actually made the occasion of complaint to the General Assembly by at least four Presbyteries, therefore, Resolved, that a Committee consisting of seven persons be appointed, to which the said Address shall be referred for consideration, with instructions to report at the meet¬ ing in May, what action, if any, be appropriate in relation thereto.” Whereupon, the following Committee was appointed, viz.: Rev. Messrs. Geo. W. F. Birch, Joseph J. Lampe, 25 Henry Yan Dyke and Jesse F. Forbes, with Elders John J. Stevenson and Walter Edwards. Meeting of May 11th, 1891. At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held May 11th, 1891, the following paper was presented by the Rev. Thomas S. Hastings, D.D., and read: 4 4 Whereas , the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church declares that 4 original jurisdiction in relation to minis¬ ters pertains to the Presbytery 5 (Book of Discipline, § 18), and that 4 the judicatory to which a church member or a minister belongs, shall have sole jurisdiction for the trial of offences whenever or wherever committed by him ’ (Book of Discipline, § 108), and Whereas , condemnation without trial is contrary to all law, civil and ecclesiastical, and Whereas , the Presbytery of Chester, in session at Downingtown, Pa., April 14th, 1891, adopted an Overture to the General Assembly, condemning the Rev. Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., a member of this Presbytery, as follows: 4 Whereas , the Directors of Union Theological Semi¬ nary in the City of New York, have established a new Professorship, to be known as the Edward Robinson Pro¬ fessorship of Biblical Theology, and have transferred Prof. Charles A. Briggs from the Chair of Hebrew and installed him as Professor of Biblical Theology, and Whereas , it appears from the inaugural address of Dr. Briggs, and from his book entitled 4 4 Whither , ’ ’ and from various articles he has written and published, that his views in relation to the Scriptures and upon other subjects of vital importance, are, in the judgment of the Presby¬ tery, not in accordance with the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of our Church; and 26 Whereas , the peace and purity of the Church depend upon the character of the instructions imparted to our candidates for the ministry, found in our theological seminaries; Therefore, Resolved, that this Presbytery of Chester, convened at Downingtown, Pa., April 14th, 1891, does hereby overture the General Assembly to refuse to con¬ firm the aforesaid appointment of Prof. Briggs to the Chair of Biblical Theology.’ Therefore, in view of this Overture of the Presbytery of Chester. Resolved , that the Presbytery of New York hereby overtures the General Assembly to pronounce that the Presbytery of Chester has 1st , Violated the constitutional rights of Prof Briggs, in that it has given judgment that his views are not in accordance with the Confession of Faith, while he is a member of this Presbytery in good standing; and %dly, has violated the constitutional rights of the Pres- bytery of New York, which has sole jurisdiction over Pro¬ fessor Briggs. Furthermore , Whereas, this Presbytery has learned that other Pres¬ byteries besides the one of which we complain, have sent up overtures to the Assembly of a similar character to that herein cited, the Presbytery of New York respect¬ fully overtures the General Assembly to protect our rights under the Constitution.” The above paper having been accejjted, a motion was made that it be laid upon the table until the Committee on the Inaugural Address of Professor Briggs had reported. This motion was lost, and Presbytery proceeded to con¬ sider a motion that the above paper be adopted. i 27 The ayes and nays being called for, the motion to adopt Dr. Hastings’ paper was lost, by a vote of 62 to 54, as follows: MINISTERS- Geo. Alexander. Nicholas Bjerring. Charles A. Briggs. Edward L. Clark. Nathaniel W. Conkling. William T. Elsing. Jesse F. Forbes. Herbert Ford. Charles It. Gillett. Henri L. Grandlienard. Andrew H. Harshaw. Wm. R. Harshaw. Thomas S. Hastings. Charles E. Herring. James H. Hoadley. Sam’l M. Jackson. Joseph It. Kerr. Daniel E. Lorenz. Wm. M. Martin. Henry M. McCracken. ELDERS— Thomas J. Hush. Richard H. Bull. Sam’l J. Storrs. Clark Brooks. William Crampton. Vincent M. Wilcox. Wm. Mitchell. Robert Gentle. AFFIRMATIVE. James H. Mcllvaine. George J. Mingins. Charles H. Parkhurst. John R. Paxton. George S. Pay son. Vincent Pisek. Stealy B. Rossiter. Albert G. Ruliffson. Frederick N. Rutan. Alfred C. Roe. Philip Schaff. James E. Sentz. J. Balcom Shaw. Wilton M. Smith. Geo. L. Spining. Charles L. Thompson. Geo. S. Webster. Lewis W. Barney. Henry Van Dyke. —39 AFFIRMATIVE. Sidney F. Wilcox. Wm. A. Wheelock. James Denholm. William N. Crane. Sam’l Reeve. John McKennan. Henry C. Smith. —15 Affirmative 54 28 MINISTERS—NEGATIVE. Sam’l D. Alexander. Jolm C. Bliss. Robert R. Booth. Sam’l Boult. John M. Buchanan. Walter D. Buchanan. William T. Carr. James Chambers. Henry B. Chapin. Conrad Doench. Thomas Douglas. John H. Edwards. Frank F. Ellinwood. Henry B. Elliot. Arthur Folsom. Charles H. Gardner. J. H. Lopez-Guillen. A. Woodruff Halsey. Spencer L. Hillier. Albert B. King. Joseph J. Lampe. Sidney G. Law. Theodore Leonhard. Wm. J. Macdowell. Charles P. Mallery. Francis H. Marling. Alexander McLean. Horace G. Miller. Wm. L. Moore. James C. Nightingale. Edward P. Pay son. Hugh Pritchard. James S. Ramsay. Charles S. Robinson. Edward T. Root. Robert F. Sample. Joseph A. Saxton. Adolphus F. Schauffler. Geo. L. Shearer. Wm. A. Rice. Wm. G. T. Shedd. Andrew Shiland. John M. Stevenson. Alex. W. Sproull. Frederick E. Yoegelin. Erskine N. White. John T. Wilds. David G. Wylie. ELDERS—NEGATIVE. John J. McCook. Wm. R. Worrall. John J. Stevenson. John C. Tucker. Geo. M. Jaques. A. D. Crane. R. McKee. Walter Edwards. Thomas Anderson. Kiliaen Van Rensselaer. Allan Hay. E. W. Thompson. Moses W. Dodd. M. E. Sawyer. —14 Negative 62 29 After the announcement of the vote Dr. Briggs pre¬ sented the following Protest: “ Whereas , the Presbytery of New York, at its meeting in April last, appointed a Committee to consider my Inau¬ gural Address in its relations to the Confession of Faith, I do hereby protest against such action as unconstitutional, as a violation of the usages of the denomination and as a breach of justice and sound discipline, for the following reasons: 1. No previous intimation was given, either by the mover or any of the supporters of the motion, of their intention to take such action against me, and I had no opportunity of considering the matter and of advising with friends how to meet the motion. This is in contra¬ vention of the usages of Presbyterians that, before any action is taken against a minister, he should be consulted and warned, in order that if possible action may be ren¬ dered unnecessary. 2. The Committee was appointed in my absence, when detained at home by ill health, and without my knowledge and consent, and when, therefore, my friends could not determine my views of the motion. This is in contraven¬ tion of the decisions of the General Assembly that ‘‘ no discussion ought to be allowed involving the character of an absent person, in his absence.” (Digest, 1878, pp. 522, 523.) The Presbytery, noting my absence, for good reasons ought to have postponed action until the next meeting of Presbytery. 3. I had no opportunity of making any explanation to Presbytery, such as might have made the appointment unnecessary. It was my privilege so to do, and it was in the interests of healthful discipline that the Presbytery should first have afforded me the opportunity. 4. The Committee was appointed in April to consider an 30 inaugural address delivered January 20, in public, in the Chapel of the Union Theological Seminary, and soon after published, and which had been for several weeks accessible to every member of Presbytery before the meeting of the Presbytery, and which could have been read by any mem¬ ber of Presbytery in an hour, and considered by him. It is not the practice of judicatories of the Presbyterian Church to appoint Committees to investigate such printed documents. 5. The practice of Presbyterian discipline throughout the world is based upon the doctrine: “ A Presbytery is not so far to receive the information, as to proceed to the citation of a minister, or any way begin the process until there be first some person who, under his hand, give in the complaint with some account of its probability, and under¬ takes to make out the libel; 2d, or at least do before the Presbytery undertake to make it out under the pain of being considered as slanderous, or, 3d, that the fama clamosa of the scandal be so great, as that the Presbytery for their own vindication see themselves necessitated to begin the process without any accuser; but the Presby¬ tery in this case should be careful, first to inquire into the rise, occasion, brotchers and grounds of the fama clamosa .” (Stuart of Pend. p. 217, 1802.) In accordance with these ancient rules, an old Book of Discipline defines that, “ In order to render an offence proper for the cognizance of a judicatory on this ground, the rumor must specify some particular sin or sins; it must be general or widely spread; it must not be transient but permanent, and rather gaining strength than declining; and it must be accompanied with strong presumption of truth. Taking up charges on this ground, of course, requires great caution, and the exercise of much Christian prudence.” (III. 5.) The New Book of Discipline, when it simplified the law of process and says : “ Process against an alleged offender 31 shall not be commenced unless some person undertakes to sustain the charge, or unless the judicatory finds it neces¬ sary for the ends of discipline to investigate the alleged offence 5 ’ (II. 6), does not do away with these great princi¬ ples of Presbyterian practice, which have been followed by judicatories for centuries in all parts of the world. The Committee was not appointed on the ground of com¬ mon fame to investigate rumors, but to investigate a printed pamphlet, and therefore it has no legal existence. If it had been appointed on the ground of common fame, the duty of the Committee would have been, not to inves¬ tigate the pamphlet, but, in the language of the Old Book of Discipline, they should have considered that “ a general rumor may be raised by the rashness, censoriousness or malice of one or more individuals. When this appears to have been the case, such individuals ought to be censured in proportion to the degree of criminality that appears attached to their conduct.” Signed C. A. Briggs. Meeting of May 12th, 1891. At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held on May 12th, 1891, the Committee appointed to consider the Inaugural Address of Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., presented their report. A minority report was also presented. The reports are as follows: REPORT. “ The Committee appointed by the Presbytery of New York, at its meeting on April 13, 1891, to consider the “ Inaugural Address ” of Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., in its relation to the Confession of Faith, would respect¬ fully report as follows: 32 The. Committee was appointed in pursuance of the following action of Presbytery : “ Whereas, The address of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., a member of this Presbytery, delivered on Monday evening, January 20, 1891, on the occasion of his inau- guiation as the ‘ incumbent of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology 5 in the Union Theological Seminary (which address has since been published by said Seminary), has been very generally criticised as containing statements which are seemingly contrary to the teaching and spirit of our Confession of Faith, and Whereas, This address has also been actually made the occasion of complaint to the General Assembly by at least four Presbyteries; therefore, -Resolved, That a committee consisting of seven persons be appointed, to which the said address shall be referred for careful consideration, with instructions to report at the meeting in May what action, if any, be appropriate m relation thereto.” The Committee regrets to report the resignation of Rev Henry Van Dyke, D.D. In obedience to the resolution of appointment by which the investigation was to be limited to an inquiry whether or not any portion of the “ inaugural address ” delivered by Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., on January 20, 1891 is m conflict with the Confession of Faith, your Committee has made diligent comparison of the Confession and the address. After making due allowance for all reasonable latitude of interpretation it is believed that the address conflicts with the Confession in the portions herein in¬ dicated. I. In the portion entitled “ The Sources of Divine Authority , ’ ’ extending from the bottom of page 24, to 33 the middle of page 28 the Church, the Reason, and the Bible seem to be regarded as co-ordinate “ fountains ” of Divine Authority. Thus: (a) Page 24, last sentence: “There are historically three great fountains of divine authority—the Bible, the Church, and the Reason.” (b) Page 25, lines 1-14 inclusive: “ (1) The Authority of the Church . The majority of Christians, from the apostolic age, have found God through the Church. Martyrs and saints, fathers and schoolmen, the profoundest intellects, the saintliest lives, have had this experience. Institutional Christianity has been to them the presence chamber of God. They have therein and thereby entered into communion with all saints. It is difficult for many Protestants to regard this experience as any other than pious illusion and delusion. But what shall we say of a modern like Newman, who could not reach certainty, striving never so hard, through the Bible or the Reason, but who did find divine authority in the institutions of the Church? Shall we deny it because it may be beyond our experience? ” (c) Page 27, lines 9-21 inclusive: “ Martineau could not find divine authority in the Church or the Bible, but he did find God enthroned in his own soul. There are those who would refuse these Rationalists a place in the company of the faithful, but they forget that the essential thing is to find God and divine certainty, and if these men have found God without the mediation of Church and Bible, Church and Bible are means and not ends; they are avenues to God, but are not God. We regret that these Rationalists depreciate the means of grace so essential to most of us, but we are warned lest we commit a similar error, and depreciate the Reason and the Christian conscious¬ ness. 34 (cl) Page 28, lines 1-18 inclusive: “ (3) The Authority of Holy Scripture.—We have examined the Church and the Reason as seats of divine authority in an introduction to our theme, the Authority of the Scriptures , because they open our eyes to see mistakes that are common to the three departments. Protestant Christianity builds its faith and life on the divine authority contained in the Scriptures, and too often depreciates the Church and the Reason Spurgeon is an example of the average modern twm 611 ^ 1 ! 0 Ti 10ldS th<3 Protestant Position and assails e Church and Reason in the interest of the authority of cnpture. But the average opinion of the Christian WTjr d would not assign him a higher place in the kingdom of God than Martmeau or Newman. May we not conclude, on le whole, that these three representative Christians ot our time, living m or near the world’s metropolis, have each in his way found God and rested on divine authority ? ’ ’ hese paragraphs, in the judgment of the Committee SecH 36 ^ C ° nclled with tlle Confession, Chapter I.’ Section 1, which says: “Although the light of nature and works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God as to leave men edaeZoT** l ° tMt edge of God and of his will which is necessary unto a“dtl m,ore “*•"*«*• ^ that Hi 'ii “T^’ t0 reveal Himself and t0 declare that Kis will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth and for the ZTnstT eBta r a T and comfort of the « S o the C ° r ™ P + tl0n ° f the fl e^ and the malice of Satan of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing Sse fo th€ H ° ly 8. 35, 36, your Committee in the minority find nothing in the Confession that is antagonized by it. The expressions in Chap. I. : “ By His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages and are therefore authentical; ” “ the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;” “ our full persuasion of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, ’ ’ etc., all refer evidently to the Scriptures as they now exist in the original languages, not to the Scriptures as first committed to writing in the original manuscripts. But no one claims, and the Con¬ fession certainly does not claim, inerrancy for the Scrip¬ tures in their present text. The utmost that is claimed is inerrancy for the original manuscripts. Therefore, it is submitted, these expressions in the Confession cannot mean inerrancy. Nor does the address deny the inerrancy of the original manuscripts. “ I shall venture to affirm that, so far as I can see, there are errors in the Scriptures that no one has been able to explain, and the theory that they were not in the original text is sheer assumption, upon which no mind can rest with certainty.” It is the dogmatic statement of inerrancy, that the Scriptures must be absolutely inerrant, for “ one proved error destroys their authority ”—that is opposed as dangerous. 4 ‘ These errors are all in the circum¬ stantials, and not in the essentials; they are in the human setting, not in the precious jewel itself; * * * Whether the divine authority extends to the circumstantials of this divine teaching or not, it is unwise, and it is unchristian to force men to accept the divine authority of the Bible or reject it, on the question of its inerrancy in the circum¬ stantials and the details of every passage,” p. 36. It is difficult to avoid misunderstanding the address on these points, unless it is interpreted, as the writer requests that it may be, by the light of his other writings. The 54 other side of Ms position is there seen. For example : In Biblical Study, p. 13, “Our adversaries may overthrow our systems of theology, our confessions and catechisms, onr church organizations and methods of work, for these are, after all, human productions, the hastily thrown up outworks of the truth; but they can never contend success¬ fully against the TV 7 ord of God, that liveth and abidetli forever, which though the heavens fall, and the earth pass away, will not fail in one jot or tittle from the most com¬ plete fulfillment, which will shine in new beauty and glory, as its parts are one by one searchingly examined, and which will prove itself not only invincible, but all conquering, as point after point is most hotly contested. We are assured that at last it will claim universal obedience as the pure and faultless mirror of Him who is Himself the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of His per¬ son.” And p. 160 : “ Doubtless by God’s 4 singular care and providence they have been kept pure in all ages and are therefore authentical.’ Doubtless throughout the whole work of the authors’, ‘ the Holy Spirit was present, causing His energies to flow into the spontaneous exercises of the writers’ faculties, elevating and directing, where need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in language of the thought designed by God.’ ” III. On p. 53 is the statement: “ Another fault of the Protestant theology is the limitation of the process of redemption to this world, and the neglect of those vast periods of time, which have elapsed for most men between death and the resurrection.” This is at first startling, but only because of the somewhat unusual, but perfectly correct, sense in which the writer uses the word redemption. In the paragraph immediately preceding he defines his usage: “ The Bible rises high above the faults of modern theology, and comprehends in its redemption of man his justification, sanctification and glorification.” Again on p. 52: “ The redemption of the Bible comprehends the whole process of grace. Modern Protestants have unduly empha¬ sized the beginning of redemption, justification by faith alone. ’ ’ The statement clearly means, not that those who are not redeemed in this life may be redeemed after death, but that those whose redemption is begun in this life, in their justification, will find the process continued and completed in their perfect sanctification and glorification in the life beyond. As to the dangerous doctrine that the issues of this life are not final, that death is not decisive, that there will be an opportunity given in the middle state for repentance and salvation; in other words, that there is a probation after death, there is not a hint of it in the address. On the contrary, it is expressly repudiated, p. 54. All that is affirmed regarding the middle state is, that the wicked sink into deeper and more awful depths of depravity, and the righteous rise to more blessed heights of sanctification and glorification. The interpretation that the writer gives to the teaching of the confession on the subject of sanctification after death may or may not be cor¬ rect. The question whether sanctification is completed in a moment ‘ £ immediately after death, ” or in the state ‘ ‘ imme¬ diately after death,” is not vital to “ the system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith. ” It is not sufficient, in order to establish charges, to show that he is at variance with certain phrases and expressions in the Confession, but that he is clearly in conflict with the system of doctrine which it contains. Believing that this is not the case, that charges based upon this address cannot be successfully sus¬ tained, and that such a trial for heresy would be a cause of immeasurable disturbance and injury to the Church, your Committee in the minority recommend that no judicia proceedings be entered upon. All of which is respectfully submitted.” J. H. McIlvaine, Committee in the Minority. 56 Both the report of the Committee and the minority report were read and accepted : Whereupon it was moved that the recommendation of the majority report be adopted, viz.“ That the Presby¬ tery enter at once upon the judicial investigation of the case.” It was moved as a substitute that the recommendation of the minority report be adopted, viz. : “That no judicial proceedings be entered upon.” Upon this motion the calling of the roll was ordered, and the motion was lost by the following vote: MINISTERS—AFFIRMATIVE. Geo. Alexander. Anson P. Atterbury. W. Wallace Atterbury. Lewis W. Barney. Nicholas Bjerring. Nathaniel W. Conkling. John H. Edwards. Charles It. Gillett. Henri L. Grandlienard. A. Woodruff Halsey. Win. R. Harshaw. James H. Hoadley. Daniel E. Lorenz. Wm. M. Martin. Francis H. Marling. James H. Mcllvaine. Geo. J. Mingins. Charles H. Parkhurst. John It. Paxton. Geo. S. Payson. Wm. M. Pice. Stealy B. Possiter. Frederick N. Putan. Joseph A. Saxton. Philip Schaff. James E. Sentz. J. Balcom Shaw. Wilton M. Smith. Charles L. Thompson. Geo. L. Webster. Erskine N. White. —31 ELDERS—AFFIRMATIVE. J. S. Storrs. Clark Brook. Allan Hay. Bobert Johnston. 4 Affirmative 35 57 MINISTERS—NEGATIVE. Samuel D. Alexander. Wm. W. Page. Geo. W. F. Birch. Levi H. Parsons. Robert R. Booth. William M. Paxton. William T. Carr. Edward P. Payson. James Chambers. Hugh Pritchard. Conrad Doench. Wendell Prime. Thomas Douglas. James S. Ramsay. Henry B. Elliot. Charles S. Robinson. Arthur Folsom. Edward T. Root. Jesse F. Forbes. Robert F. Sample. Ferdinand Y. D. Garretson. Joseph Sanderson. Andrew H. Harshaw. Adolphus F. Schauffler. Spencer L. Hillier. Geo. L. Shearer. Joseph R. Kerr. Wm. G. T. Shedd. Albert B. King. Andrew Shiland. Joseph J. Lampe. John M. Stevenson. Sidney G. Law. William C. Stitt. John C. Lowrie. Alex. W. Sproull. Charles P. Mallery. George L. Spining. Wm. J. Macdowell. Frederick E. Yoegelin. Wm. L. Moore. John T. Wilds. James C. Nightingale. David G. Wylie. Geo. Nixon. 45 ELDERS— -NEGATIVE. John J. McCook. Yincent M. Wilcox. Wm. R. Worrall. John Denholm. John J. Stevenson. Moses W. Dodd. John C. Tucker. M. E. Sawyer. Kiliaen Yan Rensselaer. Francis Rogers. —10 Negative. 55 The motion to substitute was declared to be lost by a vote of 55 to 35. It was then moved that the recommend- 58 * ation of the majority report be adopted, viz. : “That the Presbytery enter at once upon the judicial investigation of the case.” The motion was carried by a vote of 44 to 30. The Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., then gave notice of a protest and complaint to Synod against the report of the Committee, and the action now taken. On motion, it was resolved that a committee be appointed to arrange and prepare the necessary proceedings appro¬ priate to the case of Dr. Briggs. Meeting of May 17th, 1891. At an adjourned meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held May 17th, 1891: The Moderator announced as the Committee to arrange and prepare the necessary proceedings appropriate in the case of Dr. Briggs, Rev. Messrs. Geo. W. F. Birch, Joseph J. Lampe and Robert F. Sample, with Elders John J. Stevenson and John J. McCook. Meeting of June 8tii, 1891. At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held June 8th, 1891: The following letter from the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., to the stated clerk, dated May 21, 1891, was read: “I beg you to make the following statement to the Presbytery of New York in my behalf: 1. I made a writ¬ ten protest against the appointment of the Committee to investigate my inaugural address. This protest I adhere to. I desire it to stand and go up to Synod in the regular way. 2. I gave notice of a complaint against the action of the Presbytery based on the report of the Committee of Investigation. I took this action out of a deep sense of the irregularity of the proceedings and unjust treatment of myself, but on reflection I have decided to waive com- 59 plaint to the Synod as regards the report of the Committee and the action of the Presbytery based thereon, in order that I may not directly or indirectly be the occasion of any delay in the advance towards judicial proceedings. As I stated to Presbytery, I desire, above all things, that my opponents should allege charges and specifications, and that I may have an opportunity of meeting them in the court of the Presbytery in a judicial case, as soon as pos¬ sible. 3. The state of my health demands my absence from the country until the Autumn. But I trust that I may be able to meet with the Presbytery at their session m October next.” (Signed) C. A. Briggs. On motion, Prof. Briggs was given the privilege of with¬ drawing his complaint as stated in his lettei. The Committee having in charge the case of Prof. Briggs reported as follows : ‘ ‘ Your Committee, appointed at the May meeting of Presbytery, to arrange and prepare the necessary proceed¬ ings appropriate in the case of Prof. Briggs, reports progress and states its inability to report more fully at this time, because four of its members have been occupied with the business of the Gfeneral Assembly as Commissioners lepie senting this Presbytery during the greater part of the time since their appointment. The Committee expects to be able to report at the next regular meeting of Presbytery.” (Signed) Gr. W. F. Birch, Chairman. The report was accepted and the Committee continued. The Bev. Messrs. Alexander W. Sproull and John H. Edwards, with Elder Philo S. Ely, were appointed a Com¬ mittee to answer the protest of Prof. Briggs made at the last meeting. (May 12th, 1891.) 60 Meeting of October 5tti, 1891. At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held October 5, 1891: The time having come in the order of business to receive the report of the Committee of Prosecution in the case of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., Rev. Geo. Alexander, D.D., asked leave to introduce a resolution germane to the subject. Objection having been made to departing from the order of business, Dr. George Alexander moved that the order of the day be suspended in order to receive the res¬ olution which he proposed to introduce. Objection was made on the ground that Dr. Birch, as Chairman of the Committee of Prosecution, had the floor, and that the motion to suspend the order of the day could not be intro¬ duced. The Moderator, having decided that motion in order, appeal was taken from the decision of the Chair. The Chair was sustained, whereupon Dr. Birch gave notice of complaint to Synod, against the decision of the Moder¬ ator and the action of the Presbytery thereon. (After recess.) Having asked permission, it was resolved that Dr. George Alexander be permitted to withdraw his motion to postpone, presented by him, in order to hear the report of the Committee in the matter of Dr. Briggs. The report of the Prosecuting Committee was then read by the Chair¬ man, Dr. Birch, and is as follows: 61 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA against THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D. * Report of the Committee of Prosecution. New York, October 5th, 1891. “ To the Presbytery of New York : The Committee of Prosecution, in the case of Dr. Briggs, appointed in compliance with Section 11 of the Book of Discipline, at the meeting of Presbytery in May last, report as follows: Inasmuch as four of their number were absent in the performance of their duties as commissioners at the session of the General Assembly held at Detroit, and as Dr. Briggs had sailed for Europe, to be absent until autumn, they made a report of progress at the meeting of Presbytery in June, indicating their intention of presenting the charges and specifications at the meeting of Presbytery in Octo¬ ber. The Committee have decided to base charges and speci¬ fications upon what is contained in Dr. Briggs’ inaugural address alone. Their reasons for adopting this course are as follows: I. By direction of the Presbytery, the inaugural address was the original subject of inquiry by the Committee of Presbytery appointed on April 18, 1891, and it was upon the report of that Committee that a judicial investigation was instituted. II. Because of the recent publication of the inaugural address. In this way any objection which might be made,. 62 under the limitation of Section 117 of the Book of Disci¬ pline, as to the length of time which has elapsed since the publication of earlier works, has been avoided. III. Because the inaugural address may be regarded as the most deliberate and emphatic expression of Dr. Briggs’ doctrine, and therefore representing most fairly his posi¬ tion with respect to those doctrines upon which the charges and specifications are based. Since the inaugural address was first delivered and published, it has been widely criti¬ cised, but, in spite of these criticisms, a second edition has been published, in which all the doctrines set forth in the first edition are presented without modification, being rather reaffirmed and emphasized in a preface and in an appendix. IY. Because of the vital importance of the doctrines with which the inaugural address deals. Y. Because the address was delivered as an introduction to a course of lectures on Biblical theology, and is there¬ fore to be taken as a formal declaration of the Professor’s attitude with respect to some of the more imjDortant sub¬ jects in his new department. It has been decided by your Committee that it is neither necessary nor advisable to embrace in the list of charges all the doctrinal errors contained in the inaugural address, and, while its teachings respecting miracles, the original condition of man, the nature of sin, race redemption and Dr. Briggs’ scheme of Biblical theology in general, are not in harmony with the Scriptures, and are calculated to weaken confidence in the Word of God, and to encourage presumption on the clemency and long-suffering of God, yet in order that we may avoid an undue extension of the trial, and the confusion of thought that might follow an attempt to compass all the errors contained in said address, 63 we have deemed it best to confine attention to a few de¬ partures from the teachings of the Scriptures which are fundamental to the entire discussion. Furthermore, your Committee is not unmindful of the fact that the erroneous and ill-advised utterances of Dr. Briggs in the inaugural address have seriously disturbed the peace of the Church and led to a situation full of diffi¬ culty and complication, and have produced such wide¬ spread uneasiness and agitation throughout the Church as to cause sixty-three Presbyteries to overture the General Assembly with reference to the same, yet for the reasons above given we have determined not to include this grave offence against the peace of the Church in the list of formal charges. The Committee present the following charges and specifi¬ cations, which, in compliance with the provisions of Sec¬ tion 10 of the Book of Discipline, it becomes their duty to prosecute in the name and by the authority of the Presby¬ terian Church of the United States of America. (Here followed the charges and specifications, for which see page 70.) Your Committee recommend that in compliance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Book of Discipline, a copy of the charges and specifications be now served upon Di. Briggs, and that a citation, signed in the name of the Presbytery by the Moderator or Clerk, be personally served upon Dr. Briggs, citing him to appear and plead to said charges and specifications at an early day. All of which is respectfully submitted.” In behalf of the Committee, G. W. F. Birch, Chairman. 64 The report was accepted. It was then moved that the recommendations of the Committee be adopted. The paper presented by the Rev. George Alexander, at the morning session, was now offered as a substitute for the recommendations of the Committee. The reading of the substitute was called for, and is as follows: “Whereas , the Presbytery of New York, at its meeting in May last, on account of utterances contained in an inaugural address delivered January 20th, 1891, appointed a Committee to formulate charges against the author of that address, Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D.; and, ‘ ‘ Whereas, since that action was taken, the accused has supplemented those utterances by responding to certain categorical questions, as follows: “ ‘ Question I. Do you consider the Bible, the Church and the Reason as co-ordinate sources of authority ? Answer. No. Or do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice ? Answer. Yes. Question II. When you use the word 4 c reason ’ ’ do you include the conscience and the religious feeling ? Answer. Yes. Question III. Would you accept the followiDg as a satisfactory definition of inspiration ? Inspiration is such a divine direction as to secure an infallible record of God’s revelation in respect to both fact and doctrine ? Answer. Yes. Question IV. Do you believe the Bible to be inerrant in all matters concerning faith and practice, and in every¬ thing in which it is a revelation from God, or a vehicle of divine truth, and that there are no errors that disturb its 65 infallibility in these matters, or in its records of the his¬ toric events and institutions with which they are insepa¬ rably connected ? Answer. Yes. Question V. Do yon believe that the miracles recorded in Scripture are due to an extraordinary exercise of divine energy either directly or mediately through holy men ? Answer. Yes. Question VI. Do you hold what is commonly known as the doctrine of a future probation ? Do you believe in purgatory ? Answer. No. Question VII. Do you believe that the issues of this life are final, and that a man who dies impenitent will have no further opportunity of salvation ? Answer. Yes. Question VIII. Is your theory of progressive sanctifica¬ tion such that it will permit you to say that you believe that when a man dies in the faith, he enters the middle state, regenerated, justified and sinless ? Answer. Yes.’ Therefore, Resolved , that Presbytery without pronounc¬ ing on the sufficiency of these later declarations to cover all the points concerning which the accused has been called in question, with hearty appreciation of the faithful labours of the Committee, deems it expedient to arrest the judicial proceedings at this point, and hereby discharges the Committee from further consideration of the case.” Upon this substitute the ayes and nays were called for, and the substitute was lost by a vote of 64 to 60, as follows: 66 MINISTERS Geo. Alexander. Antonio Arrighi. Anson P. Atterbnry. Lewis W. Barney. John C. Bliss. Francis Brown. James Chambers. Edward L. Clark. John H. Edwards. Frank F. Ellin wood. William T. Elsing. Henry M. Field. Jesse F. Forbes. Herbert Ford. Charles R. Gillett. Henri L. Grandlienard. A. Woodruff Halsey. Richard D. Harlan. Thomas S. Hastings. Edward W. Hitchcock. James H. Hoadley. Sam’l M. Jackson. Joseph R. Kerr. Bartolomew Kriisi. ELDERS William A. Ewing. Charles 0. Kimball. Charles A. Woodbury. Samuel Reeve. Henry Bruning. Frederick M. Robinson. -AFFIRMATIVE. Daniel E. Lorenz. Francis H. Marling. Henry M. McCracken. Henry T. McEwen. James H. Mcllvaine. Duncan J. McMillan. Geo. J. Mingins. Daniel H. Overton. Charles H. Parkhurst. Stealy B. Rossiter. Albert G. Ruliffson. Joseph A. Saxton. Philip Schaff. James E. Sentz. J. Balcom Shaw. Andrew Shiland. Geo. L. Spining. Charles L. Thompson. Charles H. Tyndall. Henry Van Dyke. Marvin R. Vincent. George S. Webster. Erskine N. White. William M. Martin. —48 AFFIRM! ATI VE. Nelson M. Whipple. Vincent M. Wilcox. R. T. B. Easton. William A. Wheelock. Sidney F. Wilcox. George R. Aitkin. —12 Affirmative 60 67 MINISTERS—NEGATIVE. Sam’l D. Alexander. William H. Beacli. Nicholas Bjerring. Robert R. Booth. Samuel Boult. William T. Carr. Charles J. Collins. Ira S. Dodd. Conrad Doench. Thomas Douglas. Henry B. Elliot. Arthur Folsom. John Hall. Spencer L. Hillier. Augustus D. L. Jewett. Albert B. King. Joseph Sanderson. Adolphus F. Schauffler. George L. Shearer. William C. Stitt. Charles A. Stoddard. J. Ford Sutton. ELDERS John C. Tucker. Andrew Robinson. Robert Beggs. Richard H. Bull. Herman Zincke. Frederick Blume. Francis Rogers. Joseph Moorhead. Francis B. Griffin. M. E. Fox. Joseph J. Lampe. Sidney G. Law. Joseph P. Lestrade. John C. Lowrie. Wm. J. Macdowell. Charles P. Mallery. Horace G. Miller. James C. Nightingale. George Nixon. Levi H. Parsons. Edward P. Pay son. Wendell Prime. Hugh Pritchard. James S. Ramsay. Charles S. Robinson. Robert F. Sample. Alexander W. Sproull. Frederick E. Yoegelin. Thomas G. Wall. John T. Wilds. Abbott L. R. Waite. David G. Wylie. NEGATIVE. Thomas Anderson. Wm. M. Onderdonk. Henry B. Caithness. John Denham. Wm. R. Worrall. E. W. Thompson. J. L. Birdsall. John McKennan. James B. Lindsley. Theodore Mise. 14 20 Negative 64 68 The recommendation contained in the report of the Committee of Prosecution, in the matter of Dr. Briggs, was then adopted, it is as follows: “ Your Committee recommend that in compliance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Book of Discipline, a copy of the charges and specifications be now served upon Dr. Briggs, and that a citation, signed in the name of the Presbytery by the Moderator or Clerk, be person¬ ally served upon Dr. Briggs, citing him to appear and plead to said charges and specifications at an early day. ’ ’ Meeting of October 6th, 1891. At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held October 6, 1891, the Committee to answer the protest of Dr. Briggs reported as follows: “ The Committee appointed by Presbytery at its Session, June 8th, 1891, to answer the protest presented by the Rev. Charles A. Briggs on the 11th of May, against the action of Presbytery on the 13th of April, appointing a Committee to examine his Inaugural Address delivered in the Chapel of Union Theological Seminary, on the occasion of his introduction to the Professorship of Bibli¬ cal Theology in that Institution, and to report as to its relations to the Confession of Faith, present the following report: Inasmuch as said protest is based mainly on the assump¬ tion that the action of Presbytery was the inauguration of a judicial process, and the points raised in the protest contemplate process as already commenced, and the laws quoted apply to cases of actual process only, it is a suf¬ ficient answer that no charges had been presented when the protest was made, and no thought of process neces¬ sarily entertained. The Committee appointed by Presbytery was one of 69 inquiry only, its duty being expressly defined “ to con¬ sider the Inaugural Address of Rev. Charles A. Briggs in its relations to the Confession of Faith,” which Inaugural had been and continued to be the subject of very general criticism and of wide-spread distrust, and of whose appar¬ ent teaching a number of Presbyteries had already expressed the most emphatic adverse judgment. This Committee had not to deal with Dr. Briggs per¬ sonally, but with the contents of an address, publicly and officially made by him, and extensively circulated with his sanction. If this address was misunderstood or misrepresented, and for this reason opinions or doctrines were ascribed to Dr. Briggs that were prejudicial, and on the ground of which his fitness as a teacher of Biblical Theology in a Seminary of the Presbyterian Church was called in ques¬ tion, it surely was of the first importance, and an act of justice to Prof. Briggs, that his Presbytery should inquire into the matter, and if the allegations were unwarranted, be among the first to come to his defence. Moreover, such a committee of inquiry was warranted both by the constant practice of ecclesiastical bodies, and by the constitution of the Church, which gives to the Presbyteries the right to watch “ the personal and profes¬ sional conduct ” of its ministers. Book of Dicipline, Qh. vii. 36. That the views herein presented were those held by Dr. Briggs is clear from his reply to an invitation sent to him by Dr. Birch, Chairman of the Committee, under date of April 24, 1891, inviting him to meet with the Committee for conference, and to give such explanations as he might desire, in which he says “ If I were in good health, I would still be obliged to decline, for the reason that it would seem that your Committee were appointed to con¬ sider my inaugural address, and not to consider any 70 explanations of it I might desire to make ’ 5 (reply to Dr. Birch). For the above reasons it is the judgment of this Presby¬ tery that its action was fully in accord with constitutional requirements, and with the usages of the denomination, and was in the interest of justice and sound discipline.” The report was accepted and adopted. By agreement between Dr. Briggs and the Prosecuting Committee, it was Resolved, that the 4th day of November, 1891, at 10 A. M., be fixed as the day on which the citation is returnable, and that the citation be issued for that date, in accordance with Section 19 of the Book of Discipline. It was resolved that the meeting on the 4th of November be held in the audience room of the Scotch Church, and that sufficient space for the Presbytery be reserved. The Moderator, permanent and temporary Clerks, and Elder Caithness be a Committee to have in charge all the arrangements for the accommodation of the Presbytery at the trial. A certified copy of the Charges and Specifications, and the Citation were then delivered by the Moderator to Dr. Briggs in the presence of the Presbytery. They are as follows: CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. Chakge I. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Reverend Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of the Presbyterian Church, and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching doctrines which conflict irreconcilably with and are contrary to the cardinal doctrine taught in the Holy 71 Scriptures and contained in tire Standards of tlie Presby¬ terian Church, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. These hurtful errors, striking at the vitals of religion, and contrary to the regulations and practice of the Presbyterian Church, were promulgated in an inaugural address which Dr. Briggs delivered at the Union Theolog¬ ical Seminary in the City of New York, January 20th, 1891, on the occasion of his induction into the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology, which address has, with Dr. Briggs’ approval, been published and extensively circulated, and republished in a second edition with a preface and an appendix. SPECIFICATION I Dr. Briggs declares that “ there are historically thr^e great fountains of divine authority the Bible, the Church and the Reason ”—thus making the Church and the Reason each to be an independent and sufficient fountain of divine authority. INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Page 25, “ The majority of Christians from the apostolic age have found God through the Church. Martyrs and saints, fathers and schoolmen, the profoundest intellects, the saintliest lives, have had this experience.” Page 26, “ Nevertheless, the Church is a seat of divine authority, and the multitudes of pious souls in the present and the past have not been mistaken in their experience when they have found God in the Church. Page 26, “ Another means used by God to make Him¬ self known is the forms of the Reason, using Reason in a broad sense to embrace the metaphysical categoiies, the conscience and the religious feeling. Here, in the Holy 72 of Holies of human nature, God presents himself to those who seek Him.” Page 28, “We have examined the Church and the Reason as seats of divine authority in an introduction to our theme, the Authority of the Scriptures, because they open our eyes to see mistakes that are common to the three departments. Protestant Christianity builds its faith and life on the divine authority contained in the Scriptures, and too often depreciates the Church and the Reason.” Page 86, “But preferring to use my limited time in opposing the depreciation of the Church and the Reason, too often characteristic of Protestants; and in an effort briefly to state, as a fact of history, that these are sources of divine authority.” These declarations are contrary to the Scripture: Isa. viii. 20. To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Ps. cxix. 96. I have seen an end of all perfection: lout thy commandment is exceeding broad. Gal. i, 8, 9.—8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gosx>el unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10.—4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. / 73 Matt. y. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matt. vii. 24. Therefore whosoever heareth these say¬ ings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him nnto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. Matt. xxii. 29, 31, 36, 40.—29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 36 Master, which is the great com¬ mandment in the law? 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Mark vii. 7, 13.—7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Acts vii. 38. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us. Acts xvii. 11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readi¬ ness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1. Pet. iv. 11. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth; that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ: to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 1 John v. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God 74 hath, made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. Luke i. 3, 4.-3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. 2 Pet. i. 19, 21.—19 We have also more sure word of prophecy : whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the pro¬ phecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Gal. iii. 8 to 16.—8 And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying , In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse : for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the man¬ ner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 How to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 75 John v. 39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life : and they are they which testify of me. Dent. iv. 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deut. xii. 32. What thing soever I command you, ob¬ serve to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Rev. xxii. 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Jer. xxiii. 22. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. Jer. viii. 8, 9.—8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. 9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken : lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord ; and what wisdom is in them? Rom. iii. 2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Acts xviii. 28. For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ. These declarations are contrary to our Standards, Confession of Faith, Chap. I., Secs. I., II., VIII., X. I. Although the light of nature, and the works of crea¬ tion and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wis¬ dom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and 76 of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers man¬ ners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will nnto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establish¬ ment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Genesis. II. Chronicles. Daniel. Exodus. Ezra. Hosea. Leviticus. Nehemiah. Joel. Numbers. Esther. Amos. Deuteronomy. Job. Obadiah. Joshua. Psalms. Jonah. Judges. Proverbs. Micah. Ruth. Ecclesiastes. Nahum. I. Samuel. The Song of Songs. Habakkuk. II. Samuel. Isaiah. Zephaniah. I. Kings. Jeremiah. Haggai. II. Kings. Lamentations. Zechariah. I. Chronicles. Ezekiel. Malachi. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. The Gospels accord¬ Corinthians, II. The Epistle to the ing to Galatians. Hebrews. Matthew, Ephesians. The Epistle of James. Mark, Philippian s. The first and second Luke, Colossians. Epistles of Peter. John. Thessalonians, I. The first, second and The Acts of the Thessalonians, II. third Epistles of Apostles. Paul’s Epistles to the To Timothy, I. John. To Timothy, II. The Epistle of Jude. Romans. Corinthians, I. To Titus. To Philemon. The Revelation. 77 All which, are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being imme¬ diately inspired by God, and by his singular care and provi¬ dence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Larger Catechism, 2 and 3. Q. 2. How doth it appear that there is a God f A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only, do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation. Q. 3. What is the word of God f A. The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience. 78 Shorter Catechism, 2. Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him f A. The word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. SPECIFICATION II. Dr. Briggs affirms that, in the case of some, the Holy Scriptures are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation, even though they strive never so hard; and that such persons, setting aside the supreme authority of the word of God, can obtain that saving knowledge of Him through the Church. INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Page 25, “ But what shall we say of a modern like New¬ man, who could not reach certainty, striving never so hard, through the Bible or the Reason, but who did find divine authority in the institutions of the Church.” Page 28, “ Spurgeon is an example of the average modern Evangelical, who holds the Protestant position, and assails the Church and Reason in the interest of the authority of Scripture. But the average opinion of the Christian world would not assign him a higher place in the kingdom of God than Martineau or Newman.” These declarations are contrary to the Scripture: 2 Tim. iii. 15 to 17.—15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. James i. 18. Of his own will begat he ns with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his crea¬ tures. Ephe. ii. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Ps. cxix. 105, 130.—105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. 130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. Luke xvi. 31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. John xiv. 6. Jesns saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John xx. 31. But these are written, that ye might be¬ lieve that Jesns is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. 2 Tim. i. 9, 10.—9 Who hath saved ns, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but accord¬ ing to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesns before the world began; 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of onr Saviour Jesns Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and im¬ mortality to light through the gospel. 2 Thess. ii. 13. But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. 1 Thess. ii. 13. For this cause also thank we God with¬ out ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which effect¬ ually worketh also in you that believe. John vi. 45. It is written in the prophets, And they 80 shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh nnto me. These declarations are contrary to our Standards, Confession of Faith, Chap. I., Secs. I., V., VI., VII. I. Although the light of nature, and the works of crea¬ tion and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wis¬ dom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establish¬ ment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excel¬ lencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bear¬ ing witness by and with the word in our hearts. VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and 81 life, is either expressly set clown in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scrip¬ ture : unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumina¬ tion of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the wor¬ ship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in them¬ selves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salva¬ tion, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. SPECIFICATION III Dr. Briggs affirms that some (such as James Martineau, who denies the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarna¬ tion, the Atonement, the Resurrection of the Body, the personality of the Holy Ghost, who rejects the miracles of the Bible and denies the truth of the Gospel narratives, as well as most of the theology of the Epistles), to whom the Holy Scripture is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His Will, which is necessary unto salvation, may turn from the Supreme Authority of the Word of God and find that knowledge of Him through the Reason. INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Page 27, “ Martineau could not find divine authority 82 in the Church or the Bible, but he did find God enthroned in his own soul. There are those who would refuse these Rationalists a place in the company of the faithful. But they forget that the essential thing is to find God and divine certainty, and if these men have found God without the mediation of Church and Bible, Church and Bible are means and not ends ; they are avenues to God, but are not God. We regret that these Rationalists depreciate the means of grace so essential to must of us, but we are warned lest we commit a similar error, and depreciate the Reason and the Christian consciousness.” Page 28, “ Spurgeon is an example of the average modern Evangelical, who holds the Protestant position, and assails the Church and Reason in the interest of authority of Scripture. But the average opinion of the Christian world would not assign him a higher place in the kingdom of God than Martineau or Newman. May we not conclude, on the whole, that these three representative Christians of our time, living in or near the world’s metropolis, have, each in his way, found God and rested on divine authority? ” These declarations are contrary to the Scripture : 1 John v. 10. He that believeth on the . Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. John xiv. 6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me. Acts iv. 12. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts viii. 32 to 35.—32 The place of the Scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; 83 and like a lamb dumb before Ms shearer, so opened he not his mouth : 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketli the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. Acts x. 43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14.—13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them , because they are spirit¬ ually discerned. Eph. ii. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Homans xvi. 25, 26.—25 How to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began. 26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. James i. 18. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Matt. xxii. 29. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. 1 Cor. i. 19 to 21.—19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the 84 understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of god the world by wis¬ dom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. These declarations are contrary to our Standards, Confession of Faith, Chap. I., Secs. I., V., VI., VII. I. Although the light of nature, and the works of crea¬ tion and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wis¬ dom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and prop¬ agating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from 85 the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in onr hearts. VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture : unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Never¬ theless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in them¬ selves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed, for sal¬ vation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. SPECIFICATION IV. Dr. Briggs asserts that the temperaments and environ¬ ments of men determine which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue. INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Page 28, u May we not conclude, on the whole, that these three representative Christians of our time, living in or near the world’s metropolis, have, each in his way, found God and rested on divine authority ? May we not learn 86 from them not to depreciate any of the means whereby God makes Himself known to men? Men are influenced by their temperaments and environments which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue.” This statement is contrary to the Scripture: 1 Pet. i. 23, 25.—23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Gal. i. 8, 9.—8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. John xiv. 6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. This statement is contrary to our Standards, Confession of Faith, Chap. I., Secs. I., VI. I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establish¬ ment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to com¬ mit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy 87 Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. YI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scrip¬ ture : unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumina¬ tion of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving- understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. SPECIFICATION V. Dr. Briggs makes statements in regard to the Holy Scrip¬ tures which cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of the true and fnil inspiration of those Scriptures as the k ‘ Word of God written.” IXAUGURAL ADDRESS. Page 30, “ The Bible, as a book, is paper, print and binding—nothing more. It is entitled to reverent hand¬ ling for the sake of its holy contents, because it contains the divine word of redemption for man, and not for any other reason whatever. ’ ’ Page 31, “There is nothing divine in the text—in its letters, words or clauses. There are those who hold that thought and language are as inseparable as body and soul. But language is rather the dress of thought. A master of many languages readily clothes the same thought in half a dozen different languages. The same thought in the 88 Bible itself is dressed in different literary styles, and the thought of the one is as authoritative as the other. The divine authority is not in the style or in the words, but in the concept, and so the divine power of the Bible may be transferred into any human language. The divine author¬ ity contained in the Scriptures speaks as powerfully in English as in Greek, in Choctaw as in Aramaic, in Chinese as in Hebrew. We force our w T ay through the language and the letter, the grammar and the style, to the inner substance of the thought, for there, if at all, we shall find God. 55 Page 34, “ It is not a pleasant task to point out errors in the sacred Scriptures. Nevertheless, Historical Crit¬ icism finds them, and we must meet the issue whether they destroy the authority of the Bible or not. 55 Pages 35-36, “I shall venture to affirm that, so far as I can see, there are errors in the Scriptures that no one has been able to explain away; and the theory that they were not in the original text is sheer assumption, upon which no mind can rest with certainty. If such errors destroy the authority of the Bible, it is already destroyed for his¬ torians. Men cannot shut their eyes to truth and fact. But on what authority do these theologians drive men from the Bible by this theory of inerrancy? The Bible itself nowhere makes this claim. The creeds of the Church nowhere sanction it. It is a ghost of modern evangelical¬ ism to frighten children. The Bible has maintained its authority with the best scholars of our time, who with open minds have been willing to recognize any error that might be pointed out by Historical Criticism; for these errors are all in the circumstantials and not in the essen¬ tials ; they are in the human setting, not in the precious jewel itself; they are found in that section of the Bible that theologians commonly account for from the providential superintendence of the mind of the author, as distinguished 89 from divine revelation itself. It may be that this provi¬ dential superintendence gives infallible guidance in every particular; and it may be that it differs but little, if at all, from the providential superintendence of the fathers and schoolmen and theologians of the Christian Church. It is not important for our purpose that we should decide this question. If we should abandon the whole field of provi- dential superintendence so far as inspiration and divine authority are concerned and limit divine inspiration and authority to the essential contents of the Bible, to its religion, faith and morals, we would still have ample room to seek divine authority where alone it is essential, or even important, in the teaching that guides our devo¬ tions, our thinking, and our conduct. 5 5 Page 95, “I have not taken a brief to prove the errancy of Scripture. Conservative men should hesitate before they force the critics in self-defence to make a catalogue of errors in the Bible. It is not my place to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential contents of the Bible. The errors are in the only texts we have, and every one is forced to recognize them.” These statements are contrary to the Scriptures: Heb. i. 1, 2.—1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds: Acts i. 16. Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. Acts iii. 18. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 90 1 Cor. ii. 13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 2 Pet. i. 20, 21.—20 Knowing this first, that no proph¬ ecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man. but holy men of God spake as they wexe moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Tim. iii. 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc¬ tion, for instruction in righteousness. Horn. ix. 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even foi this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Mark xii. 36. For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Acts vii. 38. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us. Acts xxviii. 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. 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. . The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. Ps. xix, 7. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the sinrple. Ps. cxix. 142, 160.—142 Thy righteousness is an ever¬ lasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. 160 Thy 91 word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Dan. x. 21. But I will shew thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. Num. xxiii. 19. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it f or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Luke i. 1 to 4.—1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as thev delivered them unto us, which from the beginning «/ * were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understand¬ ing of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou might- est know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. John xvii. 17. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Bom. xv. 3, 4.—3 For even Christ pleased not him¬ self; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. 4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. 1 Thess. ii. 13. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Matt. v. 17 to 19.—17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to de- 92 stroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. TIeb. xii. 27. And this word , Yet once more, sig¬ nified the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Gal. iii. 16. How to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. John x. 34 to 36.—34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God ? Isa. viii. 20: To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. 1 Pet. i. 23, 25.—23 Being born again, not of corrupti¬ ble seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Acts xxiv. 14—14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. 93 These statements are contrary to onr Standards, Confession of Faith, Chap. I., Secs. I., II., IV., "V., VIII., IX.; Chap. XIV., Sec. II. I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the good¬ ness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inex¬ cusable ; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowl¬ edge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the chuicli against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice or Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and Hew Testament, which are these: OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua. Judges. Ruth. I. Samuel. II. Samuel. I. Kings. II. Kings. I. Chronicles. II. Chronicles. Ezra. Nehemiah. Esther. Job. Psalms. Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. The Song of Songs. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Lamentations. Ezekiel. Daniel. Hosea. Joel. Amos. Obadiah. Jonah. Micali. Nahum. Habakkuk. Zephaniah. Haggai. Zechariah. Malachi. 94 OF THE HEW TESTAMENT. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The Epistle of James. The first and second Epistles of Peter. The first, second and third Epistles of John. The Epistle of Jude. The Revelation. All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. IY. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God. Y. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other in¬ comparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, nothwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. YHI. dhe Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the The Gospels accord¬ ing to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The Acts of the Apostles. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans. Corinthians, I. Corinthians, II. Galatians, Ephesians. Philippians. Colossians. Thessalonians, I. Thessalonians, II. To Timothy, I. To Timothy, II. To Titus. To Philemon. V 95 JSTew Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being im¬ mediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwell¬ ing plentifully in all, they may worship him in an accept¬ able manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. Chap. xiy. Sec. ii. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein: and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, tiena¬ bling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctifica¬ tion, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. SPECIFICATION VI Dr. Briggs asserts that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah is not the author of half of the book which bears his name. 96 INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Page 33, “ It may be regarded as the certain result of the science of the Higher Criticism that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.” Page 33, “ Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name.” These statements are contrary to Scripture: Ex. xxiv. 3, 4.—3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. Hum. xxxiii. 2. And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord: and these are their journeys according to their goings out. Deut. xxxi. 9, 22.—9. And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. 22 Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel. Josh. i. 7, 8.—7 Only be thou strong and very cou¬ rageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth : but thou shall meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Josh. viii. 31. As Moses the servant of the Lord com- 97 manded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lifted np any iron : and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. 1 Kings ii. 3. And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his com¬ mandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself. 2 Kings xxi. 8. Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fatheis, only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them. Ezra iii. 2, 6.-2 Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. 6 From the first day of the seventh month began they to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord. But the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid. Ezra vi. 18. And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book o Moses. . , Neh. i. 7, 8._7 We have dealt very corruptly agams thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandest thy servant Moses. 8 Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandest thy servant Moses, saying, if ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations. Neh. viii. 1, 14, 15.—1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was 98 before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had commanded to Israel. 14 And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month : 15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. Neh. x. 29 to 39.—29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes; 30 And that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons: 31 And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt. 32 Also we made ordinances for us, to charge our¬ selves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our God; 33 For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things , and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and fox all the work of the house of our God. 34 And we cast the lots among the priests, the Levites,* and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, after the houses of our fathers, at times appointed year by year, to bui n upon the altar of the Lord our God, as it is written in tue law : 35 And to bring the firstfruits of our ground, 99 and the firstfruits of all fruit of all trees, year by year, unto the house of the Loud : 36 Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God : 87 And that we should bring the first- fruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God; and the tithes of our ground unto the Levites, that the same Levites might have the tithes in all the cities of our tillage. 38 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes : and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house. 39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the cham¬ bers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God. Neh. xiii. 1. On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever. 1 Chron. vi. 49. But Aaron and his sons offered upon the altar of the burnt offering, and on the altar of incense, and were appointed for all the work of the place, most holy, and to make an atonement for Israel, accoiding to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded. Dan. ix. 11, 13.—11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the sei\ant of God, because we have sinned against him. 13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us; yet 100 made we not onr prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. Matt. xix. 7, 9.—7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. Mk. vii. 10. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death : Luke xxiv. 27, 44.—27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be ful¬ filled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Luke xx. 28, 37.—28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, leaving a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. John i. 45. Philip findeth Nathanael and saith unto Mm, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. John v. 45 to 47.—45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words ? John vii. 19, 23.—19 Did not Moses give you the law, 101 and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 23 If a man on the sabbatli day receive cir¬ cumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day ? Homans x. 19. But I say, Bid not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that aTe no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. Acts iii. 22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall,say unto you. Acts vii. 37, 38.—37 This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us. Acts xv. 21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Matt. xii. 17, 18.—17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the 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 iii. 4.—As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying m the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, ma e is paths straight. _ , . Luke iv. 17, 18.—17 And there was delivered unto mm the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 e Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anoin 102 me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the cap¬ tives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. John xii. 38, 41.—38 That the saying of Esaias the pro¬ phet 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 glory and spake of him, Horn. x. 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 manifest unto them that asked not after me. These statements are contrary to our Standards, Confession of Faith, Chap I., Secs. VIII., IX. VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of Gfod of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authen- tical; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to apx>eal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the jDeople of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are com¬ manded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar lan¬ guage of every nation into which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and, therefore, when there is a ques- 103 tion about the true and full sense of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. SPECIFICATION VII. Dr. Briggs teaches that predictive prophecy has been reversed by history, and that much of it has not and never can be fulfilled. INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Page 38, “ Another barrier to the Bible has been the interpretation put upon Predictive Prophecy , making it a sort of history before the time, and looking anxiously for the fulfillment of the details of Biblical prediction. Kuenen has shown that if we insist upon the fulfillment of the details of the predictive prophecy of the Old Testa¬ ment, many of these predictions have been reversed by history; and the great body of the Messianic prediction has not only never been fulfilled, but cannot now be ful¬ filled, for the reason that its own time has passed forever.” These statements are contrary to the Scriptures: Ps. cv. 8. He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Matt. ii. 5, 6, 17, 18, 23.-5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet. 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourn¬ ing, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled 104 which was spoken by the prophets, He^shalljbe called a Nazarene. Matty. 17,18.—17 Think not that I am"come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come"to" destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt. xxi. 4, 5.—4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon* an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. Matt. xxiv. 15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, * (whoso readeth, let him understand.) Dan. xii. 11. And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Matt. iii. 3. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Matt. xxvi. 54, 56 —54 But how then shall the Script¬ ures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? 56 But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. Matt, xxvii. 9, 35.—9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value: 35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the 105 prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. Mark xv. 28. And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Luke iv. 21. And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. Luke xvi. 17. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke xviii. 31. Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. Luke xxi. 22. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Luke xxiv. 26, 27, 4*4.—26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning him¬ self. 44 And he said unto them, Thes^ are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. John xviii. 32. That the saying of Jesus might be ful¬ filled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. John xix. 24. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be. that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. John xii. 16. These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remem¬ bered they that these things were written of lnm, and that they had done these things unto him. 106 1 Pet. i. 10, 11.—10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should coTiie unto you : 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the suffer¬ ings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Act. iii. 18. But those things, which God before had shewed by the month of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 2 Pet. i. 19. We have also a more sure word of pro¬ phecy ; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, uutil the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. These statements are contrary to our Standards. Confession of Faith, Chap. I., Secs. IV., V. IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God. V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high an reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excel¬ lencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God ; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bear¬ ing witness by and with the word in our hearts. 107 Shorter Catechism, 4. Q. 4. What is GOD f A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. Charge II. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Reverend Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of the Presbyterian Church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching a doctrine of the character, state and sanctification of believers aftei death, which irreconcilably conflicts with and is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the Standards of the Presbyterian Church. SPECIFIC A TION. In the said inaugural address, delivered, published, extensively circulated and republished as above described, Dr. Briggs teaches as follows : INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Pages 53, 54, 55, “ Another fault of Protestant theology is in its limitation of the process of redemption to this world, and its neglect of those vast periods of time which have elapsed for most men in the Middle State between death and the resurrection. The Roman Catholic Church is firmer here, though it smears the Biblical doctrine with not a few hurtful errors. The reaction against this limita¬ tion, as seen in the theory of second probation, is not sur¬ prising. I do not find this doctrine in the Bible, but I do find in the Bible the doctrine of a Middle State of con¬ scious higher life in the communion with Christ and the multitude of the departed of all ages; and of the neces- sity of entire sanctification, in order tliat the wor o redemption may be completed. There is no authority in 108 the Scriptures, or in the creeds of Christendom, for the doctrine of immediate sanctification at death. The only sanctification known to experience, to Christian ortho¬ doxy, and to the Bible, is progressive sanctification. Pro¬ gressive sanctification after death, is the doctrine of the Bible and the Church; and it is of vast importance in our times that we should understand it, and live in accordance with it. The bugbear of a judgment immediately after death, and the illusion of a magical transformation in the dying hour should be banished from the world. They are conceits derived from the Ethnic religions, and without basis in the Bible or Christian experience as expressed in the symbols of the Church. The former makes death a terror to the best of men, the latter makes human life and experience of no effect; and both cut the nerves of Chris¬ tian activity and striving after sanctification. Renouncing them, as hurtful, unchristian errors, we look with hope and joy for the continuation of the processes of grace, and the wonders of redemption in the company of the blessed, to which the faithful are all hastening.” Inaugural Address, Appendix, 2d ed., pages 107, 108, “ Sanctification has two sides—a negative and a positive— mortification and verification; the former is manward, the latter is Grodward. Believers who enter the middle state enter guiltless; they are pardoned and justified; they are mantled in the blood and righteousness of Christ; and nothing will be able to separate them from His love. They are also delivered from all temptations such as spring from without, from the world and the devil. They are encircled with influences for good such as they have never enjoyed before. But they are still the same persons, with all the gifts and graces, and also the same habits of mind, disposition and temper they had when they left the world. Death destroys the body. It does not change the moral and religious nature of man. It is unpsychological and 109 unethical to suppose that the character of the disem¬ bodied spirit will all be changed in the moment of death. It is the Manichean heresy to hold that sin belongs to the physical organization and is laid aside with the body. If this were so, how can any of our race carry theii evil natures with them into the middle state and incui the pun¬ ishment of their sins ? The eternal punishment of a man whose evil nature has been stripped from him by death and left in the grave, is an absurdity. The Plymouth Brethren hold that there are two natures in the redeemed— the old man and the new. In accordance with such a theory, the old man might be cast off at death. But this is only a more subtle kind of Manicheism, which has ever been regarded as heretical. Sin, as our Saviour teaches, has its source in the heart—in the higher and immortal part of man. It is the work of sanctification to o\ei come sin in the higher nature. This doctrine is contrary to the Scripture: John i. 29. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! Luke xvi. 22, 26.-22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 26 An beside all this, between us and you there is a great gu fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence 2 Cor v. 1 to 10._1 For we know that, if our eaithly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a build¬ ing of God, a house not made with hands, eterna m ie heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring o clothed upon with our house which is from leaven so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 110 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being bur¬ dened : not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that has wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confi¬ dent, I say , and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in Ms body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Matt. xxvi. 41.—41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 1 John iii. 2, 9, 10.—2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him: for we shall see him as he is. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin: for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot commit sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the chil¬ dren of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8.—7 But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. 8 For bodily exercise profiteth little : but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Rev. iii. 4, 5.—4 Thou hast a few names even in Sar¬ dis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white : for they are worthy. 5 He that Ill overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot ont his name ont of the book of life, bnt I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Rev. vii. 9, 18, 14.—9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Rev. xiv. 13. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth; Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. Rev. xix. 8. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. Heb. xii. 23. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect. Eph. v. 26, 27.—26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.—51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trunpp: 112 for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.—16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Eph. iii. 15, 16.—15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man. This doctrine is contrary to our Standards, Confession of Faith, Chap. XXXII., Sec. I. I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies: and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledged none. Larger Catechism, 86. Q. 86. What is the communion in glory with Christ , which the members of the invisible church enjoy immedi¬ ately after death f A. The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after 113 death, is in that their souls are then made perfect in holi¬ ness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory; waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death con¬ tinue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls. Whereas the souls of the wicked are at their death cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness; and their bodies kept in their graves as in their prisons, until the resurrection and judgment of the great day. Shorter Catechism, 37. Q. 37. What benefit do believers receive from Christ at their death f A. The souls of believers are at their death made per- feet in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest m their graves till the resurrection. I hereby certify that the foregoing is an authentic copy of the Charges and Specifications against Prof. Charles A. Briggs, which the Presbytery of New York has ordered shall be prosecuted. (Signed) John C. Bliss, Moderator. Oct. 6th, 1891. 114 PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK. IN THE MATTER OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA against THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D. Citation. To the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D.: You are hereby furnished with a copy of the Charges and Specifications presented to this Presbytery on the fifth day of October, 1891, by the Committee of Prosecu¬ tion appointed by the Presbytery of New York, at its meeting in May last, which report with its accompanying recommendations were accepted and adopted by this Pres¬ bytery on the said fifth day of October, 1891. In compliance with the said action of the Presbytery, and with the provisions of Section 19 of the Book of Dis cipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, you are hereby cited to appear at a meeting of the Presbytery of New York to be held in the Scotch Presbyterian Church, on Wednesday, the fourth day of November, 1891, at 10 o T clock A.M., to plead or make answer to said Charges and Specifications, and to proceed to trial upon said Charges and Specifications. (Signed) John C. Bliss, , T Moderator. New York, October 6th, 1891. Meeting of November 4tii, 1891. At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York, held November 4th, 1891, Mr. L. W. How was, on motion, chosen by the Presbytery as stenographer. 115 The General Rules for Judicatories, in the Book of Discipline, as amended in 1885, were on motion adopted. Presbytery now sat in a judicial capacity and the Moder¬ ator solemnly announced from the chair, that the body is about to pass to the consideration of the business assigned for trial, and he enjoined on the members to recollect and regard their high character as judges of a Court of Jesus Christ, and the solemn duty in which they were about to act. Dr. Briggs was then asked by the Moderator whether he wished Counsel? He said he did not. Dr. Briggs being called upon to make return to the Citation, then proceeded to file objections against the sufficiency of the Charges and Specifications in form and in legal effect, as follows : “RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICA¬ TIONS. Mr. Moderator, Ministers, and Elders of the Pres¬ bytery of New York : Gentlemen : I appear before you at this time in com¬ pliance with your citation, dated October 6, 1891, to plead to the charges and specifications placed in my hands by the Presbytery at that time. It is now my right, in accordance with the Book of Discipline, § 22, to “file objections,” if I have any, “to the regularity of the organization, or to the jurisdiction of the judicatory, or to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and in legal effect, or any other substantial objection affecting the order or regularity of the proceeding. 5 ’ I have no objections to the regularity of the organiza¬ tion, or to the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of New York; but it is necessary, both in my own interest and in 116 the interest of the order and regularity of the judicial pro¬ ceedings in the Presbytery, to file objections “to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form 5 ’ and “ in legal effect. ” It is far from my purpose to raise any objections of a technical kind, that may in any way directly or indirectly delay the probation of charges that are approved as suffi¬ cient, and specifications that are recognized as relevant by the Presbytery of New York; but the order of the Book of Discipline requires that the question of relevancy should first be decided by the Presbytery, before I can with pro¬ priety plead “guilty,” or “ not guilty.” No one has made this clearer than the Rev. E. R. Craven, D.D., the chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly which prepared the present Book of Discipline, when he said : ‘ ‘ In every trial there are two issues: first, do the facts alleged, if true, sustain the charge? and, second, are the facts true? Ordinarily the affirmative of the former question is tacitly assumed by both the judicatory and the accused person. In such cases the only question to be decided is the latter. Cases sometimes arise, however, especially where there is an individual prosecutor, in which both issues must be tried. They cannot, with pro¬ priety, be tried together, for one is a question of law, the other of evidence. In such cases it is manifest wisdom to dispose of the legal question first, and thus possibly pre¬ vent a useless waste of time and laceration of feeling. ’ ’— Presbyterian Review, 1884, p. 57. Adopting the course thus recommended, I do hereby file the following objections to the “sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and in legal effect. 5 ’ I.—THE PREAMBLE. The Report of the Committee of the Presbytery, which presented the charges and specifications, contains in its 117 preamble, intimation of charges and specifications which they have not proposed for trial, as follows : “ It has been decided by your committee that it is neither necessary nor advisable to embrace in the list of charges all the doctrinal errors contained in the inaugural address, and, while its teachings respecting miracles, the original condition of man, the nature of sin, race redemp¬ tion, and Dr. Briggs’ scheme of Biblical theology in general, are not in harmony with the Scriptures, and are calculated to weaken confidence in the Word of God, and to encourage presumption on the clemency and long- suffering of God, yet, in order that we may avoid an undue extension of the trial, and the confusion of thought that might follow an attempt to compass all the errors contained in said address, we have deemed it best to con¬ fine attention to a few departures from the teachings of the Scriptures which are fundamental to the entire discussion. “ Furthermore, your committee is not unmindful of the fact that the erroneous and ill-advised utterances of Dr. Briggs in the inaugural address have seriously disturbed the peace of the Church and led to a situation full of difficulty and complication, and have produced such wide¬ spread uneasiness and agitation throughout the Church as to cause sixty-three Presbyteries to overture the General Assembly with reference to the same, yet for the reasons above given we have determined not to include this grave offence against the peace of the Church in the list of for¬ mal charges ” (pp. 4, 5). I object (1) that, if there are any such errors contained in my inaugural address as the committee allege in the preamble of their Deport, it was their duty to formulate them into charges and specifications sufficient in form and in legal effect. (2.) That, if the committee did not think best so to do, they should have refrained from alleging doctrinal errors 118 which they did not propose to submit to probation, and which so alleged without opportunity of refutation, seem calculated to exert prejudice against me in the minds of the members of the court. (3.) That, if as the Report alleges, “ The erroneous and ill-advised utterances of Dr. Briggs in the inaugural address have seriously disturbed the peace of the Church, ’ * and, these constitute a ‘ c grave offence against the peace of the Church, ’ 5 it was the duty of the committee to for¬ mulate this grave offence into a charge and specification ‘‘ sufficient in form and legal effect. 5 ’ (4.) That, if it was not deemed best so to do, the Report should have refrained from alleging a grave offence which was not proposed for probation, the alle¬ gation of which might prejudice the decision of those charges and specifications offered for probation. The Presbytery are requested therefore to blot out from the Report these insinuations and imputations of doctrinal errors and grave offence. If I have any way, directly or indirectly, been the occasion of disturbing the peace of the Church, I deeply regret it. If I have given pain and anxiety to my brethren in the ministry, or to the people of Christ’s Church, by any utterances in the inaugural address, I am very sorry. But after repeated rereadings of the address, away from the seat of strife, in a foreign land, I cannot honestly say that there are any such doctrinal errors in the address as the Report alleges, and at the bar of my own conscience, I feel no guilt as regards the grave offence of disturbing the peace and harmony of the Church. II.—THE CHARGES. I object “ to the sufficiency of the Charges ” “in form ” and “ legal effect.” 119 The rules relating to the charge in the Book of Disci¬ pline are(1.) “ The charge shall set forth the alleged offence” (§ 15); (2.) “A charge shall not allege more than one offence” (§16); (3.) The supreme court of the Church has decided that ‘ ‘ All charges for heresy should be as definite as possible. The article or articles of faith impugned should be specified, and the words supposed to be heretical shown to be in repugnance to these articles; whether the reference is made directly to the Scripture as a standard of orthodoxy; or to the Confession of Faith, which our Church holds to be a summary of the doctrines of Scripture ” ( Craighead Case , 1824, p. 121). I object that the charges comply with none of the rules. ( 1 .) Charge I. sets forth “more than one offence .” It alleges 4 ‘ teaching doctrines which conflict irrecon¬ cilably with, and are contrary to, the cardinal doctrine taught in Holy Scripture,” etc. (p. 5). If as alleged, more than one doctrine, or a plurality of doctrines is taught, which conflict with a cardinal doctrine of Holy Scripture, there is a plurality of offences and each one of these cardinal offences should be mentioned in a separate charge. Charge I. alleges several offences. (2.) Charge 7. does not “ set forth the alleged offence .” It alleges “ teaching doctrines that conflict with, and are contrary to,” etc. It does not specify what doctrine it is, or what doctrines these are which “ conflict j rie c- oncilably with, and are contrary to the cardinal doctrine.” I object (a), that I cannot with propriety plead guilty, or not guilty, to teaching such doctrines, until I know what doctrines the prosecution have in mind. (b.) So far as I know, I have never taught any doc¬ trines that conflict with a cardinal doctrine of Holy Scripture. It is conceivable that I may be mistaken, an 120 that I might acknowledge my error if such doctrines were specified by the prosecution. (c.) The charge is so general, vague, and obscure, that it comprehends any and every reason that any one may find for judging that my teachings are contrary to my ordination vow, “ that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice”; and thus enables the jurors to vote for my condemnation, one for one reason, another for a second reason, a third for a third reason, and so on, securing by the cumulation of votes for different reasons, a judgment that might not be secured if each reason were proved and voted upon by itself. (3.) The Charges are not specific and definite. It is true that Charge I. is so far definite that it alleges the cardinal doctrine that “ the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and prac¬ tice ” ; as that doctrine with which the doctrines taught by me are in irreconcilable conflict. This implies that I have taught some other doctrine than said cardinal doc¬ trine. But the Charge is not definite and sx>ecific in that it fails to define what 'doctrine it is that has been taught in the inaugural address, that is in conflict with, and con¬ trary to, said cardinal doctrine. Charge II. is less general and vague than Charge I., for whereas Charge I. alleges “teaching doctrines” which conflict; Charge II. alleges teaching “a doctrine of the character, state, and sanctification of believers after death” (p. 39), which irreconcilably conflicts; but this latter is yet indefinite and vague, for the reason that it does not define what precise doctrine it is, out of the many different doctrines taught by theologians in this department of Eschatology, that is an offence. Charge II. while more specific than Charge I. in its reference to the doctrine 121 taught by Dr. Briggs, is more seriously at fault than Charge I., in that Charge I. mentions the cardinal doctrine that 123 HI.—THE SPECIFICATIONS. I object to the Specifications as irrelevant , “ insuffi¬ cient inform and legal effect for the following reasons : The law of the specification as given in the Book of Disci¬ pline is that “ The specifications shall set forth the facts relied upon to sustain the charge ” (§ 15). The committee seem to have an indefinite conception of the natuie of specifications. Some of the specifications seem to have been framed as if they were particular items of the gene¬ ral charge, others as if they were particulars of a still more general charge than that alleged in Charge I., and still others as if they were striving to state the facts required by the rule for specifications in our Book of Discipline. Lest there should be obscurity in the minds of the members of the court on this point, I shall take the liberty of citing from that ancient and classic authority in Presbyterian law, upon which the American Book of Discipline is based. The Libel in the Scottish law-books compre¬ hends the three parts—charge, specification, and judg¬ ment. “ A Libel is a Law Syllogism, consisting of the Propo¬ sition or Relevancy, which is founded upon the Laws of God, or some Ecclesiastical Constitution agreeable thereto, as, whosoever is absent from publick Divine Service on the Lord’s Day, ought to be censured. The second part consists of the subsumption or probation, which conde¬ scends on matter of Fact, viz., But such a person did, upon such or such a Lord’s Day, absent unnecessarily from the publick Worship of God. The third Part consists of the Conclusion or Sentence, which contains a Desiie, that the Profaner of the Lord’s Day, according to the Laws and Customs mentioned in the first part, may be Cen sured. ’ ’_Walter Stewart, Collections and Observations concerning the Worship , Discipline , and Government of the Church of Scotland , p. 268. 124 The Standard Authority of the Church of Scotland at the present time gives a similar statement: ‘ ‘ The body of the libel consists of three parts, which together should form a regular syllogism. The first, or major proposition, sets forth the criminality of the species facti charged, and alleges the guilt of the accused; the second, or minor, narrates the facts of the particular offence; and the third, or conclusion, deduces the justice of punishing the individual offender. The major proposi¬ tion should be made as brief and comprehensive as possi¬ ble. By overloading it, the logical structure of the libel is impaired, and unnecessary discussions on relevancy may be raised. It may be difficult to bring ecclesiastical offences under specific and generic names to the degree in which crimes are classified in the civil law. But it is desirable that this should be done as far as possible, in order to facilitate certainty and simplicity in the criminal proceed¬ ings of church courts. Where it is necessary to use cir¬ cumlocution in expressing the general nature of the offence, nothing should be introduced which is not essential to the criminal charge. Where it is impossible, from the nature of the offence, to bring it under any generic denomination, the particular offence intended to be charged should be set forth in the major as criminal in the abstract, and should be repeated in the minor as having been committed by the accused at a certain time and place.”—Cook, “ Styles of Writs, Forms of Procedure , and Practice of the Church Courts of Scotland ,” pp. 119, 120. The Standard Authority of the Free Church of Scotland is in entire accord therewith: “ If h as been established by long practice that no judi¬ cial process of a serious kind can be carried out against a minister or a probationer, except by the use of what is called a Libel. This is a document consisting of three parts, and forming a regular syllogism. The first, or major 125 proposition, sets forth the nature of the alleged offence, declares its contrariety to the Word of God and the laws of the Church, and indicates the kind of consequences which ought to follow from it. The second, or minor prop¬ osition, asserts the guilt of the minister or probationer, and specifies what are believed to be the leading facts involving guilt, and particularizing time, place, and other circumstances. This proposition may contain one or more counts of indictment. The third part connects the major and minor propositions together, and thereby deduces the conclusion that the minister or probationer, as guilty of the offence mentioned in the major proposition, ought to be subjected to the consequences, provided the minor prop¬ osition be made good, either by confession or by adequate evidence. It is of great importance that care be taken to frame the Libel with accuracy, so as to avoid grounds foi questioning its relevancy.”—Sir Henry Moncrieff, “The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland ,” pp. 118, 119. The rules of our Book of Discipline are based upon the practice of the Church of Scotland. The charge corresponds with the first, or major proposition of the Libel; the speci¬ fication corresponds with the second, or minor proposition, the sentence, with the third part, or conclusion. It is essential that the minor premise, or the specification, should be relevant to the major proposition, or the charge; other¬ wise a person may be judged innocent or guilty of a charge with which the facts adduced have no manner of relevancy, and sentenced to unrighteous suffering. A Presbytery can¬ not with propriety enter upon the probation of a specifica¬ tion, which specification if proven would not substantiate the charge. With these preliminary statements I shall now proceed to file objections to the relevancy of the specifications. 126 1. —Specification of Charge II. I prefer to dispose first of the single specification under Charge II. Charge II. is followed by a heading entitled “ specification ”; but, in fact, there is no specification what¬ ever, but only the general statement: ‘ 4 In the said inaugu¬ ral address, delivered, published, extensively circulated and republished as above described, Dr. Briggs teaches as follows” (p. 39). Turning to Charge I. we find that a statement corresxionding to this is made as the second sec¬ tion of the charge. Place the two side by side and this will be evident at a glance: Charge I. ‘ ‘ These hurtful errors, striking at the vitals of religion, and contrary to the regulations and practice of the Presbyterian Church, were promul¬ gated in an inaugural address which Dr. Briggs delivered at the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, Jan. 20, 1891, on the oc¬ casion of his induction into the Ed¬ ward Robinson Chair of Biblical The¬ ology, which address has, with Dr. Briggs’ approval, been published and extensively circulated, and repub¬ lished in a second edition with a pref¬ ace and an appendix ”(p. 5). If such a statement belong to Charge I., it does not belong to the specification of Charge II. The only item under the so-called specification of Charge II., not cor¬ responding to the statement made under Charge I., is the clause “teaches as follows.” In all the previous specifi¬ cations, the references under the head of 4 4 Inaugural Ad¬ dress ’ ’ are a part of the proof; here, however, they are made a part of the specification. This so-called specifica¬ tion is a heaping up of extracts from six pages of the Inaugural Address. I shall admit the correctness of the Specification of Charge II. “In the said inaugural address, de¬ livered, published, extensively circu¬ lated and republished as above de¬ scribed, Dr. Briggs teaches as fol¬ lows ” (p. 39). 127 citations. If therefore no objection is taken to their pro¬ priety in the specification, or to their relevancy under the charge, the defendant is placed in a disadvantageous posi¬ tion as to the verdict which might be rendered against him on the basis of any one of the thirty-four verses of Scripture cited, or any clause of the several extracts from the Stand¬ ards. There is nothing whatever in the specification. It makes no specification of fact such as could be admitted or refuted. If the specification had pointed to any erro¬ neous doctrine taught by me; if I had been chaiged with teaching second probation or any probation whatever after death, I might have pointed to several of my writings in which this doctrine is distinctly disclaimed. If the doc¬ trine of purgatory had been imputed, or regeneration after death, or transition after death from the state of the con¬ demned to the state of the justified, any and. all of these could have been disproved from my writings. If any insinuation had been made that I had taught that the redeemed enter the Middle State guilty and sinful, this could easily have been refuted. But no such doctrines are specified. No specific doctrine whatever is mentioned. There is nothing in the specification that can be tested by the defendant or challenged by the Presbytery. There was no sufficient reason for indefiniteness and vagueness here. The doctrine taught in the Inaugural Address is Progressive Sanctification after Death. The doctrine alleged to be in conflict with it is Immediate Sanctification at Death. It will be necessary for the prosecution to prove (1) that immediate sanctification at death is taught in the Script¬ ures and the Standards; (2) that it is a cardinal doctrine oi the Westminster Confession; and (3) that the two doc¬ trines are in irreconcilable conflict with each other, ere the Presbytery would be justified in condemning me. le 128 charge and so-called specification do not make a definite issue. They put the charge and specification in such an obscure, indefinite and empty form that the defendant is placed at a serious disadvantage in pleading, and the jurors may be justified in voting to condemn, on any plausible ground that might seem to them sufficient, to prove that in any way the views of the Future State expressed in the Inaugural Address are in conflict with their own views of Scripture and Confession. 2. —Specification 5 of Chaege I. Having disposed of the specification under Charge II., we may now devote our attention to the seven specifica¬ tions of Charge I. These specifications may be grouped under several heads. I shall review them in an order more suitable to my purpose than that of the Report itself. I shall first consider specification 5 ; (2) specifications 1 and 6; (3) specifications 2, 3 and 4; (4) specification 7. The first of the specifications to which I object is specification 5 : “Dr. Briggs makes statements in regard to the Holy Scriptures which cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of the true and full inspiration of those Scriptures as the Word of God written ” (p. 21). It should now be kept distinctly in mind that a specifi¬ cation must confine itself to setting forth “ the facts relied upon to sustain the charge ” (§ 15). This specification does not state a fact, but makes an allegation which is of the nature of a charge. This will be clear if one compares this specification with Charges I. and II. Charge I. alleges that Dr. Briggs teaches “ doctrines which conflict. ” Charge II. alleges that he teaches a doctrine of “the char¬ acter, state, and sanctification of believers after death” which conflicts. This specification alleges that he makes statements in regard to the Holy Scriptures which can¬ not be reconciled with,” etc. Specification 5 is therefore 129 really as much of a charge as Charges I. and II., and has been improperly brought under Charge I. But even as a charge, it is no true charge. It shares the faults of the other charges. This specification uses the plural “ state¬ ments” involving several offences, and it does not specify what one of the many statements in regard to the Holy Scripture it is designed to allege against me. Placing this specification side by side with Charge I., it is clear that this specification cannot be brought under Charge I., for it deals with a different doctrine. In Charge I. the cardinal doctrine that “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa¬ ments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, ’ ’ the first of the terms of subscription, is the doctrine against which it is alleged that I offend. In this specifica¬ tion, it is “the true and full inspiration of Holy Scripture as the Word of God written ” (Confession of Faith, I., 2), against which offence is alleged. These two doctrines may be brought under the general doctrine of Holy Scripture; but the one of these doctrines cannot be brought under the other. Therefore Specification 5 is irrelevant to Charge I. When one compares this Report, with its charges and specifications, with the Report of the committee to exam¬ ine the Inaugural Address, made to Presbytery in May last, and recognizes that the chairman and the majority of both committees are the same, one is entitled to ask how they can reconcile the two Reports. What they then, in their first Report, made their second charge, and what they then argued as their principal offence, namely, the offence against the inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture, has been reduced in this Report to a specifica¬ tion under Charge I. Here was a definite, a distinct dif¬ ference of doctrine as to the inerrancy of Scripture, which should have been formulated into a definite charge with specifications, so that the Presbytery might vote on the question: Hoes the Westminster Confession teach the 130 inerrancy of the original autographs of Holy Scripture? The charge definitely made and argued last May has been depreciated in this Report. It has been subordinated as a specification under a different charge. It has been couched in such general, obscure, and indefinite language as not to enable a juror to vote on the direct question of the inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture; but to induce him to vote the defendant guilty of a general charge for any private reasons of objection against his doctrine of the Bible, whatever they may be. Specification 5 ought to be restored to its original posi¬ tion as given in the Report of the committee to the Pres¬ bytery in May last, and made as a distinct charge, and it should state definitely the issue involved, namely, what doctrine is it that Dr. Briggs teaches that is irreconcilable with the cardinal doctrine of Scripture and Confession, as to the inerrancy of Holy Scripture? Is it a cardinal doc¬ trine of Holy Scripture and Confession that the original autographs of Holy Scripture were inerrant? If such a definite charge had been made, then the Presbytery could test it intelligently and decide with precision. 3.— Specifications 1 and 6 of Charge I. Specifications 1 and 6 may be considered together, because they are the only two of the eight specifications that can be recognized as in any sense true and real, as alleging actual facts. A.— Specification 1. It is a fact that the Inaugural Address declares that there are ‘ ‘ historically three great fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason,” but Specification 1 is illegal in form, in that it introduces an inference from the fact, by the prosecution, that cannot be recognized as either true or valid. It is not altogether 131 clear what the prosecution mean to infer by their word sufficient” If they mean to intimate that the Inaugu¬ ral teaches that the Church and the Reason are each alike sufficient fountains of divine authority, and that the Church and the Reason are no less “ sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation,” than Holy Scripture; they infer what they have no right to infer from anything taught in the Inaugu¬ ral Address. It is unlawful to put in specifications infer¬ ences of the prosecution not recognized by the accused, as if they were facts. For the supreme court of the Church has decided in the Craighead case: ‘ £ That a man cannot fairly be convicted of heresy, for using expressions that may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doctrines, if they may also admit of a more favor¬ able construction: Because, no one can tell in what sense an ambiguous expression is used, but the speaker or writer, and he has a right to explain himself; and in such cases, candor requires that a court should favor the accused, by putting on his words the more favorable, rather than the less favorable construction. Another principle is, that no man can rightly be convicted of heresy by infer¬ ence or implication; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those consequences which may legitimately flow from his assertions. Many men are grossly inconsistent with themselves; and while it is right, in argument, to overthrow false opinions, by tracing them in their connections and consequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion which he disavows.”— Craighead Case : 4 ‘ Minutes of the General Assembly, ’ ’ 1824, p. 122. Specification 1, though it cites a fact, when the invalid inference is stricken out, is yet irrelevant; for the specifi¬ cation does not attempt to prove that this fact conflicts with, and is contrary to, the cardinal doctrine that ‘ ‘ the 132 Scriptures of the Old and Kew Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Furthermore there is no process of logic by which this specification can be brought under the charge. The Reason is a 44 great foun¬ tain of divine authority, ’ 5 and yet not an 4 4 infallible rule of faith and practice.” The Church is a u great fountain of divine authority,” and yet not an 44 infallible rule of faith and practice.” The Bible is a 44 great fountain of divine authority, 5 ’ and it is also 4 4 the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Here are two different statements of truths that may be embraced under a more general truth, but to affirm the one, as to Bible, Church, and Reason that 4 4 they are great fountains of divine author¬ ity, 5 ? is not to deny that the Bible is the only one of which the other can be affirmed, namely, that 41 the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” When God speaks through the conscience, He speaks with divine authority and the conscience becomes a 44 great fountain of divine authority ’ ’; but the conscience does not become thereby an “infallible rule of faith and practice.” God speaks through the holy sacrament with divine authority, and the sacrament of the Church is then a 4 4 great fountain of divine authority 5 5 ; but it does not become thereby an “ infallible rule of faith and practice.” I affirm that I have never anywhere, or at any time, made any statements or taught any doctrines that in the slightest degree impair what I ever have regarded as a cardinal doctrine, that 4 4 the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. ’ 5 B, —Specification 6. It is a fact that I have taught and most firmly hold and assert 4 4 that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah is not the author of half of the book which bears his name,” but Specification 6 does not indicate by what method of reasoning it brings this fact under the 133 charge. It is irrelevant to the charge. If it be a valid offence it ought to have been made the ground of a distinct charge, and it ought to have been definitely stated vhat relation Moses has to the Pentateuch, and Isaiah to the book that bears his name, according to the Confession, and in what way the doctrine stated by me conflicts therewith, or with Holy Scripture. Though Moses be not the author of the Pentateuch, yet Mosaic history, Mosaic institutions, and Mosaic legislation lie at the base of all the oiiginal documents; and the name of Moses pervades the Penta¬ teuch as a sweet fragrance, and binds the whole together with irresistible attraction into an organism of divine law. Even though Moses be not the author of the Pentateuch, yet the Pentateuch may be, as I firmly believe, one of the books of Holy Scripture, having divine authority; and the Pentateuch is, as I have always taught, one of those Holy Scriptures which together constitute ‘ ‘ the only infal¬ lible rule of faith and practice.” Even though i ‘ Isaiah did not write half the book which bears his name,” yet I firmly believe that holy prophets no less inspired than Isaiah, wrote the greater half of the book under the guidance of the divine Spirit, so that the book with different authors is as truly one of the books of Holy Scripture, u the only infallible rule of faith and prac¬ tice,” as if it were written by Isaiah alone. The fact adduced has no manner of relevancy to the charge. If the Presbytery should decide that these two specifica¬ tions, 1 and 6, are relevant to the Charge, they would put the accused in a false position and expose him to the peril of a condemnation on the basis of these two facts, which, after rejecting the illegal inferences, he must acknowledge as true, but which he claims need explanation, and are entirely irrelevant to the Charge. If it be true that the Scriptures and the Confession teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and that Isaiah wrote the whole of the book 134 which bears his name, these doctrines should be affirmed in charges, as cardinal doctrines, and the doctrines taught by me should be placed in such a sufficient legal form, that the jurors might vote clearly and directly upon them. It is conceivable that I might be proven guilty of teach¬ ing doctrines contrary to the Confession in regard to both Moses and Isaiah, and the Church and the Reason as fountains of divine authority; but it would still remain unproven that such teaching was opposed to cardinal doctrines of the Confession. Much less would it be proven that these doctrines conflict irreconcilably with the cardinal doctrine “that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa¬ ments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” 4.— Specifications 2, 3 and 4 of Charge I. Specifications 2, 3 and 4 may be grouped, because the same objections hold against the three. They all make false inferences and erroneous statements. It might be proper in a civil court to challenge the proof of these so- called specifications of fact; but in the ecclesiastical court, according to the decision already quoted in the Craighead case, inferences and statements, not recognized by the accused, are not valid in the specification of offences. And it is certainly in the interest of truth and the saving of valuable time, that exception should at once be taken to them as irrelevant and invalid specifications under the Charge. A. —Specifications 2 and 3. Specification 2 alleges that: “Dr. Briggsaffirms that, in the case of some, the Holy Scriptures are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation, even though they strive never so hard; and that such persons, setting aside the supreme authority of the word of God, 135 can obtain that saving knowledge of Him through the Church” (p. 12). Specification 3 alleges that: “ Dr. Briggs affirms that some (such as James Martineau, who denies the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarna¬ tion, the Atonement, the Resurrection of the Body, the personality of the Holy Ghost, who rejects the miracles of the Bible and denies the truth of the Gospel narratives, as well as most of the theology of the Epistles), to whom the Holy Scripture is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His Will, which is necessary unto salvation, may turn from the Supreme Authority of the Word of God and find that knowledge of Him through the Reason (p. 15). These specifications, as they now stand, are false to truth and to fact. No such facts are recorded in the Inaugural Address. If, however, they were true, and it could be proven, or I should admit, that I had affirmed that the Scriptures “ are not sufficient to give that knowl¬ edge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation,” even then, in that case, the specifications would be irrelevant to the charge, for the charge alleges that I teach doctrines that irreconcilably conflict with the cardinal doctrine that “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and prac¬ tice.” But these specifications allege a very different thing which cannot be brought under that cardinal doctrine, namely, that I affirm that the Scriptures ‘ ‘ are not sufficient to give that knowledge necessary unto salvation.” The sufficiency of Holy Scripture is one doctrine, its inf alli- bility another doctrine, both true and cardinal doctrines of Holy Scripture, taught in the Westminster Confession; but two different and distinct doctrines; therefore Specifi¬ cations 2 and 3 are irrelevant to the charge. 136 Furthermore the specifications are invalid statements of fact. For nowhere in the Inaugural Address, or in any other writing that I have written, is it affirmed that “in the case of some, the Holy Scriptures are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His Will, which is necessary unto salvation ” ; or “ that some, to whom the Holy Scripture is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His Will, which is necessary to salvation, may turn from the Supreme Authority of the Word of God and find that knowledge of Him through the Reason.” I have nowhere denied the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. I have ever maintained that it is sufficient for the salvation of all men, of the entire human race. The redemption through Jesus Christ is sufficient for all mankind. The Word of God which proclaims that redemption to the world in the Gospel of the grace of God, is sufficient for every one and for all the world. But the sufficiency of Holy Scripture is one thing, the efficacy of Holy Scripture is another and a different thing. The Westminster Confession teaches that “our full persausion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof (of Holy Scripture), is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts” (I. 5). The Larger Catechism represents that: “the Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners, of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to His image and subduing them to His will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation ” (Quest. 155). It is evidently the teaching of our standards that while the Scriptures are always sufficient, they are not always efficacious to those who use them; but that their efficacy 137 depends upon the presence and power of the Divine Spirit in and with the Scriptures in their use. I affirm both the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and the efficacy of the Script¬ ures, when the Divine Spirit accompanies them; but this is not to affirm that in fact all those who use the Scriptures as a means of approach to God, do certainly find them efficient in their case, or that the Divine Spirit may not work effectually upon some men through the Church or the Reason. It is a cardinal doctrine of the Reformed Churches that the Divine Spirit is free and is not confined to any one or to all of the means of grace. This doctrine finds expression in the words of our Confession, where it says “the Spirit who worketh when, and where and how He pleasetli ” (X. 3). 1 have taken the late Cardinal Newman at his word, when he said he did not find certainty of divine authority through the Scriptures, but did find certainty of divine authority through the Church. I have not affirmed that Newman found divine certainty without the influence of the divine Spirit. I have said that he found divine cer¬ tainty by the influence of the divine Spirit working through Church and Sacrament, which are means of grace as truly as Holy Scripture. I have not said that Newman did not find the Scripture sufficient for salvation. Newman him¬ self never said that. He was always devout in his use of Holy Scripture. I said that he did not find certitude in the Scripture, but that in his case the divine Spirit gave that certitude through the Church as a means of grace. So also in the case of Martineau. I did not affirm that he found the Scriptures insufficient for his salvation, but I said that he did not gain certitude either through the Scriptures or the Church; but that he claimed, and I recognized his claim, that he found this certitude , this certainty of divine authority, in the forms of the Reason, 138 using Reason as Martineau and others have commonly used it, to include the conscience and the religious feeling. It is in accordance with the common doctrine of the Reformed Churches, that the Spirit of God may work directly upon the souls of men apart from the Bible, Church, and Sacraments. It is a simple question of fact whether the divine Spirit has not thus worked in the case of Martineau. My judgment may be challenged for accept¬ ing Martineau’s own testimony in the case; but my orthodoxy cannot be rightly challenged for recognizing Martineau as a case, in the category of cases, recognized by our Confession, of those directly approached by the Spirit “ who worketh when, and where, and how he pleas- eth” (X. 3). The prosecution, with great impropriety, have inserted in the midst of the fact so wrongly imputed to me, a summary of their own composition, setting forth the errors of James Martineau. This is entirely irrelevant. I have nowhere affirmed the orthodoxy of Martineau. On the other hand, I selected him as a man entirely outside of the camps of evangelicals and churchmen, to represent a class of men who found divine certainty in the Reason. The prosecution may find it difficult to believe that God would grant certitude to such a man through the Reason; but they do not, and they cannot, adduce from Holy Scripture or Confession any evidence to show that God may not in fact grant even such a man as Martineau access to Him through the Reason, notwithstanding all his heterodoxy and neglect of the means of grace so necessary to other men. If I have in the cases of Newman and Martineau taught erroneous doctrine when I have said that the one found divine certainty in the Church and the other in the Reason, when they could not find that certainty in the Bible; then that passage of the Confession should be pointed out which teaches as a cardinal doctrine, that the 139 Bible is the only means used by the divine Spirit to grant certitude , certainty , assurance of grace and salvation ; and that cardinal doctrine, if it can be found, should be put in a definite charge, sufficient in form and legal effect. B. —Specification 4. Specification 4 also comes under this head. It alleges that “ Dr. Briggs asserts that the temperaments and envi¬ ronments of men determine which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue ” (p. 19). This is also a false inference. The specification makes two important changes in my doctrinal statement. The Inaugural says : “ Men are influenced by their temperaments and environ¬ ments.” The specification changes the passive construc¬ tion into the active and thus gives greater emphasis to the verb. It also uses instead of the verb “influence,” the much stronger word £ £ determine. 5 ’ I have never said that < ‘ the temperaments and environments of men determine which of the three ways of access to God they may pur¬ sue.” I used the expression ££ influenced byfl advisedly; because it does not exclude other influences than these. Indeed it would be quite proper, so far as the language of the Inaugural is concerned, if one should say, Men aie influenced by their temperaments and environments which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue, but it is the Spirit of God who alone determines in which, of the three ways they shall find the divine certainty of which they are in quest. But even if the specification were recognized as valid and true, it is irrelevant to the charge; for it does not appear from anything in the specification itself that the doctrine of the specification is irreconcilably in conflict with the cardinal doctrine that ‘ £ the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” 140 5.— Specification 7 of Chaege I. Specification 7 alleges that “ Dr. Briggs teaches that predictive prophecy has been reversed by history, and that much of it has not and never can be fulfilled ’ ’ (p. 35). This specification makes invalid inferences and state¬ ments. The specification makes two serious changes in the sentence of the Inaugural. (1) It omits altogether the qualifying clause, “ if we insist upon the fulfilment of the details of the predictive prophecy of the Old Testament, ’ ’ and (2) it substitutes for “ many of these predictions,’’ the careful statement of the Inaugural Address, “predic¬ tive prophecy,” a general and comprehensive term; and thus alleges that the address teaches that “predictive prophecy has been reversed by history.” This allegation is entirely without justification from anything taught in the Inaugural Address, or any other of my writings. I have ever taught that the predictive prophecy of the Old Testament has been fulfilled in history, or will yet be ful¬ filled in history. I have shown in my book, entitled “Messianic Prophecy,” that “the details of predictive prophecy ” belong to the symbolical and typical form, and were never designed to be fulfilled. I have shown the his¬ torical development of the entire series of Messianic pre¬ dictions of the Old Testament, and pointed them towards the fulfilment in Jesus Christ our Saviour; and have urged that either they have been fulfilled at His first advent, are being fulfilled in His reign over His Church, or will be fulfilled at His second advent. The specifications have now been tested as to their rele¬ vancy, and have all of them been found to be irrelevant. Only two of the eight specifications state what can be recognized as facts, and these two can, by no process of logic, be brought under the Charge. If there be sufficiency in form or in legal effect, in any of the charges and speci- 141 fixations, the respondent fails to see it. He submits liis objections to the Presbytery, in the confidence that they will receive due consideration, and that the Presbytery will take proper action with regard to them. IV.—THE PROOFS. The objections might be brought to an end here, were it not important to save the valuable time of the Presbytery, by calling attention to all such faults in connection with the charges and specifications as should be considered. The citations from the Inaugural, from Holy Scripture, and from the Westminster Confession and Catechisms have the same fault that we have found in the charges and specifications. There is a general vagueness and indefinite - ness. I object (1) that it is not in good form to cite any more from the Inaugural Address than is sufficient for the proof of the specification under which the citation is made. Under the so-called specification of Charge II. a long citation is made from three pages of the Inaugural Address, and a second long citation from two pages of the Appendix of said Address is given to prove one knows not what fact or charge. (2.) The citations from the Westminster Confession are commonly of entire sections. The committee do not claim in their charges and specifications, that there is offence against the entire doctrine of these sections of the Con¬ fession. They should be required therefore to limit their citations to those portions of these sections that furnish probable proof of the position taken by them, e. g ., what possible advantage is gained from the citation of all the books of the Bible under two different specifications, when no charge or specification is made, that the Inaugural Address questions any one of these books as a part of the canon of Holy Scripture? * 142 (3.) Large numbers of texts of Holy Scripture are cited , which are entirely without value for the proof of the specification. It is unnecessary to pick and choose, to set this forth. The passages mentioned hrst under the speci¬ fications will suffice. (a.) Many texts are torn from their context. The first passage cited is from Isa. viii. 20. The passage is incor¬ rectly translated in the version used, for the meaning u there is no light in them ” is not justified. The Revised Version renders “ surely there is no morning for them, they have no hope of a dawn of brighter things. The proper rendering is: ‘ ‘ When they say unto you, Seek unto the necromancers and unto wizards; Ye chirpers and mutterers, should not a people seek unto their God? On behalf of the living will they seek, unto the dead for instruction and for testimony ? If they say not so, who have no dawn,” etc. This passage has no reference whatever to the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them \ but is a rebuke of the people of Judah for seeking necromancers and wizards, rather than the living God. (b. ) Many of the texts are given in King James' Version , in cases where the Revised Version gives the correct ren¬ dering. In the first citation under Specification 2, the passage from 2 Tim. iii. 16, is given from Ring James Version; but the Revised Version renders, “ Every Scrip¬ ture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. There is a difference of doctrine here which is of some im¬ portance in the use of this text for purposes of probation. (c.) The Confession requires that in all controversies of religion , the Church is finally to appeal to the original Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek (§ 18). No such appeal is made in the specifications, even in cases where the version quoted is regarded by scholars 143 as incorrect or wrong. Tlie first citation under Specifica¬ tion 3 is from King James’ version of Jolm v. 10. If one turn to tlie original Greek he will see tliat the translation, ‘ c believeth not the record that God gave of His Son,” does not correspond with the original, which reads “ witness ,” and that witness is not Holy Scripture either in whole or in part. The passage is therefore irrelevant to the speci¬ fication, to prove that I am in error in teaching that Martineau found divine certainty through the Reason. In that this passage of Holy Scripture teaches a direct and immediate testimony of God within a man without the mediation of Holy Scripture, it rather favors the doctrine that God may, as in the time of the apostles, pursue this direct method with some men in our days. (d.) A considerable portion of the verses cited have no manner of relevancy to the specifications under which they are given. If they are suffered to remain, they will tend to needlessly prolong the trial. The three citations from Holy Scripture under Specification 4, from 1 Peter i. 23, 25; Gal. i. 8, 9; John xiv. 6, have no manner of rele¬ vancy to the question, whether men are or are not “ in¬ fluenced by their temperaments and environments which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue.” That men are ‘‘ begotten again ’ ’ through ‘ ‘ the Word of God, ” “ which liveth and abideth ’ ’; that an ‘ ‘ anathema ’ ’ is pronounced upon any one who preaches ‘ 4 any other gospel” than the gospel preached by Paul; that Jesus is “ the way, the truth, and the life,” and “ no one cometh unto the Father but through Him ’ ’; are doctrines taught in these passages and are firmly believed by me, but they have nothing whatever to do with the doctrine that I have taught as to the temperaments and the environments of men. (e.) I question the propriety of quoting any passages of Scripture in proof of doctrines not defined by the West- 144 minster Confession and Catechisms. The constitution of the Church defines the limits of obligation, and also pro¬ tects the minister as regards all matters of belief and practice, outside of those limits. If this Presbytery had the right to decide the interpretation of passages of Scrip¬ ture for the official determination of doctrines undefined in our constitution, there would be a new way of amend¬ ing and enlarging the Confession of Faith by judicial de¬ cisions in heresy trials, which would contravene and sub¬ vert the constitutional method of revision, which has been made an essential part of our constitution. A study of these proof-texts exposes the fault of the specifications in this particular. The passages from Holy Scripture cited under specifica¬ tion 6 of Charge I. are 60 in number, to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and Isaiah wrote the whole of the book that bears his name. Only 7 of these are used in the Confession of Faith, and five of these seven under other chapters of the Confession than the first, leaving only two of the sixty that were used by the Westminster divines to prove their doctrine of the Bible; and these two not to prove, as the specification would use them, the authorship of the Pentateuch and the book of Isaiah; but Luke xxiv. 27, 28, to prove that the Apocrypha are no part of the canon of Scripture; and John v. 46, in the original edition of the Confession, to prove that the Church is to appeal to the original texts of Scripture; but this last is very prop¬ erly omitted from the American edition of proof-texts. This fact that the W estminster divines use only 2 of the 60 texts cited by the prosecution for proof of their doctrine of Scripture, and not one of them to prove that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, or that Isaiah was the author of the book that bears his name, ought to convince you that, even if they are relevant to the specification, they are not relevant to any doctrine taught by the Confession. 145 Indeed it would be quite easy to show that not a single one of the large number of Scripture passages adduced, has any force for the proof of the specifications under which they are adduced. All of these passages of Holy Scripture are accepted and firmly believed by me, when properly rendered according to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, which ‘ ‘ being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, and therefore authen- tical ” ; “ in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.” These objections to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications placed in my hand by order of the Presby¬ tery of Hew York, as to their form and legal effect, are hereby respectfully submitted to the Presbytery for their judgment. C. A. Briggs. November 4th, 1891. At this point (after the reading of Hr. Briggs’ Re¬ sponse), the question as to the status of the Prosecuting Committee was raised. The Moderator decided that the Committee was properly a Committee of Prosecution in view of the previous action of Presbytery as recorded, and represented the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and was in the house as an original party in the case, under provision of Section 10 of the Book of Discipline, and is now virtually independent of Presbytery. An appeal was taken from the decision of the Moderator. The question was divided. The Moderator was sustained in the point that, the Committee was in the house as a prop¬ erly appointed Committee of prosecution. The Moderator was also sustained in the point that the Committee as 146 representing the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was an original party in the Complaint. The Rev. Henry Vandyke, D.D., gave notice of a pro¬ test in behalf of himself and others against this action, which is as follows: . «In accordance with the Book of Discipline, Section 105, I protest against the ruling of the Moderator of the Pres¬ bytery of Hew York in the case of C. A. Briggs, that the Committee consisting of Geo. W. F. Birch, Joseph J. Lampe, Robert F. Sample, John J. McCook and John J. Stevenson, is an original party in the case, and therefore entitled'to be heard first under rule 22 Book of Discipline, as an erroneous decision on the following grounds: First, in a case arising under Common Fame, the prose¬ outing Committee is not an original party. See Minutes of General Assembly (0. S. 1859, page 563). Second, this Committee has not been appointed to con¬ duct the prosecution in all its stages, in whatever judica¬ tory, and there is no record of the Presbytery to show this appointment.” The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., gave notice ot a Com¬ plaint against the decision of the Judicatory; and the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., gave notice of an appeal in the same way. The Committee of prosecution was then heard. The Rev. Henry Vandyke, D.D., presented the follow- in° r t ' ^Resolved , That the Presbytery in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by the Book of Discipline, and in view of the facts which have been presented to us, do now dismiss the case. (Recess). The following Committee was appointed to answer the protest of Dr. Vandyke: Rev. Messrs. Henry B. Elliot, 147 D.D., and Charles A. Stoddard, D.D., with Elder’ Robert Beggs. The question before the house at the hour of recess was then taken up and was amended so as to read as follows: “ Resolved , that the Presbytery of New York, having listened to the paper of Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against him as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect: and without approving of the positions stated in his inaugural address, at the same time desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church, and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Standards, and of his disclaimers of interpre¬ tations put on some of his words, deems it best to dismiss the case, and hereby does so dismiss it.” On motion the ayes and nays were ordered, and the roll being called, resulted as follows : MINISTERS—AFFIRMATIVE George Alexander. Anson P. Atterbury. Nicholas Bjerring. William T. Carr. Henry B. Chapin. Nathaniel W. Conkling. D. Stuart Dodge. Frank F. Ellinwood. William T. Elsing. Jesse F. Forbes. Charles R. GilleL John Hall. William R. Harsh aw. Charles E. Herring. Edward W. Hitchcock. Andrew C. Armstrong, Jr. W. W. Atterbury. Lewis W. Barney. Francis Brown. James Chambers. Edward L. Clark. Ira S. Dodd. John H. Edwards. Henry B. Elliot. Henry M. Field. Herbert Ford. Henri L. Grandlienard. A. Woodruff Halsey. Thomas S. Hastings. Spencer L. Hillier. 148 MINISTERS—AFFI James H. Hoadley. Samuel M. Jackson. Bartolomew Kriisi. Joseph P. Lestrade. Wm. M. Martin. Francis H. Marling. Alex. W. McKinney, Geo. J. Mingins. Charles H. Parkliurst. Geo. S. Pay son. Geo. L. Prentiss. Steal y B. Rossiter. Frederick N. Rutan. Philip Schaff. James E. Sentz. Andrew Shiland.. Charles A. Stoddard. Charles L. Thompson. Marvin R. Vincent. Geo. S. Webster, John T. Wilds. ELDERS— Moses M. Brown. Herman Zincke. Sam’l Reeve. Thomas S. Strong. Henry Bruning. Isaac M. Dyckman. Sidney Whittemore. Cleveland II. Dod«;e. Edward W. Thompson. Robert Gentle. Sidney W. Wilcox. J. B. Lindsley. iative— Continued . Joseph R. Kerr. Theodore Leonhard. Daniel E. Lorenz. Wm. J. Macdowell. James H. Mcllvaine. Duncan J. McMillan. Daniel H. Overton. John R. Paxton. Vincent Pisek. Hugh Pritchard. Albert G. Ruliffson. Joseph A. Saxton. Adolphus F. Schauffler. J. Balcom Shaw. Wilton M. Smith. Geo. L. Spining. Henry Van Dyke. Frederick E. Voegelin. Erskine N. White. David G. Wylie. —71 VFIRMATIVE. Theron G. Strong. John Stewart. Francis Rogers. Charles H. Woodbury. M. E. Fox. Henry Q. Hawley. Geo. C. Lay. Henry B. Caithness. William Mitchell. Wm. A. Wheelock. C. P. Leggett. —23 Affirmative. 94 149 MINISTERS—NEGATIVE Sam’l D. Alexander. Robert R. Booth Walter D. Buchanan. Thomas S. Bradner. Arthur Folsom. Augustus D. L. Jewett. Albert B. King. Sidney G. Law. John C. Lowrie. Alex. McLean. Horace G. Miller. James C. Nightingale. George Nixon. Levi A. Parsons. Wm. M. Paxton. Edward P. Pay son. Wendell Prime. James S. Ramsay. Charles S. Robinson. Joseph Sanderson. Geo. L. Shearer. Wm. G. T. Shedd. John M. Stevenson. J. Ford Sutton. Alex. W. Sproull. Abbott L. R. Waite. John J. Thompson. —27 ELDERS- —NEGATIVE. Geo. M. Jaques. John C. Tucker. Wm. A. Richmond. Andrew Robinson. David Peek. Robert Beggs. Richard H. Bull. Frederick Blume. Joseph Moorhead. Thomas Anderson. Wm. M. Onderdonk. Wm. R. Worrall. —12 Negative. . 39 After the announcement of the vote, the Chairman of the Committee of Prosecution gave notice of an Appeal to Synod On motion it was Resolved , that a vote of thanks be tendered to the Committee for its diligence and fidelity. The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., on behalf of himself and others, gave notice of a complaint against the decision of the Presbytery, in refusing to enter upon the records a motion of Elder Woodbury to discharge the Prosecuting Committee, which was ruled by the Moderator not to be in order, in view of the decision of the morning. The Presbytery adjourned with prayer. 150 OFFICIAL STENOGRAPHER’S REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE NEW YORK PRESBYTERY IN THE CASE OF PROF. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, Of the Union Theological Seminary, on November 4th, 1891. The meeting was called to order in the Scotch Presby¬ terian Church at 10 A. M. by the Moderator, Dr. John C. Bliss, and the proceedings commenced with prayer, offered by Dr. Bliss. Pkayek. 0 Lord our Maker, our Preserver, and our Father in Christ Jesus, as we are here met, let us feel that we are not merely in the presence of these witnesses looking upon us, or of those viewing us from the world without, but rather in Thy presence. Give us such a deep sense of that presence that we may forget all other things in comparison with it; that in the light of Thy holiness and of Thy greatness we may see ourselves aright, and so be very humble and very careful in all that we think, say or do. Upon this special occasion which here and now convenes us, we ask for Thy special blessing. Thou hast said if any man lack wisdom, if he ask of Thee, it shall be given him, and that liberally and without upbraiding. In Thy great kindness grant us this wisdom,—the wisdom that is from above,—from Thyself, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 151 Give this wisdom to our brother who is called here to-day to answer for his views concerning Thy Word, and with every needful grace do Thou bless him. Give this wisdom unto us all and the help of the Holy Spirit that we may be so directed in our deliberations, that with perfect calm¬ ness of mind, and fairness of mind, we shall judge righteously in our decisions. And 0! Our Father grant us true patience , genuine Christian courtesy , and that sweet spirit of charity which thinketh no evil, so that in all our proceedings we may reflect the image of our Master and promote His honor. We ask it for His Name’s sake. Amen. The Moderator : (To the Clerk.) The roll of the Pres¬ bytery will now be made up. Call the roll. We would suggest that as the arrangement of the house contemplates the seating of the Presbytery in advance of the two columns marked u Reserved Seats,” it would be for their comfort and convenience to occupy those seats nearer the desk, and so we would be within easy earshot of one another. Roll Call of Presbytery. George Alexander, S. H. Alexander, Andrew C. Arm¬ strong, Jr., Anson P. Atterbury, W. Wallace Atterbury, 3 Lewis W. Barney, Wm. H. Beach, Geo. W. F. Birch, John C. Bliss, Thomas S. Bradner, Charles A. Briggs, Francis Brown, Wm. T. Carr, James Chambers, Henry B. Chapin, Edward L. Clark, Nathaniel W. Conkling, John B. Bevins, Ira S. Bodd, B. Stuart Bodge, Conrad Boench, Thomas Bouglas, John H. Edwards, Frank F. Ellinwood, Wm. T. Elsing, Henry M. Field, Jesse F. Forbes, Herbert Ford, Charles R. Gillett, Henri L. Grandlienard, A. Wood¬ ruff Halsey, Edward P. Hammond, Wm. R. Harshaw, Thomas S. Hastings, Charles E. Herring, Edward W. Hitchcock, James H. Hoadley, Sam’l M. Jackson, Joseph * 152 R. Kerr, Bartolomew Krusi, Theodore Leonhard, Daniel E. Lorenz, Wm. M. Martin, Francis H. Marling, Henry T. McEwen, Janies H. McHvaine, Alex. McKinney, Charles H. Parkhnrst, John R. Paxton, Geo. S. Payson, Geo. L. Prentiss, Stealy B. Rossiter, Albert G. Ruliffson, Fred¬ erick N. Rutan, Joseph A. Saxton, Philip Schaff, James E. Sentz, J. Balcom Shaw, Andrew Shiland, Wilton M. Smith, Geo. L. Spining, Charles L. Thompson, Henry Van Dyke, Marvin R. Vincent, Frederick E. Voegelin, Thomas G. Wall, Geo. S. Webster, Erskine H. White, John T. Wilds, David G. Wylie. Roll Call of Elders. M. M. Brown, Adams Memorial; Geo. M. Jaques, Bethany; John C. Tucker, Brick; William A. Richmond, Chalmers; Andrew Robinson, Christ; Theron G. Strong, Covenant; David T. Peek, Faith; Robert Beggs, Fifth Avenue; Richard H. Bull, First; H. Zincke, First Union; Frederick Blume, Fourth; John Stewart, Fourth Avenue; Samuel Reeve, 14th Street; Francis Rogers, Harlem; J. Moorhead, Knox; Thomas S. Strong, Madison Avenue; Chas. H. Woodbury, Madison Square; Henry Bruning, Madison Street; M. E. Fox, Morrisania; I. M. Dyckman, Mt. Washington; Thomas Anderson, Hew York; Henry Q. Hawley, Park; Sidney Whittemore, Phillips; George C. Lay, Puritans; Cleveland H. Dodge, Riverdale; Will¬ iam M. Onderdonk, Rutgers; H. B. Caithness, Scotch; Edward W. Thompson, Seventh; William Mitchell, Spring Street; William R. Worrall, 13th Street; Robert Gentle, Union Tabernacle; William A. Wheelock, Washington Heights; Sidney F. Wilcox, West; C. P. Leggett, West End; Alexander Wilson, West 51st Street; J. B. Lindsay, Westminster of West 23d Street. Rev. Mr. McEiven: Mr. Moderator, I have a funeral at 153 half-past one to-day, and I should like to be excused to attend that so that I may not lose my rights. The Moderator: If there is no objection it will be 5 granted. Dr. G. L. Shearer : The objection in the case of an eccle¬ siastical trial is that it requires the unanimous consent of three parties, that is, the defendant, and the plaintiff, if we may so style them, and the Court itself; and there cannot be any excuse without that. I do not object myself but simply to keep the matter right. The Moderator: That will come up later. Dr. Rossiter asked if the elders who were coming in late would be debarred from voting. The Moderator: No, sir; but an opportunity will be given for them to be enrolled. Dr. Wylie: Shall we not hear the report of the Com¬ mittee of Arrangements? The Moderator: The next matter before us is the report of the Committee of Arrangements for the house, and any resolution incidental to that report. Dr. Wylie: The Committee of Arrangements would respectfully report: First : That pews be reserved for the members of Pres¬ bytery, for Elders belonging to our city churches not voting, and that the rest of the church be thrown open to the 6 general public. Second : That while earnestly desiring to provide accommodation for all who come, when the pews are all filled the doors of the church be closed. And in order to preserve quiet no one be permitted to stand in the aisles. Third : The Committee also recommend that an official stenograx^her be employed, and that Presbytery order a special collection in all the churches to meet the necessary expenses of the Presbytery. 154 Fourth : The Committee recommend in case that pro¬ ceedings extend beyond to-day, that the sessions be held from 2 to 5 P.M., and that a recess be taken to-day from 1 to 2 P.M. By order of Committee. David Ct. Wylie, Chairman. The Moderator: What is yonr pleasure with this report? Dr. G. L. Shearer: I move the report be accepted and adopted. The Moderator: It is moved and seconded that this report be adopted. Those in favor will say aye, those opposed no. (The motion was carried.) Dr. Wylie: I am not through yet. If it is the wish of the Presbytery to secure an official stenographer now is the time to make all necessary arrangements. Dr. Briggs informs me that the Seminary has employed a stenog¬ rapher, and it has been thought wise to have a gentleman here who could be secured if it was the wish of the Presby¬ tery. We want to be perfectly fair to all the parties, and it is now in the hands of the Presbytery to say whether they wish to secure the stenographer provided by Di. Briggs, the Union, Seminary stenographer, or the other gentleman who is here and who can be employed by the Presbytery in an official manner. I bring it befoie ^ou, without making the motion on the subject. Dr. Shearer: I move that it be referred to the clerk with power to act. The Moderator: I think it would be well for the Pres¬ bytery itself to settle this question. Dr. Shearer : We cannot tell as to the qualifications of the stenographer. "We simply refer it to the clerks and they can find that out. The Moderator : It is a matter that should be provided for at once. Dr. Wylie: Here is a gentleman who is highly recom- 155 mended, who has worked as a court stenographer, and we 8 can make a satisfactory arrangement with him. If you say so I will move that Mr. Lucius W. How be secured as our official stenographer. Motion seconded. The Moderator: It is moved and seconded that the ser¬ vices of this stenographer be secured. Those in favor of that will say aye, contrary no. The motion is carried. We have already decided that the Presbytery is responsible for the expenses. Dr. C. S. Robinson: Mr. Moderator, may I ask the question whether the nooning hour between 1 and 2 o’clock has been fixed. Nobody seems to know if that has been fixed. Can that be changed ? There will be members that will need more time than that. There are many of us who cannot possibly go home and get back in an hour from here. If it is agreeable we want more recess for that sort of thing, if we are going to begin in the morning and go on until 5 or 6 o’clock. The Moderator: We are not. After to-day we will begin at 2 o’clock. Is that satisfactory? Dr. Robinson: Yes, sir. Dr. Shearer: Will you hear a brief report from the Committee on Rules that were adopted for the government g of the judicatory. The Moderator: Certainly. Dr. Shearer: The Presbytery at the last session ap¬ pointed a committee to report on the meeting of the General Assembly at the last meeting, and referred to the Com¬ mittee also the question of the adoption of the rules of the judicatory which were framed by the General Assembly and put into final shape in 1885. This Committee finds, upon inquiry from the stated Clerk, that during his term of office they were adopted by this Presbytery, but the clerk reports that there is no record of their adoption. J 56 The Committee appointed recommend that these rules be now adopted by the Presbytery. Motion seconded. The Moderator: It is moved and seconded that this Presbytery do formally adopt the General Pules for Judicatories as approved in our Book and as amended in 1885, and that we be governed accordingly by these rules. Are you ready for the question? Those in favor will say aye, those opposed no. It is so ordered. The Presbytery is now ready to proceed to the business assigned for trial, and it becomes me to-day as Moderator 10 to remind you that you are about to sit in a judicial capa¬ city, not in the capacity of an ordinary court merely, but as a Court of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that you are to consider the matter seriously before you, and to have regard to your high character as judges of such a court, and of the solemn duty which is now before you. Dr. Briggs : Mr. Moderator- Dr. B. F. Sample: Mr. Moderator, should the minutes of the last meeting be read ? The Moderator : That is a question. Perhaps it would be well that we have an order of procedure suggested. Dr. Briggs (still standing): Mr. Moderator- The Moderator : Dr. Briggs, just a moment. I would ask you if you wish counsel. Dr. Briggs : I do not. The Moderator: Dr. Briggs does not wish counsel. I would now give the status of the matter which is before us; that action was taken at the last meeting on the 5th of October, upon the report of the Committee of Prosecu¬ tion appointed at a prior meeting of this Presbytery. That Committee presented certain charges and specifica- 11 tions against the Pev. Prof. Chas. A. Briggs. It was decided that those charges and specifications be presented to him. That was done in the Presbytery, and a citation by order of the Presbytery was issued to him to appear 157 and make answer to those charges and specifications. The question naturally arises whether these should be read at this time, or whether, they having already been read in the hearing of the Presbytery and of Dr. Briggs, and having been printed, and being in this form in all the hands of the members of the Presbytery, that be considered sufficient. As a matter of record it would seem as if some action should be taken at this point, and then we shall hear from Dr. Briggs. Dr. Henry B. Elliot: I move that be considered suffi¬ cient, and that we proceed without reading. (Motion seconded by Dr. Henry M. Field.) Dr. Robinson: Is this the last meeting, or is it not? Is this a part of the meeting called ‘ 6 the last meeting ? 5 ’ The Moderator: It is a continuation of that meeting in one sense, but not in another sense. We are here now proceeding with this matter- Dr. Robinson: Is this meeting a part of the one that was held when this other matter was brought up ? The Moderator : Ho, sir. Dr. Robinson: That covers the question whether that was another meeting, and whether the minutes should be read. If that was a part of this meeting they do not need to be read. Is this a part of an adjourned meeting or a part of the other meeting, or is it an independent meeting ? The Moderator: We are now acting in a different capa¬ city. We are here now as a court. At the other meeting it was simply a meeting of the Presbytery, but the ques¬ tion now before us is whether the plaintiff in this action shall be heard, and we as a court consider this matter coming under our view, and in our consideration of the merits of the case, it is essential that we should put our¬ selves right. The plaintiffs on one side and Dr. Briggs on the other are now present, and we should listen to the reading of the charges and specifications or agree that they 158 be accepted in their printed form. Is it agreed that this is sufficient to bring this matter before the Court? Dr. Briggs : It is agreed. The Moderator : And the other party also agrees? (Dr. Birch assents). It is so held. It is now understood; and the question now is what has Dr. Briggs to say in return ^3 to this citation which has been issued to him. Dr. Briggs : Mr. Moderator- The Moderator : Will Dr. Briggs just wait a moment. It is thought that we should have the names added of any brethren who have come in since the roll was called. If any are present they will please announce themselves immediately. Dr. Sutton, Dr. Stevens, Mr. Bradner and Mr. Wild were then named as being present, and not being present at the time of the roll call. The Moderator: Are there any other Elders who have come in? Mr. Henry Bruning of the Madison Street Church, Rev. Mr. Folsom, Andrew Robinson, of Christ Church, M. E. Fox, of Morrisania First Church, and Rev. Mr. Ruliifson, answered as present. Dr. Smith was also stated to have just come into the house. The Moderator: The Moderator thinks that we should now proceed. If there are others who have not been announced as having been here during the proceedings, their names can be entered before we take recess, or at our re-assembling, when the roll will have to be called again; and it would be just as well to remind the breth¬ ren that this is a rule we cannot now deviate from; that the roll is to be called upon our assembling when we sit ^ beyond one session. Mr. McCook : And before adjournment? The Moderator: And before we adjourn also. Dr. Briggs has the floor. Dr. Briggs then read his paper “ tiling objections ’ 5 159 which is entitled c c Response to the Charges and Specifi¬ cations ” (see p. 115 of this Record). After reading it he took his seat. Dr. Henry Van Dyke: Mr. Moderator, I desire to make a motion. The Moderator : We shall hear now from the parties on the other side. Dr. Van Dyke: Mr. Moderator, is that the ruling which you hold? The Moderator : I hold that a motion now is not in order. The rule says “the parties shall be heard” on these questions. Dr. Briggs states his objections, and now the plaintiff on the other side has a right to answer the objections. Dr. Van Dyke: I propose to submit to that ruling, but I cannot submit without protest. It involves a very im¬ portant point. It involves the point whether the Com¬ mittee is an original party or not. It involves that very important point in the procedure, and as a ruling of this point will be a part of the proceedings of this body, there¬ fore, with entire respect to you, sir, and without any spirit of opposition to your ruling, but simply with a ^ desire to guard the constitutional points which will be very carefully observed, I will inquire of you whether that ruling means that the Committee is an original party in this case. The Moderator: The Moderator’s decision is that this Committee represents the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America as the original party. Dr. Van Dyke: And the Committee is an original party ? The Moderator : Yes, sir Dr. Van Dyke: I beg leave, with your consent, to enter a protest against this ruling, first, on the ground that in a case arising under common fame a prosecuting 160 Committee is not an original party (see Moore’s Digest, Edition of 1873, page 563); and, second, on the ground that this Committee, appointed to prepare and arrange the papers, has never been legally appointed as a pros¬ ecuting committee. That protest I very respectfully wish to enter on the minutes. Prof. J. J. Stevenson: Any decisions as far back as 1873 are utterly valueless in this case. The sections of the Book of Discipline under which we proceed are found only in the new Book of Discipline, and the Constitution states that the Judicatory shall appoint one or more of its own l $ members a Committee to conduct the prosecution in all stages, in whatever judicatory, until a final issue be reached. In the tenth section we read when the prosecu¬ tion is initiated by a Judicatory the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America shall be the prosecutor and original plaintiff. Under this new Book we proceed. Under this new Book the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America appears before this Court in the person of this Committee as' the original party, as one of the original parties, as the prosecutor; and as such we have a right to answer. Dr. Van Dy~ke: I would say I would much prefer to hear this Committee now; but I do not wish this Presby¬ tery to commit itself to this ruling. There is no record on the books of this Presbytery to show that this Committee was appointed according to Section 10 to conduct the pros¬ ecution in all its stages until a final issue be reached. Even if you had entertained my motion, I should at once have yielded the floor in courtesy to the Com¬ mittee. Mr. James H. fHoadley: (To members desiring to get copies of Dr. Briggs’ paper). I want to announce that it 17 is the desire^that the press receive these copies now and that they be given to the Presbytery at a later date. 161 The Moderator : Shall the request be granted that this protest be entered on the record ? Dr. Robinson : Mr. Moderator, I wish to ask whether that is a protest or point of order first; and in the sec¬ ond place I wish to say that no such motion is either neces¬ sary or in order. Nobody can make a protest unless he offers it in writing. He can make a protest without any motion whatever. If Dr. Yan Dyke is entitled to it as a protest, if it be a protest, he must put it in writing, and hand it in; and then it will be his right without any vote. If that is a point of order it is already decided, sir, and we can move on ; and I wish to know whether it is a pro- test or a point of order. The Moderator : It is understood to be a protest, which will be entered on the records, and a provision made for its answer. Prof. Francis Brown : Without desiring to take the time of the Presbytery, this should be thoroughly consid¬ ered. If the Moderator rules that the Committee is an original party it will be in the face of action which the Presbytery took at the last meeting. I question very 13 much whether the Presbytery is prepared, if the Moderator will allow me to say so, to sustain him in this ruling. The question is simply this : There is no doubt that, according to the book, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is the prosecutor and an origi¬ nal party. The simple question is who represents the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America on the floor in this house. Clearly as was stated the last time, and the Presbytery acknowledged it, it is the Pres¬ bytery. The Committee, whatever its functions may be, is a creature of the Presbytery. The point was raised by Dr. Yan Dyke at the last meeting and was accepted by the Presbytery as the clear common-sense interpretation of the rules. It is not an isolated idea of the members of the 162 Presbytery. It is a matter of constitutional law, and can be decided by the proper means. If the Presbytery, as an original party representing the Presbyterian Church if the Presbytery decides that the Committee will now be heard, through its Committee or anybody else, that is one question ; but it is by no means to be assumed that the Presbytery will so choose unless that has been manifested in some proper way. I submit, therefore, Mr. Moderator, that the Committee cannot be regarded as the representa- 19 tive of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America except so far as this Presbytery has appointed this Committee for a particular service; and further that the records of the Presbytery do not show that this Com- mitteewas appointed to conduct the prosecution in all the courts; and if the record be referred to the exact limits Oi the duties of this Committee will be found to be there stated in the resolution under which it was appointed. If mv memory serves me it can be shown, without reference to”the records, that the very first appearance upon any offi¬ cial document of the Presbytery of the term of “ Com¬ mittee of Prosecution ’ ’ in connection with this body of gentlemen, is on the cover of the report w T hich they pre¬ sented to the Presbytery at its meeting on the 5th of Octo¬ ber. There is no record on the minutes of the Presbytery of last May or last June, or prior to the presentation of that report, that any Committee of Prosecution has been announced, that any Committee has been appointed to prosecute this case in the different courts of this church. The wording is to thfs effect, that a Committee be appointed to arrange and prepare the necessary proceedings proper in the case of Dr. Briggs. I submit, Mr. Moderator, that that is not a Prosecuting Committee according to the terms required by the Book. For these two reasons, I beg to 20 express my very respectful dissent from the ruling of the Moderator, and should hope that the Presbytery may 163 have an opportunity to decide the point, and if it be in order I would with entire submission appeal from the decision of the Moderator. Dr. Andrew Shiland seconded the motion. Dr. F. H. Marling contended that the appeal should be made by Professor Brown and signed by others, including Dr. Van Dyke. The Moderator : Let us not get away from the matter in hand. The question which has been raised is a very serious question. The Moderator has already met this question and has been wrestling with it. There are differ¬ ent views in regard to it on the part of many minds, and there are different positions taken concerning it. Remem¬ ber this, that this is a new order. We have no precedent to appeal to. We are virtually establishing the law and the usage, or rather the practice under the law as it is written in this new section of our book. But we cannot discuss that now. It may come up in another way after¬ wards. The simple matter before us is the objections which Dr. Briggs has presented. He has stated his side in those objections, and the next thing is to hear the par¬ ties on the other side. Now the question is raised whether this party is in the attitude, which is claimed by the Com¬ mittee of Prosecution, of representing the original party in the case, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The Moderator decides that, under this new order that we have in our book, the Committee of Prose¬ cution is here in its proper attitude as the representative of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of Amer¬ ica as the original party; that each member of that Com¬ mittee, forming the Committee as a whole, is a representa¬ tive of that original party. A protest is made by Dr. Van Dyke against this decision of the Moderator, that will be entered uj)on the record. It will be answered, probably, and it will go up as a part of our record. It will come 21 164 for an interpretation before the Synod, and the correctness or incorrectness of the Moderator’s decision in the matter will come up, but that is not a matter for discussion now. Dr. Van Dyke : That is exactly what I want. The Moderator: The only hesitation I have is that we should not go away from the merits of the objections now presented, which will be answered by the Committee of Prosecution. C. H. Woodbury: Let me say one word. There is a 22 difference of opinion on one fundamental fact, and that is, whether this Committee has been appointed a Commit¬ tee of Prosecution. Dr. Brown says, according to his recollection, that no such formal appointment of the Com¬ mittee has been made. Now, the records will certainly show whether they have or not. If it has not been made, then the Committee is not in a position to be a party. The Moderator: On that question, the Moderator is obliged to decide that, while in certain aspects of the matter the language did not state definitely that this Com¬ mittee of Prosecution was so called, yet, under the action taken at the previous meeting, which said we should pro¬ ceed with the investigation, and that Committee having been appointed for that purpose and so acting in our last meeting, and the Presbytery haring taken action after debate upon the report of the Committee, which presented charges and specifications , and the Presbytery having issued its citation to Professor Briggs, which was a judi¬ cial movement on its part, and Professor Briggs having now appeared in this Court this morning filing objections, we are certainly launched upon this matter in a legal way, and so the Moderator is obliged to recognize the matter as regular and this Committee of Prosecution as being in the house as the representative of the original party, which is 23 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Dr. Van Dyke : Mr. Moderator, let me say one thing 165 further. It is a question of fact that is here, whether the record does show the appointment of a Committee. The Moderator : Does the brother wish the record to be read ? Mr. Woodbury : I understand Brother Brown to mention that as a fact—to bring this before the Presbytery—the point that this Committee has not been appointed Com¬ mittee of Prosecution. I have no recollection of that point, but he has. The Moderator : Is it necessary to bring this record in now? T)i . Brown : I hope the record will be read. I have no desire to protract the debate, but it seems to be important that the Committee should understand how this stands. The record was read as follows : “12th May, 1891. It was moved, on the recommendation of the majority report, viz., that the Presbytery enter at once upon the judicial investigation of the case. The motion was carried. On motion, it was resolved that a Committee be appointed to arrange and prepare the necessary proceedings appropriate in the case of Prof. Briggs.” The Moderator : The Moderator must maintain his de¬ cision on that point. Dr. Charles L. Thompson : Mr. Moderator, I feel it important in the interest of proper record that the attention of the Moderator should again be called to the point made by Dr. Marling with reference to the right of protest. Dr. Van Dyke, as I understand it, has no right of protest against the decision of the Moderator. He has a right to appeal, however, to the members from the decision of the Moderator. If the Moderator’s decision is sustained by the members he then acquires, and not till then, the right of protest against any decision of the Moderator by the action of the Presbytery. Dr. Van Dylce: The book says a protest is a more 24 166 formal declaration bearing testimony against . wliat . is deemed a mischievous or erroneous decision, and including a statement of the reasons thereof. Dr. Marling: I will read from Chapter 10, page 343, of the rules governing the Presbytery : ‘ ‘ A protest is a more formal declaration, made by one or more members of a minority, bearing testimony against what is deemed a mischievous or erroneous proceeding, decision or judgment, and including a statement of the reasons therefor.” 25 The next clause reads: “ If a Dissent or Protest be couched in decorous and respectful language, and be without offensive reflections or insinuations against the majority , it shall be entered on the records.” A Member : I second the motion of Dr. Brown. The Moderator : Dr. Brown appeals. Dr. Van Dyke: I will withdraw my protest that an appeal may be taken. All I want is to get a clean recoid when it comes to the Synod. Dr. Brown: May I say a single word in explanation, Mr. Moderator? The point is simply this : The Moderator, as I understand, has decided that the Prosecuting Com¬ mittee so called—I am not prepared to admit the correct¬ ness of the name—is now an original party as representing directly the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The exception to the ruling taken is that this Committee does not directly represent the Piesbyterian Church in the United States of America. it is simply the Committee of this Presbytery. Whatever representation there is of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America in this house is vested in the Presbytery itself ', and it is on that ground that the appeal is asked from the decision of the Moderator. What I hold in my hand is a 26 letter from a very high authority in the Church on Ecclesi- 167 astical Law, from which I will ask leave to read one single sentence : “ The parties thus far are the judicatory, which initiates the prosecution, represented by the Committee as appointed, and the accused, who has been furnished with the charges and specifications,” and there is not the slightest disposition to prevent the representative of the Presbytery from being heard in answer to the objections which have been filed, not the slightest. It is simply a question of whether or not this Committee does represent this Presby¬ tery or represents a body out of the control of this Pres¬ bytery, and is therefore independent—wholly independent of this Presbytery. Now it is naturally conceivable that that question, apart from other questions in the case, may be of considerable importance at a later stage of the case, and it is upon that ground that the point is raised and the decision of the Moderator is appealed from. I am given authority to use the name of the writer; it is Dr. W. E. Moore, of Columbus, Ohio. The Moderator: The Moderator says he has a letter on the same point from an authority equally high, and, as has already been stated, the brethren will understand that we are on new ground and we have to feel our way the best we can. The Moderator’s decision is, as you have heard, that 27 this Committee is correctly constituted; that it is in the house as the representative of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; that it has power to carry this case on (as will probably be done in that form, or some other) from one court to the other; and without wishing to influence the house at all, the Moderator is of the opinion that this is, perhaps, the simpler way to come at the matter, and go on with our work and reach a decided issue one way or the other. Now, that is the decision of the Moderator, and you appeal from that. Of course, the Moderator is only too glad to be subject to the greater 168 wisdom of liis brethren. The question is upon the appeal, and there is no further debate in order. Dr. Booth : Will you read clearly the statement? The Moderator : ‘ ‘ When the Prosecution is initiated by a Judicatory, the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America shall be the prosecutor and an original party. In all other cases the individual prosecutor shall be an original party.” In explanation of that position the idea is this, that the Presbytery having once commit¬ ted itself to the matter of prosecution and appointed a Committee for that purpose, practically has no further 28 control of that Committee until it completes its function. That function will not be completed until, if the Commit¬ tee choose, it shall carry the case to the last court of appeal; that in the meantime that Committee as to its entire membership is virtually not a part of the Presby¬ tery, and the members of it have no vote on any decision that shall be made; but, of course, they have a right to be heard on points of objection and as to the merits of the main question. That Committee will continue in existence until its function is completed. The Presbytery has for the time being no further control of it. That is the position which is involved in the decision of this question. Are you ready for the question? Dr. Thompson : What is the question now? The Moderator : The question is on the appeal from the decision of the Moderator. Dr. Thompson: What is that decision? The Moderator: The decision is that this Committee has been properly constituted as a Committee of Prosecu¬ tion, and represents the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America as an original party; and that its power is to carry this case on to completion. Is that clear? Dr. Thompson: Yes; that is clear. 29 Dr. E. N. White: Will you read the next section which 169 alludes to the appointment of a Committee, and tell us whether it is an inference. The Moderator: The statements that have just been made are in inference, or rather a fuller statement of the ideas involved in the decision here presented. The next section is, “ When the Prosecution is initiated by a Judi¬ catory, it shall appoint one or more of its own members a Committee to conduct the Prosecution in all its stages in whatever Judicatory, until the final issue be reached \ provided, that any appellate Judicatory,” &c. (Book of Discipline, Sec. 11.) Dr . Shearer: May I request the reading of Pule 42 ? (“ Gren. Rules for Judicatories ”). The Moderator: The reading of Rule 42 is called for. It is, “ But in cases of process on the ground of general rumor, where there is, of course, no particular accuser, there may be a Committee appointed (if convenient) who shall be called the ‘ Committee of Prosecution, ’ and who shall conduct the whole cause on the part of the prosecu¬ tion. The members of this Committee shall not be per¬ mitted to sit in judgment in the case.” Dr. Marling: Mr. Moderator, I would like to call for 80 a division of the question appealed. One is whether a Prosecuting Committee exists. That was one part of the question. The next is, what are the powers of the Pros¬ ecuting Committee in relation to the Presbytery, whether the Presbytery retains any control over the Committee, after it has been once appointed; for example, if it hap¬ pened that the Committee was a Committee of One, and that Committee dies, the Presbytery would have power to replace him or appoint some one else. I submit the two questions are distinct questions, and I therefore ask for a division, that an appeal be taken on the two parts of your decision. Dr of . Stevenson : Mr. Moderator, if the question is to 170 be divided in that way I shall not ask to be heard now, but debate and explanations have been made on the other side as to the appointment of the Committee, and before the question is put on that appeal we must be heard. The matter has been fully discussed on the other side, and we must be heard. Dr. Andrew Shiland desired to make a motion, but was ruled out of order. Prof. Briggs: I want to ask a question as to fact. A few days before the last meeting of the Presbytery when 31 the charges were presented I was waited upon at my house by a member of the Committee- The Moderator: Prof. Briggs will have to yield to the Moderator’s decision that we are going astray. An appeal is made, and that is not debatable. j Prof. Briggs : This is directly to the point that has been raised. The Moderator : If it is for the purpose of information- Prof. Briggs : When the Moderator has heard what I have to say he will be able to find out. Dr. Pobinson: Is there no end to this discussion ? When an appeal is made the vote has got to be taken. It is not debatable. When the appeal is made it has got to be taken. When the point of order is decided by the Moderator that ends that part of the discussion; then an appeal comes up and it is required that a vote be taken. No facts are necessary to an appeal. If I am not stating the point of order correctly, I need to be corrected. No word is tolerated after that one word “ appeal” is pronounced. The Moderator: I think the brother is right. The appeal will now be taken. The Moderator must insist upon it. We are going into questions that involve great difference of opinion. The question is on sustaining the 32 Moderator in his decision; first, that this Committee of Prosecution is properly in the house in the position in 171 which it has been represented; and second, on the other decision involving the point raised, first, by Dr. Yan Dyke, that the Committee is an original party. We will divide the question. The appeal is made from the decision that according to the minutes this Committee of Prosecution is properly pursuing its function. Those in favor of this- Dr. George W. F. Bircli: Mr. Moderator, can we, the members of the Committee, vote on that? The Moderator: No, sir; those in favor of sustaining the Moderator will say aye; opposed, no. It is carried. Now, upon the other point, those in favor of sustaining the decision, will say aye; opx>osed. (The Moderator being in doubt, a division was called for.) Dr. Brown: Will the Moderator state the point upon which the appeal is taken. The point is as to whether this Committee is an original party, or whether indepen¬ dent of the Presbytery, or with the Presbytery. Dr. Birch: That is not the point of order. We are properly constituted now. Dr. Robinson: I called the brother to order, that there can be nothing said on the appeal. The Moderator: The Moderator’s decision is that under this rule of the book which reads as follows: ‘ ‘ When 33 the Prosecution is initiated by a Judicatory, the Presby¬ terian Church in the United States of America shall be the prosecutor, and an original party.” The Moderator decides that this is so, and that the church at large is represented by this Prosecuting Committee. The appeal is from that decison. Dr. Brown: You say it is an original party? The Moderator : No, sir; I say the church is an origi¬ nal party, and the Committee rex>resents that party. Dr. Robinson: And is independent of the Presbytery. The Moderator: I said that was involved in the word¬ ing of the rule. 172 Dr. Van Dyke: Let tills be perfectly clear. The Moderator: Dr. Yan Dyke is not clear about the matter. Dr. Van Dyke: I rose to offer a motion. You said under the rule No. 22 it was not in order, because the parties must now be heard. I said I proposed to submit to your decision, and inquired whether that implied that the Committee was an original party, and you said it did so imply, and I offered a protest, and I withdrew that pro¬ test in order that an appeal might be taken from your decision. It is a matter of courtesy. The Committee is to be heard first. The decision I protest against, and ap- peal from, is that the Committee is an original party. Is that clear? The Moderator : The protest can only be offered after a decision by the body. The question is, shall the decision of the Moderator be sustained. Those in favor of sustain¬ ing will say aye; opposed, no. (The Moderator being in doubt, a division is called for.) Will those in favor, please rise, and stand until counted. 64 votes in favor. Those opposed will please rise. 64 to 57. Great minds still differ. Dr. Yan Dyke gives notice of his protest against the decision. Dr. Brown gave notice of a complaint against the de¬ cision of the Judicatory, and Dr. Briggs gave notice of an appeal. The Moderator : You join in the protest. Dr. Brown : No, sir. The Moderator: We shall now hear from the Prose¬ cuting Committee. Dr. Brown: Is an appeal in order from this decision of the house? If it is in order, I should like the privilege of an appeal. The Moderator: No, an appeal is not in order. You can complain. 173 Prof. J. J. Stevenson: Mr. Moderator, as this Com¬ mittee has been appointed by the Presbytery to attend to this work, it is therefore devoid, as is well understood, 35 of personal feeling in the matter, and for that reason no objection was interposed to the Professor pleading; for, under the guise of objections, Prof. Briggs has succeeded in pleading and discussing the merits of the case almost throughout. At the proper time the Prosecuting Com¬ mittee will be ready to answer nearly all the objections which Prof. Briggs has entered. They are not objections to be entered at this time; they are findings against the truthfulness of the charges, which we propose to prove if we may, and we think we can. Such objections, which make up the mass of his plea, are certainly out of place at this stage of the proceedings. The first question is what is a charge. The charges set forth is the alleged offense, and the specifications set forth the facts relied upon to sustain the charges. The objections then are, first, to the form of the charges and secondly, to the form of the spec¬ ifications. The strongest objection throughout the whole has been as to the relevancy of the specifications to the charges. I insist that that is a matter which is to be proved by the Prosecution when the proper time comes. It is unnecessary for us to go into details. The statements made that the texts are irrelevant certainly may appear so at this stage. It is the duty of the Prosecution to give the names of the witnesses, and it is not the duty of the 36 Prosecution to tell the Court what it intends to prove by those witnesses. Those texts may seem exceedingly irrelevant now, they may prove to be exceedingly relevant before the case is done; that matter will be settled by the Prosecution in its proper place. That is not an objection which is effective here. Now the charge sets forth an alleged offense. It may not be definite. The charge, we maintain, does set forth the alleged offense. In the 174 Craighead decision which has been quoted so much there is nothing that I can find, after very careful reading of the decision, which in any way affects the matter in the case here, nothing whatever. Prof. Briggs has not in any wise objected to the literal republication of portions of his address. There may be something more there than is necessary- (A Member : Louder.) As to the Craighead decision, the Prosecution will accept that to its fullest extent. We will accept the Craighead decision in every portion. We will ask that not one portion, but every portion of it be taken here in this case. That has been appealed to this morning in several cases. The one point which Prof. Briggs so strongly makes, so well, is this, that it is not right to charge any man with an opinion which he disavows. Prof. Briggs has not disavowed those opinions here. He has made those statements to-day, but I contend that those statements should have been made, not here at this time, but at a previous time, and 07 those disavowals made here to-day do not avail. The only thing which Prof. Briggs could do was to simply file objections to the form , not to the truthfulness, and not to the falsity of any one of the charges or any one of the specifications. His plea has been very largely based on that last. Now the Craighead decision, to which he refers, is this : “ Here it will be important to remark that a man cannot fairly be convicted of heresy for using expressions which may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doctrines. If they may also admit of a more favorable construction, because no one can tell in what sense an ambiguous expression is used but the speaker or writer, and he has a right to explain himself ; and in such cases candor required that a court should favor the accused by putting on his words the more favorable con¬ struction.” That is when the trial is on; that is when the case is being tried; that is a matter for us to decide 175 on. We are not trying the truthfulness of the charge. We are not trying whether it is inferential or not. We are simply testing the question whether the charges are in form or not. Of course, when we come to try the case we shall be compelled to take the next portion of that into view. ‘ ‘ Another principle is that no man can rightly be convicted of heresy by inference or implication; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those consequences which may legitimately flow from his asser¬ tions. Many men are grossly inconsistent with themselves, and while it is right, in argument, to overthrow false opinions, by tracing them in their connections and con¬ sequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion which he disavows.’’ Now we want the Court to understand that this Committee will stand by that decision clean through when the time comes; but the time has not yet come for this decision to be quoted. Now the ques¬ tion is whether we have made the charges specific or relevant. A Member: Allow me to say that some of the elders are going out without permission of the chair; why not speak to them and tell them they are not to go out with out permission? Will you ask them to remain? The Moderator: All the members of the Presbytery will remember that it is essential that they should be present during the whole of the proceedings. The roll will be called at the reassembling. Dr. David G. Wylie : It is now about twenty minutes to one o’clock, and it seems to me that Prof. Stevenson might continue his speech at the next session, which would give us time to adjourn. Prof. Stevenson : I can finish in a moment. The first objection is that the first charge is too general. The charge is distinct. It is specific, and that charge and the specifi¬ cations must stand or fall together; they are one. u The 176 Presbyterian Cliurcli of the United States of Ameiica charges the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a minis¬ ter of the Presbyterian Church, and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching doctrines which conflict irreconcilably with, and are contrary to the caidi- nal doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and contained in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only 40 infallible rule of faith and practice.” That is the charge. The specifications under that simply indicate the facts. Now there is one point here which must be conceded at once to Professor Briggs. In ordei to avoid too frequent duplication and too much complex¬ ity, the Committee did not prefix this second paragraph of the charge to each one of the specifications. There is that involved. That is all with respect to this. Now with respect to the first charge; Professor Briggs has stated that he never taught anything contrary to this thing; that the charge is general and obscure and cannot be compre- hended, that the charge is not specific. Those are his objections to the charge. It is unnecessary for me to delay on those objections, because you have all read these charges; every one has read them. The value oi the objections can be recognized by every one in the room just as well as if I spoke an hour upon it; it is, therefore, not necessary to delay on that in any case. The only thing j. want the Court to remember is this, that by far the greater proportion of the objections were made, not to the form of the charges, but to the matter of the cnaiges and specifications; the objections were to the truthfulness of the charges and specifications, 'which are matters not to be discussed here to-day in this connection. The only ques¬ tion to be determined is, whether the charges and specifi- 41 cations are in the form required by the book. The Com¬ mittee maintained they are in every respect in accord with 177 the book, the book requiring that 4 £ The charge shall set forth the alleged offense and the specifications shall set forth the facts relied upon to sustain the charge. Each specification shall declare, as far as possible, the time, place and circumstances.” The only informality in the whole matter is the fact that the second paragraph of Charge I. was not prefixed to each one of the specifica¬ tions. Had that been done the formality would have been made complete. As for the specification under the second Charge, I am certain that it is very difficult to understand how any objection can be taken to that specification. It does not state any fact. No. It does state time, jfface and circumstances unquestionably, so there can be no objec¬ tions whatever taken to that one. The only possible room for objection is this one informality, which can be amended without the slightest possible difficulty by simply trans¬ ferring the second portion of Charge I. with the alteration of one or two words, prefixing it to each one of the specifications. A motion was made to call the roll and adjourn. The Moderator : We do not have to call the roll. We have fifteen minutes before one o’clock. Do the Commit¬ tee desire to be heard further f (The Moderator here waited some moments for the Committee to respond.) Dr. Van Dyke : Mr. Moderator- Dr. Birch (For the Committee); We have nothing fur¬ ther at present. Dr. Van Dyke: I desire to offer a motion, sir, if you will entertain it. I move that, in the exercise of the authority permitted to us by the Book of Discipline, Sec¬ tion 22, this Presbytery do now dismiss. Dr. Robinson : I call the brother to order. I move to adjourn and that the roll be called. The Moderator: I stated we did not need to call the roll now. 42 178 Dr. Robinson : I thought it was to be called at the end of session. The Moderator : No, sir. Allow the Moderator to state: We have already fixed the time for adjournment on taking recess, which is one o’clock, and we have fifteen minutes until that time now, and Dr. Van Dyke has the floor. Dr. Robinson : I made the motion to adjourn and it was seconded. The Moderator: It was made but not seconded, I understand. Dr. Van Dyhe : I move, in the exercise of our author¬ ity, according to the Book of Discipline, Section 22, and in view of the facts that have come before us this day, that this Presbytery do now dismiss this case \ and that the Committee appointed to arrange and prepare the papers be discharged, with the thanks of the Presbytery for the dili¬ gence with which they have done their duty. The Moderator: It is moved and seconded, in view of what we have heard, that the case be dismissed. Prof. Stevenson: The prosecution asks you to declare that motion out of order. Dr. Van Dyhe : I will state it again, and if you declare it out of order we will have to take the necessary course. < < Resolved, that in the exercise of the authority committed to us by the Book of Discipline, Section 22, of this Pres¬ bytery, and in view of the facts which have been this day presented to us, this Presbytery do now dismiss this case; and that the Committee appointed to arrange and prepare the papers be discharged, with the thanks of the Presby¬ tery for the diligence with which they have performed their duty. 5 5 I think probably that by this time there are several who can repeat that just as I stated it. (A Member calls for the reading of the Section.) Prof. Stevenson: According to Section 22, one thing yet remains to be done. “ The Judicatory upon the tiling of 179 such objections shall, or on its own motion may determine all such preliminary objections, and may dismiss the case, or permit, in the furtherance of justice, amendments to 44 the specifications or charges,” and so on. That is in Sec¬ tion 22, page 327. Dr. Van Dyke: The Judicatory there “ Shall, or on its own motion may,”—that is to say, without motion from either party of the case,—“may determine all such prelimi¬ nary objections, and may dismiss the case.” There is no reason why the objections should be dismissed before the case is dismissed. Dr of. Stevenson: “ Shall determine.” The Moderator : It would be better to say “ Sustain the objections and dismiss the case.” Dr. Van Dyke : I do not want to put the motion in that way, because that involves a long paper. Some may un¬ derstand the case and some would not. What we want to do is, to get rid of this thing as fast as we can. The Moderator : The motion, the Moderator decides, is perfectly in order. Prof. Stevenson : Then I wish to make objections to the last portion of the motion in reference to the discharge of this Committee. I take the position that this Presbytery cannot discharge this Committee; that this Presbytery has no authority over this Committee, except to see to it that it abides closely by the Book, in the whole of these proceedings. Dr. Van Dyke: That latter portion was put on for the 45 sake of courtesy. If the Committee would prefer I would divide the motion and simply put it in two parts, that the case be dismissed, and then afterwards we can discuss whether or not we shall thank the Committee for its dili¬ gence. Prof. Stevenson: No one appreciates the delightful wit of our brother better than I do; but I was not talking to 180 the question of thanks, I was talking to the question of discharge. Dr. Robinson: Isn’t this out of order? That resolution is not in writing. I am not going to follow a resolution which Brother Yan Dyke changes. The first rule is that it shall be reduced to writing before it is submitted, and then we know what we are discussing. This carries a whole world in it and should be written and not offered extemporaneously; and should be presented to the clerk in writing so the clerk can read it. Prof. Stevenson: If Dr. Yan Dyke will take off the last clause, then I have nothing to say. Dr. Van DyJce: I will divide the motion, and move simply to dismiss the case. The Moderator: The clerk willnow read the resolution. Mr. Hoadley (Permanent Clerk): “ Resolved, that the Presbytery, in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by the Book of Discipline, and in view of the facts which have been presented to us, do now dismiss the case.” Dr. Van Dyke: I would like to speak on that question. The Moderator: We have but five minutes left. Dr. Philip Schaff: I move this motion be made a special order of debate for this afternoon. Dr. S. D. Alexander: I move this motion be laid on the table. (The motion was seconded and lost.) A division was called for. Dr. Van Dyke: Mr. Moderator, I should like to make the point of order, that I had the floor at the time this motion was presented, and I was waiting for you to decide whether I should go on or not. I do not wish to force it on the Presbytery. The Moderator: Dr. Yan Dyke is right. I think it would be more for the convenience of the Presbytery if we considered the motion to adjourn. The Moderator: Dr. Yan Dyke would like a little more 181 time, and a motion will be considered to take a recess until 2 o’clock. (A motion to do this was then put and carried.) The roll will be called immediately after recess, so please be promptly in attendance. 47 (After recess.) The Moderator: The Presbytery will come to order, remembering that we are in the posture of a court. The roll will now be called. Mr. Hoadley: Mr. Moderator, will you allow me to move that two names be added to the roll of members, who were here one minute after the roll was called; it will require the unanimous vote of the body to allow their names to appear. Elder Edward W. Thompson, of the Seventh Church, and Pev. William M. Paxton. I move these names be added to the list. Dr. Brown: I make no objection, provided there is the same opportunity given to others to be entered. Pev. Vincent Pisek and Pev. Horace G-. Miller were also named as being present. The Moderator: Unless there is objection, there is con¬ sent of all concerned. Some of these brethren came in during the presentation of Dr. Briggs’s objections, and some have just come in now. Mr. Miller was present at the reading of the objection. Mr. Hoadley: I would ask is F. M. Pobinson in the house? The Moderator: Mr. F. M. Pobinson, is he present? A Member: He does not seem to be present. 48 Mr. Hoadley : Is Edward W. Thompson present? (No one answered.) The Moderator: Those in favor of enrolling these gentlemen will say aye, opposed no. It is carried. The roll will now be called. 182 The roll was called, and the following members of the Presbytery answered present: Geo. Alexander, Andrew C. Armstrong, Jr., A. P. Atterbury, W. W. Atterbury, Louis W. Barney, William H. Beach, George W. F. Birch, Nicholas Bjerring, John C. Bliss, Robert R. Booth, Thomas S. Bradner, Charles A. Briggs, Francis Brown, William T. Carr, James Chambeis, Edward L. Clark, Nathaniel W. Conkling, John B. Dev¬ ins,-Ira S. Dodd, D. Stuart Dodge, Conrad Doench, Thomas Douglas, John H. Edwards, Henry B. Elliot, William T. Elsing, Henry M. Field, Arthur Folsom, Jesse F. Forbes, Herbert Ford, Charles R. Gillett, Henri L. Grandlienard, John Hall, A. Woodruff Halsey, William R. Harshaw, Thomas S. Hastings, Charles E. Herring, Spencer L. Hillier, Edward W. Hitchcock, James H. Hoadley, Samuel M. Jackson, Augustus D. L. Jewett, Joseph R. Kerr, Albert B. King, Bartolomew Krusi, Joseph P. Lestrade, John C. Lowrie, Daniel E. Lorenz, William M. Martin, William J. McDowell, Francis H. Marling, James H. Mcllvaine, Alexander H. McKinney, Alexander McLean, George J. Mingins, James C. Night¬ ingale, Horace G. Miller, George Nixon, D. H. Overton, 49 Charles H. Parkhurst, Levi H. Parsons, John R. Paxton, William M. Paxton, Edward P. Payson, George S. Pay- son, Vincent Pisek, George L. Prentiss, Wendell Prime, Hugh Pritchard, James S. Ramsay, Charles S. Robinson, Stealy B. Rossiter, Robert F. Sample, Joseph Sanderson, Joseph A. Saxton, Philip Schaff, Adolphus F. Schauffler, James E. Sentz, J. Balcom Shaw, George L. Shearer, William G. T. Shedd, Andrew Shiland, Wilton M. Smith, John M. Stevenson, Charles A. Stoddard, J. Ford Sutton, Alexander W. Sproull, George L. Spining, Charles L. Thompson, John J. Thompson, Henry Van Dyke, Marvin R. Vincent, Frederick E. Voegelin, A. L. R. Waite, Erskine 183 N. White, John T. Wilds, David G. Wylie, W. D. Buchanan, Frank F. Ellin wood. The Moderator : Are there any others ! (No response). Mr. Hoadley : I move yon that Mr. Webster and Mr. McEwen, having been called away by special duty be excused. (Motion seconded and carried). Dr. Shearer: The Committee of course will have to consent to that motion. (Dr. Briggs and the Committee both stated that they had no objections.) The roll of the Elders was then called, and the following were present: M. M. Brown, George N. Jaques, John C. Tucker, William A. Richmond, Andrew Robinson, Thomas S. Strong, David T. Peek, Robert Beggs, Richard H. Bull, 50 A. Zincke, Frederick Blume, John Stewart, Samuel Reeve, Francis Rogers, J. Moorhead, Theron G. Strong, Charles H. Woodbury, Henry Bruning, M. E. Fox, I. M. Dyck- man, Thomas Anderson, Henry Q. Hawley, Sidney Whitte- more, George C. Lay, Cleveland H. Dodge, William M. Onderdonk, H. B. Caithness, Edward W. Thompson, William A. Wheelock, William Mitchell, William R. Worrall, Robert Gentle, C. P. Leggett, J. P. Lindsay. The Moderator : Are there any other names to be added to the roll of those present? The Moderator would announce the Committee to answer the protest of Dr. Van Dyke. The names are Rev. James S. Ramsay, Rev. Charles A. Stoddard, and Elder Robert Beggs. The ques¬ tion now before us is on the adoption of the motion to dis¬ miss the case in view of the facts or statements that have been presented here this morning. Dr. Van Dyke has the floor. The resolution will be read. The resolution was read, as follows: “ Resolved, that the Presbytery, in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by the Book of Discipline, 184 &nd. in view of the facts which have been presented to us, do now dismiss the case.” 51 Remarks by Dr. Henry Van Dyke. Mr. Moderator : That was a fair open motion, made for the purpose that must appear obvious to everybody. It is not made in the interest of Dr. Briggs, who has said upon the floor of this Presbytery that he wished a trial. It is made in the interest of all of us, elders and ministers, who have solemnly sworn to study the interest of peace, unity and purity of the Church. I have asked myself honestly and at the bar of conscience, and I would ask you, do you think the peace, unity and purity of the Church will be promoted by this Presbytery pushing for¬ ward this heresy trial to the bitter end? We are not to con¬ sider the question whether the trial is going on or not. We are to consider principally our responsibility in regard to it, as we consider those great interests which we have all sworn to study and to observe. The theory has been advanced, and we ought to look at if, that we have no alternative—that this trial once begun must go on to the bitter end. It reminds me of a story my dear father used to tell me about the man with a steam leg. It was a very ingenious leg, and a very strong leg, but the mischief of it was that when you got it started in any direction it was bound to carry you straight along, whether it carried you against a wall or into the water. How the Committee seems to think we have got on a steam leg. Our Book of 52 Discipline provides us with the authority to turn off the steam by dismissing the case. It says very clearly in the Book that it is within the province of the Presbytery to dismiss the case at this point. The question is whether there are reasons for so doing. First of all, is it for the interest of peace and unity and 185 purity in tlie Church to try a man for his ecclesiastical life under circumstances which are calculated to exert a pre¬ judice against him? It is not necessary to allude to all these circumstances to-day—confusions in the atmosphere that have enveloped this matter from the very first; turbulent voices from ways which have been indicated to-day. It is not necessary for us to state these circum¬ stances. Here is the preamble, which contains a serious and painful allegation, which it is not even proposed to prove. Hr. Briggs meets these things like a man. He comes here and says, ‘ 6 So far as I know my own heart, those things are not true; I have not taught any danger¬ ous errors; I have not had any conscious intentions of disturbing the peace of the Church.” He goes on and says: u If I have disturbed it, if I have given pain and grief to my brethren, I am sorry, with all my heart.” I say that it is a manly, straightforward avowal. Is it fair; is it just; is it Christian for us, in the face of an avowal like that, to go on with a trial which begins with an attack against a minister’s honor and character which he has no chance to meet, and which he 53 does not even propose to refute? That is the question. The second question is this: Is it for the peace and unity and purity of the Church to go on with a trial under charges and specifications which do not conform to the law as laid down in our Book of Discipline? Now the objec¬ tions that have been presented to us this morning are very serious. It will not do to make light of them. The Book says a specific offence shall be charged, and one offence, and the charges preferred are not specific. The Book says that our policy is that it shall be shown that the offence was against a cardinal doctrine. The charge does not state that the offence is against a cardinal doctrine, and we cannot throw those objections aside. It is no reflection on the Committee to say this. The 186 Committee is the very best that could have been ap¬ pointed for this purpose in the Presbytery of New York. They have had in their number the benefit of as good legal advice as can be found at the Bar of the United States, and they have sought the best theological advice that could be had at all times. Those are simply facts; and if all that being true, they cannot bring in anything stronger or clearer or better in fact and legal effect than those charges and specifications, what follows? Why, simply this, not that they are to blame, but that the case is a weak one. We have arrived at the position which is provided for 54 in our Book of Discipline, Section 7. We have arrived at one of those crises in which it is better to wait until God in his righteous providence shall give further light, rather than by unavailing prosecution to weaken the force of it. Then the third question is this: Is it for the interest of the peace and unity and purity in our Church to proceed to try a man for his life who has just made the professions of fundamental belief that has been made in the course of this paper that has been read here to-day? They could not help coming in, because they were in the heart of the man that made them; they could not help being presented here, because they are his unalterable and unshaken belief. There is no hesitation. There was a little boy in Sunday School who was asked why the lions did not eat Daniel, and he said because they did not know how good he was. That was not an orthodox interpretation. It is because they did not know how good he was; and we know how good Dr. Briggs is. Let us not injure him. He has clearly and frankly disavowed the doctrine of purgatory and probation after death, and all kindred errors. He has declared his faith that the redeemed enter the future life guiltless and sinless. He has declared his faith that 187 predictive prophecy has been, is being and will be fulfilled. He has rejected the infallibility of the Church and Reason as sources of authority. He has affirmed his belief in the Divine inspiration of all the Holy Scriptures, which taken 55 together make up the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and to which he submits and apx^eals as the final authority to judge in all matters of conscience. Now those are solid and substantial confessions of faith. Are we to look upon the man who has made them in our presence as an enemy who must be put on trial for his life? Is that in accordance with that spirit of charity which thinketh no evil? Will it tend to unify and to purify our Church to take a man who holds those beliefs, and put him on trial for his ecclesiastical life ? A heresy trial is a great evil. The history of the Church proves it. It begets distractions, suspicions, jealousies and strife. I admit that there are cases where it is a necessary evil, but to embrace the evil without a necessity is a sin against our brother, against the Church and against its work. Unless we can lay our hands on our hearts and say positively that we believe that the real welfare of the Church in the spiritual work of the ministry and work in this city of New York, is going to be prospered—we should not hesitate a moment in this matter. Here is a big city that wants the bread of plain religion. Do not let us give it instead the stone of controversy on the question of heresy. And there is one more question that ought to be asked 56 squarely, and that is, can we consent to dismiss this case here and now? There are some of us anxious not to be misunderstood in this matter. For my own part, I have dismissed that anxiety from my heart. I would rather be misunderstood and condemned a thousand times than hesitate to do what is right, what my conscience tells me is fair and just and loving. But honestly, there is no ques¬ tion of misunderstanding. It is as clear as light that the 188 Divine inspiration and the supreme authority of all the Holy Scriptures is not called in question to-day. That is onr belief. The accused joins with us in that confession of faith; and no man, unless he is stupid or malicious, can say that if this Presbytery dismisses this case it will swerve from its allegiance to the Holy Bible. Well, we do not all agree with Dr. Briggs’ views, still less with the manner in which he expresses them. Take for instance that matter of progressive sanctification after death. We do not accept that doctrine; I do not for one. I have never been dead and never had any chance to investigate; and my principal interest is in practical sanctification be¬ fore death. We want to teach men how to be good in this world, and we believe God will take care of them in the next world; and when a man comes and says, “ I believe the souls of the redeemed enter the future life without sin,” we are not willing to say that that man should be passed into the outer darkness, that he is not a good 57 Christian and fit for us to have fellowshfp with. Take these questions in regard to the Book of the Pentateuch and Isaiah. We do not accept them. They seem to some of us, among whom I am one, something like the vagaries that the poems of Homer were written by another member of the same family; and the theory of Ignatius Donnelly that Shakespeare was written by Bacon; but when a man comes to us and says, “ I believe in the Pentateuch, and that the whole prophesy of Isaiah was part of the inspired Word of God, and to be received as a portion of our in¬ fallible rule of faith and practice, ’ ’ we are not going to say, “ You shall not investigate the date and authorship of these books.” We do not say that in regard to the Epistle of Hebrews, and why should we say that in regard to the books of the Pentateuch? Not only that, we put a ban on scholarship; and scholarship that is not free is not worthy the name. Free scholarship—here is the root of 189 the question. Is it essential to Protestant Christianity? The Bible has always vindicated itself in rational free¬ dom. Let us court the light. Let us hear the discus¬ sions, and let us have the facts, and the Bible will come out, as it has a thousand times, clear and strong. We say let truth guide us. Who ever knew it to be put to the worse in open conference? You will pardon me if I say—and you will set it down to filial reverence—you will pardon me, if I say, I stand on the ground that my be¬ loved father stood on when he declared for liberty and orthodoxy. Liberty first. And why? Because without liberty there is no true orthodoxy. A man cannot be taught to believe and think right without liberty. Ortho¬ doxy must flourish in an air of freedom; and the best way to defend the Bible is in the open air, and in the light of facts; and that is the way I want to see it defended. I want to see it defended by scholars in the open air. That is the position of a conservative. You ask, “ Why, is not that a modern view, and a dangerous view to take of these things 55 ? Let me quote, in conclusion, the words of Rev. Gardiner Spring, uttered to our Church in the year 1886, when the Church was hastening through a series of heresy trials to a cruel and bitter disruption: “ Error has never been eradicated from the Church by the severe process of adju¬ dication. Where errors are not essential in their char¬ acter, it appears to the Presbytery that the most effectual means of opposing their progress is the diffusion of light and the exercise of love. A wise and powerful moral in¬ fluence is more to be relied upon in this warfare than the exterminating influence of ecclesiastical power. Let the Church go forth unmanacled to the great work of convert¬ ing the world; let Churches and ministers who have never come under the common bond which unites the Presby¬ teries of this General Assembly be no longer recognized as 58 190 59 having a place in her judicatories; let men valiant for the truth call the advocates of error into the field of calm and dispassionate investigation, and we may yet be a holy and happy people. In this day of darkness and rebuke God is calling on us to humble ourselves before Him and to seek His direction in all that may conduce to purity and peace rather than to chilling alienation and final rupture.’’ Those are words that I should not dare to use, thinking for myself. They come to us from the grave, and they are wise words; and I pray to God this Presbytery may have grace to follow that counsel and dismiss this case. Remarks by Mr. McCook. “ Mr. Moderator and brethren, I shall not detain you long by what I wish to say upon this subject, but you have now come in the proceedings—the judicial proceedings in which this Presbytery has been engaged—to a point wdiich is the crisis. A Committee has been appointed, and that Com¬ mittee, which has been praised far beyond its deserts by my brother, Hr. Van Dyke, have earnestly and honestly endeavored to do their duty as prescribed by the Stand¬ ards of the Presbyterian Church. When the appeal is made that Hr. Yan Hyke has now made to us, it is on the assumption that there should be no Book of Hiscipline in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. Would to God that there was no occasion for such a thing, but as long as men are men and human, the necessity for disci¬ pline must exist. I shall not trouble you to read the First Chapter of the Book of Hiscipline, with which, I have no doubt, you are familiar, wherein it states the necessity for discipline; they are very real; they are very earnest, and they all tend to produce the result that my brother, Hr. Yan Hyke, so much wishes—the peace and purity of our beloved Church. Hiscipline when once invoked is usually 191 the result of acts by some one else than the Church; dis¬ cipline is based upon action by some one. Discipline, when necessary, should as far as possible—and I don’t hesitate to say that our Committee, so far as it has been able to do so, has absolutely kept out the personal element 61 in the consideration of this business, and we have endeav¬ ored not to say an unnecessary word, or a word that was not kind, or a word that was inconsiderate, or a word that was unjust, in bringing these charges which have been submitted to the Presbytery, and which have been ordered by the Presbytery to be placed in the hands of the accused. We have tried to conform to those rules Dr. Van Dyke has suggested, and to keep as nearly as possible within the rights and liberty of our beloved Church and every member of it; but I must claim in behalf of the Presby¬ terian Church some liberty, and that its liberty to judge upon these matters within the lines of its Book of Disci¬ pline should be effective, should be operative, and that that great Church, when so acting, should always act with all the powers that go with it, with the tenderest con¬ sideration for the rights of every member of that great Church. Now, with reference to the present situation. This Presbytery has determined the status of the judicial pro¬ ceedings up to this time, so I do not need to take your time by discussing that further; but we come to the point where we must determine what we shall do, when we reach, under the provision of the twenty-second Section of the book, the place where the Presbytery may dismiss the case, if, in their judgment, they see fit to do so. It is not quite as Dr. Van Dyke stated, but I shall not quote him incorrectly, that they can dismiss the case for any reason. ^ They must dismiss, if they do dismiss, because they are satisfied that the proceedings, up to that time, have not been effective and have not demonstrated a prima facie 192 case upon which the Presbytery should further act. Now that is what we claim has been done. We have preferred charges, we have sustained them by specifications, and we expect that the Bible and the Standards of our Church, the Confession of Faith, will sustain those charges.. All that we ask in behalf of the Presbyterian Church is that we should have the liberty and the right to present our proofs to this largest Presbytery in the Presbyterian Church, an to have that right without being sent out of Court without a Now“ts to the question of policy, which I hesitate to mention in connection with a matter of this land,, for shall speak to the question of right farther on—dismissing this case, at this stage of the proceeding, may not accom¬ plish what Dr. Van Dyke suggests—the peace and quiet of the Church. If a dismissal should be voted at this lr«a „ appeal taken from that deeielon-ae that would be a point from which the Committee would have a rioht and would be in duty bound, and feel that they had tcTappeal from—that appeal would go to the Synod, and go to the General Assembly, and that would occupy prob- «o ably two years on a collateral and preliminary motion Pending the determination of that question, the peace and auiet of the Church which we so much desire would not be possible. I wish to say in behalf of our Committee, that so far as we are concerned it would not take as much time to present our case to this Presbytery as we have spent in the last meeting and this in the discussion of the preliminary motions. We can act very promptly. We propose to act promptly. Justice to the Presbytery and every one requires that. Now, if this dismissal is made and an appeal is taken, we will be in an unsettled condi¬ tion for two years at least, which would be an injustice to the Church, and an injustice to the accused; and it is a thing we ought to consider, that this Presbytery should 193 not send up, or do an act whicli would send up, an appeal upon a preliminary motion. So far as the situation in general is concerned, a dilemma has been presented. Charges have been pre¬ ferred, sustained by specifications. Under the provision of the 22nd Section of the Book of Discipline, the accused has presented in writing his objections to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form or in legal effect. In that plea an ingenious and interesting argument upon the merits has been introduced, and I do not think it is saying too much if I should state that substantially all the members of the Presbytery present have received a very good idea of the position the accused is likely to take on the trial. I do not object to that, or criticise it. Iam 64 only too glad that the accused should have the fullest pos¬ sible hearing, and I am glad that he did have a hearing, and we were very careful not to interrupt the presentation of it, although we felt at the time that we were listening to an argument upon the merits. Now, the position before us as a Presbytery is some¬ what of a dilemma. Either the accused is orthodox upon the points raised by the charges and specifications, or he is not. If the accused is orthodox, this Presbytery should not tarry one moment in rushing to the vindication of our brother, and giving him the only opportunity that a Pres¬ byterian minister can have when questions of this kind are raised to vindicate himself in the presence of his brethren, and the Church of which he is a part. A dilatory motion like this is of itself a great injustice; and I am sure that Dr. Yan Dyke, when he stated what was the wish of the accused, that he was entirely right, because it would be a great injustice that the determination of this question be postponed until we could go to the General Assembly, on a collateral motion. Now, on the other horn of the dilemma. Assuming 194 that as the result of a trial, it might be shown, as we claim that it will be shown, if we are allowed to go to trial, that the accused is not orthodox on the questions that have been raised. Now, gentlemen, what is your posi- tion on this? You have undertaken, as Dr. Van Dyke says, to seek to sustain the peace and purity of the Church, and we must have the purity before there can be much peace, and you certainly have assumed a duty in your ordination vows to see to it, that if a question is raised, and a prima facia case made, that that case should be sifted, that it should be tried in all proper, ways,, that all the rights of the parties shall be ascertained definitely, and that nothing shall be kept back, and whatever the conclusion is, you, as Presbyters, have it on your con- science to carry it to the end. I do not say “ hitter end, as has been stated here. I do not think there is any bit¬ terness about it. I have not heard a word of it. And I feel very sure that the accused will accept the position that this Presbytery finally reaches; he has done as much here to-day. Would that he had made this disavowal, which has encouraged us.and delighted us, complete, and had gone one step further, and said, “ I submit myself to you, my brethren in the Lord, and I also retract those statements which have caused this grievous alarm and concern to the whole Church.” The disavowals disarmed and delighted us. I thought Dr. Van Dyke stated them a little too broadly, but if they had been ac¬ companied by the statement, “ If I have said or done anything that grieved my brethren in the Lord-” instead of saying, “I am sorry,” he should have said also, “I withdraw that, and I will not say again, or teach again, that which causes anxiety or concern to my brethren and the blessed Church.” Now, you have 66 great responsibility in this, and when you consider this question, it is not to be turned aside by sentiment. Oh, 195 how I would rejoice if I could see this thing end here to-day! It would be the greatest relief of a lifetime, if I could see it. But, gentlemen, under the provisions of our book—and it is an intelligent one, it has been carefully made—it is not becoming to us as Presbyters to assume that discipline is all out of x>lace, and that the discip¬ line should not be carried out. Would that that could be so, but it cannot. You have got that responsibility upon you, and I assure you when you vote you should take into consideration fully the fact that if you vote in favor of dismissal, you say that we have heard this case substantially, we agree with the position of the accused, we disagree with the position of this appointed Committee, and we disagree with those who have sworn loyalty to the Church, and we take the responsibility of saying, without having a presentation of the charges on their merits, that we are willing to dismiss this case. We cannot determine that, because it must go on in one way or the other; and we will take the responsibility, under our ordination vows, of dismissing the case without giving consideration to the evidence presented by the Committee. We stand prepared, and we expect that we will prove to the satisfaction of this Presbytery, from the Scriptures and Standards of our Church, that every one of these charges will be sustained. Now, the ingenious argu¬ ment that we heard is very affecting, and it ought to have been, because it appealed to that which is in the heart of every Presbyterian minister and elder who loves the Church, who loves its peace, and who would like extremely to avoid this issue if they could possibly do so, but the trouble is we cannot; it is on us, it is here. We cannot avoid it. And we have got to decide it under our ordina¬ tion vows. Now, as the facts presented—a fact in a judicial investi¬ gation, is something proven. I do not know what the 67 196 facts are that Dr. Van Dyke refers to in that resolution, but they should be proven as facts before they are voted upon by you as Presbyters, as such, and I hope that that opportunity will be given, so that the proof may be full and complete. Dr. Van Dyke spoke of these proceedings as if the accused was not to be heard. In the first place, it is his right; second, there is no person in the world, so far as I know, who would not hope and wish the accused to have the fullest possible hearing upon any point, upon all 68 points; and it is not right or fair to say that if you dis¬ agree, that if you refuse to dismiss at this time, that the accused is not to be heard. He will be heard as fully, I hope, as he wishes, and I am sure that this Presbytery will safeguard the rights of every one. In closing I wish to say that the Committee hope and expect to prove, out of the Scripture and by our Standards, each and every one of the charges and specifications which we have presented. We desire the opportunity to do so. If you vote to dis¬ miss you refuse us that opportunity , aud you refuse the only vindication that can ever come in reality and in all sincerity to a Presbyterian official against whom such charges have been presented, and I earnestly appeal to you under your ordination vows to remember that you have a great duty to perform. It is not a matter of sentiment, and the only way you can do justice to yourself, and justice to the accused, and justice to our blessed Church, is to pro¬ ceed in the orderly manner provided by its Standards in the trial of cases like this.” Dr . J. H. Mellvaine : The question is, whether it is wise for us to proceed with this trial on the basis of these charges that have been presented to us. How, the Com¬ mittee of Prosecution has raised a question as to whether we have any right at this point to dismiss the case. We have the plain words of the Book that at the filing of such- 197 Dr. Birch: That is not the question of the Prosecu- gg tion. Dr. Mcllraine : 6 ‘—shall determine all such prelimin¬ ary objections and may dismiss the case.” Now, it has been said we have a new Book of Discipline, and perhaps this will not apply. This is a new Book of Discipline, and certainly there is nothing in it that contradicts itself. When any clauses were added to it they were not added to stultify what remains; and there is nothing in our new Book of Discipline that denies that which was in the old copy that would have been removed. The question is, whether we have any right to dismiss the case. “ When the Prosecution is initiated by a Judicatory, the Presby¬ terian Church in the United States of America shall be the prosecutor, and an original party; and in all other cases the individual prosecutor shall bean original party. ” I do not see the statement in this book that the Prosecuting Committee shall be the prosecuting party. It is the Pres¬ byterian Church. They are not the Presbytery. We created them, and now they say we cannot dismiss the case, and we cannot dismiss them; we are bound by our own creation, and this has got to go on to the bitter end. There is not a word in that clause about the Prosecuting Committee being the prosecuting party, and in the next clause it states that it shall appoint a Committee to conduct the prosecution in all its stages. That means simply that if the accused appeals, then these gentlemen carry the case along up to a higher court; ^ and it does not mean we are bound by our creation so that they can carry this thing along in spite of all we can do. I think by any fair reading of this passage we have a right to dismiss that Prosecuting Committee to-day; but if Dr. Briggs appeals to the end of the case, they carry it on in all its points. The question which has been stated as before you is this: that we are here to ascertain whether 198 Dr. Briggs is orthodox. I submit, Mr. Moderator, that is not the question before us at all. There is not a man here who can vote on this trial simply whether Dr. Briggs is orthodox or not; we can simply vote whether these speci¬ fications sustain the charges, and whether the specifica¬ tions are sustained by the proof alleged. We may believe that Dr. Briggs is very wrong, and his teachings are very injurious, but we cannot come in here and vote on any other points but those. A member of the Pres¬ bytery said the other day, I feel in my bones that Dr. Briggs is a heretic,” but he cannot come here in this Court and tell what he feels in his bones. It may have been rheumatism in his bones. He has got to vote simply on that question whether Dr. Briggs is proven to be a heretic by the charges and specifications and proof under those specifications; the question has been raised about the time that it is going to take, and the Prosecuting Committee have not shown us that we shall save any time 71 in this matter by dismissing this now, for they shall appeal it to the Synod and General Assembly. If we do go on the accused will appeal to the Synod and General Assembly, so there is not time saved or gained in either respect. We are now controlled, I am thankful to say, under superior Courts; and the question before us whether it is right or wise for us to go on with this trial on the basis of these charges and specifications when, in all prob¬ ability, or certainly with great possibility, they will be overruled and sent back to us by this Superior Court as not sufficient in form or in legal effect. For we as Pres¬ byterians are bound very closely by certain rules, princi¬ ples laid down in our Book of Discipline and established by our Superior Court, by which at every stage we must be bound. This Confession of Faith, this Book of Disci¬ pline is a protection which is thrown all about a man to protect him at every point, and at every step, against in- 199 justice or interference; and we as a Presbyterian body are in one sense on trial before the whole world to-day, as to onr intelligence to comprehend onr own rules of discipline, and our own fairness, justice and honor in carrying them out. A minister in the Congregational Church told me once that he knew this case to have been; he said there was a man in a Congregational Church who had a dispute with another man about the boundaries of some property, and the other man brought it into the Church, and the Church decided the previous man was wrong, and the first man 72 said the Church knew nothing about it and would not accept the decision. They excommunicated him. They did not stop there. They said this man has a wife and a brother-in-law and children and they will make trouble in the Church, and so they excommunicated them all. That is a reflection on the Church, and it is not credible in the Presbyterian Church. The superior court has given us principles which we must follow. This trial has been alluded to as an important case, and the Prosecuting Com¬ mittee say they intend to prove it all at the proper stage, but that it has no reference to this stage of the case. Why, we need to remember that Mr. Craighead’s case was sent back to the Synod and Presbytery of Kentucky because in their charges and specifications they had not observed certain rules and precedents that the Assembly said were essential and should be observed; and you will find that these precedents and rules apply not only to the conduct of that case and the trial of the case, but to the form of the charges and their sufficiency in effect. Now, the first of these is as to the definiteness of the charge. Dr. Briggs read a part of the extract from that case. I want to read it all. “ There was a great deficiency in the charges preferred against Mr. Craighead as it relates to precision. All charges for heresy should be as definite as 73 possible. The Article or Articles of Faith impugned 200 should be specified, and the words supposed to be heretical shown to be in repugnance to these Articles, whether the reference is made directly to the Scriptures as a standard of orthodoxy or to the Confession of Faith which our Church holds to be a summary of the doctrines of Scrip¬ ture, but in none of the charges against Mr. Craighead has this been done, and in two of them it would be difficult to say what Articles of Faith are impugned,” and so they sent it back. And I say those charges, in reference to which this was done, are very similar to the charges we have before us; and we have the same right to expect they will send it back to us. A charge is something that must set forth the defense in such a clear, definite form that there will be no defect about it in the mind of the accused, as to what is charged against him, and there may be no room for doubt as to what the Presbytery is voting about, and the specification must set forth the fact—the Prose¬ cuting Committee has conceded a fact in judicial language as something already proved. Here in our Book it says, ‘ 4 it shall set forth the facts relied upon to sustain the charge, ” and anything in the specification that would not convict the accused of the crime alleged in the charge is by 74 so much irrelevant. Brown, on Military Law, says, “That the fact or facts are to be distinctly specified in such a manner that neither the accused nor court can have any difficulty in knowing what is the precise object of investi¬ gation.” That is one principle laid down. The second is this, that where there is any doubt or ambiguity in the language of the defendant the most favorable, and not the least favorable construction shall be put on his words. That certainly is fair. I read again from this Craighead case. “ Here it will be important to remember that a man cannot fairly be convicted of heresy for using expressions which may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doc¬ trines, if they may also admit of a more favorable con- 201 struction, because no one can tell in wliat sense an ambiguous expression is used but the speaker or writer, and he has a right to explain himself, and in such cases candor requires that a court should favor the accused by putting on his words the more favorable rather than the less favorable construction.” And then, subsequent to this, in the Albert Barnes case, the General Assembly explained the action of this same decision: ‘ c Much less do the Assembly adopt as doctrines consistent with our standards and to be tolerated in our Church the errors alleged by the prosecutor as contained 75 in the Book on the Homans. It was a question of fact whether the errors alleged are contained in the Book, and by the laws of exposition, in the conscientious exercise of their own rights and duties the Assembly have come to the conclusion that the Book does not teach the errors charged.” This judgment of the Assembly is based on this maxim of equity and charity adopted by the Assembly of 1824, in the case of Craighead, which is as follows: u A man cannot be fairly convicted of heresy for using expressions which may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doctrines, if they also admit of a more favorable construction. The import of this is that, when language claimed to be heretical admits, without violence of an orthodox exposition, and the accused disclaims the error and claims as his meaning the orthodox interpretation, he is entitled to it, and it is to be regarded as the true intent and import of his words. But in the case of the first edition of the notes on the Homans, the language is without violence reconcilable with our standards, and therefore all the changes of phrase¬ ology, which he has subsequently made, and all his dis¬ claimers before the Assembly, and all the definite and unequivocal declarations of the true intent and meaning, of his words in the first edition, are to be taken as ascertain- 70 202 mg his true meaning, and forbid the Assembly to condemn, as teaching great and dangerous errors.” It is in the Digest 703, two years, I think, subsequent to the other trial (1836). Another principle laid down by the Assembly in this same trial, is that no man can be rightly convicted of heresy by implication and construction from his work. u Another principle is that no man can be rightly convicted of heresy by inference or implication. That is, we must not charge an accused person holding those consequences which may legitimately flow from his assertions.” Dr. A. F. Schauffler: Is this an order? Is it an argu¬ ment of the question now before us ? The Moderator: The Moderator understands that Dr. Mcllvaine is showing reasons why we should dismiss the case. This is generic to that. Dr. Mcllvaine: The other principle laid down by the Assembly by which we must try these charges, is this: that no man shall be charged with opinions which he dis¬ avows. “ Many men are grossly inconsistent with them- 77 selves, and while it is right in argument to overthrow false opinions by tracing them in their connections and conse¬ quences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion which he disavows. Arg. in A. B. trial, commencing, ‘ It is not right to charge any man with an opinion which he disavows.’ ” Then a fourth principle laid down by the Assembly in this trial is that 4 4 A charge must be so conclusively estab¬ lished as to remove all doubt.”—Craighead. “ The con¬ clusion is that the first charge, though supported by strong probabilities, is not so conclusively established as to remove all doubt, because the words adduced in proof will bear a different construction from that put upon them by the Presbytery and Synod. Again, 4 ‘ Whereas, the charges are not so conclusively established as to remove 203 all doubt, the general Assembly cannot see the way clear to confirm the sentence of the Synod of Kentucky.” Under the criminal law the defendant has a right to any reasonable doubt; under the ecclesiastical law he has a right to all doubt. There he is entitled to justice; here he is not only to have justice, but all charity. We are under such laws and principles and precepts as we are, and we must see that in every step these charges conform to those principles or they will certainly be sent back to us. I want to apply these briefly to the charges and specifications. I want to add a word to what Dr. Van Dyke said as to that. I feel, Brother Moderator, that that preamble is unworthy of us as a Presbytery. There are strong and painful allegations made in it of the very 73 greatest error and heresy without a shadow of truth; and I think that the defendant, in his calm and dignified and gentle reply, puts the Committee on the horns of a dilemma. Either they ought to have put them in the form of charges, so that they could be denied and proved, or else, if they did not see fit to do that, they ought to have said nothing about them. As I understand it, this Committee was appointed to make direct charges, not to make any insin¬ uations, and these are very much like insinuations. There is another thing I must say, that is, that the Committee was appointed by the Presbytery in the Spring to consider Dr. Briggs’ inaugural address, of which I happened to be one. Now this Committee took up every one of those errors mentioned here so far as they are down in the inaugural address, discussed them very carefully, went over them very thoroughly, and dropped them unani¬ mously on the ground that it would be impossible to sus¬ tain them by proof, and that Committee is in the majority, the same as the majority of this Committee. It is evident that the reason these were not put in the form of charges, the first reason, I will not say the only reason, but the first 204 important reason, was because it was plainly seen they could not be established by proof, and the subordinate reason is that it would take too much of the time of the Presbytery. And as to that second part of the 79 preamble in which Dr. Briggs is charged with having dis¬ turbed the peace of the Church to such a very wide extent, that also is a grave extent, and, if it could be proved, that ought to have been put in the form of a charge, to give him the right to deny it and to bring evidence to the con¬ trary, and to prove whether he or some one else has been the means of disturbing the peace of the Church. That inaugural address contains nothing that he had not put in his books before. His books did not disturb the peace of the Church to any great extent, but in his inaugural ad¬ dress—he did not intend to write an address on that sub¬ ject at all, as I know he had prepared a different address, and in compliance with the wish of the President of the Board of Directors of Union Seminary, the gentleman who so kindly endowed this chair, who came to him and said, “ I do not want you to speak on that question you have chosen,” but he wanted him to speak on some points of issue. His judgment was overruled, and he accepted that decision, and we have this inaugural address; but it was not to disturb the peace of the Church. It was the taking of phrases from it, the culling of words from it here and there, misrepresenting and misinterpreting them, sending them through the newspapers, which breaks through the gQ report, making them suspicious of heresies in the Presby¬ tery until no one knew what Dr. Briggs had said. I remember a member of one of the Presbyteries wrote to me and said: ‘‘ What in the world are you standing by Dr. Briggs for, when he does not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures?” And I wrote back to him: “You know no more about this case than one unborn.” That is the case of three-fourths of the Presbyteries in the Assem- 205 bly. It was through misrepresentations of Dr. Briggs’ sayings and his position that this whole country was stirred up; and I think, in reply to such a charge as that, a charge that he feels to be unjust, he makes that sweet and kindly statement, that if he has been guilty of this offense no man can regret it more than he does, we ought to feel an admiration for him. I hope, Mr. Moderator, whatever may be done in these charges, or if the Presby¬ tery does proceed to this trial, first of all that they cut out that preamble as unworthy of this Presbytery, and un¬ worthy, I will also say, of the Prosecuting Committee. Dr. J. F. Sutton: Mr. Moderator, I think we should 81 have something to speak on that is pertinent. We cannot argue the points at issue before they are presented pro and con. I wish to present a resolution. The Moderator: A resolution is out of order at this time. Dr. Sutton : I present a resolution as a substitute for Dr. Yan Dyke’s motion, and I think he will accept it. The Moderator : I think Dr. Mcllvaine has the floor. Dr. Sutton : I thought Dr. Mcllvaine had given up the floor. Dr. Mcllvaine: I want to apply these principles, the principles that have been so firmly established and for half a century have been the law of the Church—I want to apply them to these charges and specifications. As to the definiteness of this first charge, I think that has been thoroughly gone into. There is more than one offence alleged—the teaching of doctrines. We do not know what doctrine. The whole question is open. As to the specifications, first. There are three great fountains of divine authority. Apply that first principle, that the most favorable construction is to be put on the man’s lan¬ guage. The most favorable construction ? Why, it is certain God speaks to men in three ways, through the 206 Church and its sacraments, through the conscience, and through the Bible, but that the Bible is the infallible rule of faith and practice, and that these others are subordi¬ nate and inferior methods by which God communicates with men. Dr. Briggs has especially disclaimed that he holds that there are three co-ordinate forms of authority, and it is simply the inference of the Committee that these are sufficient and independent. Applying the second principle that no man is to be charged by the inference of 82 another, that is simply the inference of the Committee that these are sufficient and independent courses of Divine authority. He does not say that he does hold that. He has plainly disavowed it; and although they say he has no right to make any disavowals in his presentation of the charges, that it is only the form and not the matter, the form is so closely connected with the matter that you cannot separate them, and he has disavowed that he holds there are three co-ordinate sources of authority, that there is one that is infallible and two that are fallible. The charge is that he contradicts the cardinal doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. He says there is one infallible, one supreme, and two sub¬ ordinate. Does that contradict and prove conclusively beyond a doubt the charge that is made ? The other two specifications with reference to the sufficiency of the Scrip¬ ture are also of the same character. Applying the most favorable construction to his language, the language that is quoted, does it mean that at all ? Is it not rather a vio¬ lent forcing of his language in trying to make out that as what he has said there ? How does that make out or mean that the Holy Scriptures are not sufficient to give knowl- 83 e ^ge Gtod and His will which is necessary to salvation, although they try ever so hard. There is great difference between sufficiency and efficacy. The insufficiency he refers to was in the line of himself. Newman could not 207 find—so lie says—could not find certainty in the Bible. Was that the fault of the Bible or the fault in the man ? The man may have been so blinded, so prejudiced, that he could not find the sufficiency in the Bible, but that was not the fault of the Bible. Prof. Stevenson: We are very willing to give every possible liberty, but the prosecution is decidedly unwill¬ ing to have the merits of the case entered into on every specification, when the motion is so put that if it is carried the case will be dismissed, and the prosecution will not be heard. It is unjust. Dr. Mcllvaine: I am simply applying the principles. Prof. Stevenson: I ask for a decision. The Moderator: The Moderator decides that the brother is discussing the question of dismissal, and is giving rea¬ sons why, in view of the insufficiency of the charges, we should dismiss the case. Of course it involves, somewhat, the merits of the case as presented in the question, but the brother should confine himself distinctly to the question 34 before us, as to the propriety and justice of now dismiss¬ ing the case in view of what has been stated. Dr. Wylie: May I ask a question ? After we have allowed this liberty to the brother, it is understood the whole case can be gone into on either side in this discus¬ sion ? The Moderator: No, sir. The question is as to the dismissal of the case, and the brother should not enter into the merits of the main question in discussing that point. Dr. Schauffler: We claim they are entering into details of the case. He is discussing it down to the minutest details, and if he claims that is right, we shall claim that right. If the Moderator claims that is in order, I appeal from the decision of the Moderator to the decision of the house. 208 Dr. Mcllvaine: I am proving this case ought to be dis¬ missed, because these specifications are irrelevant to the charge ; and I am trying to show that the second specifi¬ cation is irrelevant to the charge, and.I am about to give my reason for thinking so. A Member: That was certainly right in the case; he should argue on that, and not on those charges. Dr. Mcllvaine: I am arguing on the light already given ns. (The resolution was again read.) g5 Dr. Robinson: There are some others that feel wearied by this one point that has been pressed, and we desire to be as gentle and true as we can. We honestly believe in onr hearts that before all this talk began the Committee ought to have been heard; they were the ones that ought to have presented the facts; we are now excluding these. We believe Dr. Van Dyke’s resolution was not in ordei. We believe this wholesale discussion, with the judgment at the end that shuts off the Committee from making the case, is the injustice of the whole thing, and what we want to know is whether this is to be permitted to others after¬ wards. The Moderator: I would just say that one member of the Committee has just been heard, and the others will certainly be heard. Dr. Robinson: And they will each be heard as fully as Dr. Mcllvaine on the merits of the case ? The Moderator: Not on the merits of the case. The brother must confine himself specifically to the question. Dr. Van Dyke : My motion was ruled out of order once in order that the Committee might be heard. As yon know, my motion as originally presented was ruled out of order. It was ruled out of order in order that the Com¬ mittee might be heard. You asked that the Committee might be heard, and Dr. Stevenson appeared and spoke about the objections. They were asked if they wanted to 209 be heard further, and they said no. I had hoped that the 86 facts which had been so well presented by Dr. Briggs would not again be presented. Dr. Sutton: I would like to offer a substitute which Dr. Van Dyke will accept. The Moderator: Dr. Mcllvaine has the floor, and he will confine himself distinctly to the matter in hand. Dr. Mel lvalue : I will simply go back to the question, is it wise, with such charges as we have already seen these to be, and the same line that has been begun, to be carried out to the end—is it wise for us to proceed to this trial ? Is it wise at this time, when so many different points are under discussion—for example, here is this question of Moses and the Pentateuch—it is not wise for this Pres¬ bytery to array itself against certainly a very large part of the scholarship of the world. A very great mistake that the friends of the Bible have always made has been of arraying the Bible against certain facts of science, and then having to take it back. Now we do not want to make that mistake. It is not the time to settle these questions about Moses and the Pentateuch. Mr . W. R. Worrall: He is not speaking to the resolu¬ tion before the house on the facts which they say have been decided here. That is what the resolution calls for, and I insist the brother be held to that. Dr. Me I lvalue: The point I want to make in closing is simply the right and wisdom and expediency of going on S7 with this trial at this season when, from the very utmost that the Prosecuting Committee could do, they have brought us a paper which certainly is very questionable as to these rules and decisions that have been laid down. I wish very much that we might see to-day in this house two of those who I believe are now saints in heaven. The last day that Dr. Crosby was seen among men, the day, and in the very room from which he was summoned to go 210 to his daughter’s bedside—from which he came back to his own death-bed—he said, talking to me about this matter, “ On the basis of the inaugural address it would be simply impossible to sustain charges of heresy ’ ’; and Dr. Van Dyke answered, “ Yes, unless the Confession of Faith is changed first.” Brethren, if those two men were here to¬ day, can any one doubt as to which side their voices would be heard on ? Or if they should speak to us from where they are, seeing all that they see now, seeing how immensely important are other questions and how com¬ paratively trifling is this question, do you think that their advice to us would be to let this matter drop at this stage of procedure rather than to stir up the feeling that must be and always is stirred up in every trial for heresy, rathei than have the name of our Church dragged through all the lines in the newspapers, held up as an object of contempt, as it has been in so many of them, represented as arrayed against all progress and liberty of thought, and all scholai - 88 ship ? Would it not be better now to dismiss this case when we do not have to vote on the question at all as to Dr. Briggs’ orthodoxy, or on the question of Dr. Briggs heresy, but simply on the question as to the relevancy of those charges ? Prof. Stevenson: I desire to make a personal explana¬ tion. I was a member of that Committee of Investiga¬ tion. I had somewhat to do with the preparation of the report. I did not agree to leave out those charges because I did not think they would be proved. I did not agree to omit all reference to those other subjects, because they were not capable of proof. Dr. Mcllvaine misunderstands. Now, as for this preamble to which reference is made. There is a preamble of the report. They are not the charges which are before the house. The preamble of the report has nothing to do with the charges now to be dis¬ cussed. This Presbytery has now to decide whether the 211 charges and specifications will endure. The preamble of the report is nothing. That was proved, however, the last time. But my point of personal explanation is, that the matters referred to in the preamble of this Commit¬ tee’s report were not omitted by me from the report of the Committee of Investigation, because I supposed they were incapable of proof, or that they could not be sup¬ ported if put in the shape of charges; that was not my understanding of my action. Dr. Sutton : I wish to offer an amendment to Dr. Yan Dyke’s motion which is before the house, which he says he 89 will accept, and doubtless he will. We are in danger of being called in question for this day’s business, and we must have a record which we can send to the higher Court, and upon that resolution there will be no record except the desire of this Court, which is no record at all, to go to a higher Court. I offer this as an amendment: “ Resolved , that in consideration of the objections filed by Dr. Briggs in this Court, in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against him, as to the suffi¬ ciency of the charges and specifications in form and in legal effect, the case against him be and hereby is dis¬ missed.” That makes a clean record of the Court which can go up, and the higher Court can understand the reasons why the Court has taken action. If the Court chooses to debate this question, we have something to de¬ bate. We have consumed the afternoon in debating the merits of the case, when the case has not been presented. The Moderator : Let us have the paper. (Paper handed to the Moderator.) Dr. Hastings will speak to this paper, this form which is before us. Dr. Van Dyke : The last word Dr. Sutton read sounded like u Dissolved.” It meant “ Dismissed.” Dr. Sutton: Yes, u Dismissed.” By request, the resolution was again read. 212 90 91 REMAEKS BY DR. HASTINGS. Mr. Moderator : One of the arguments submitted by Mr. McCook on behalf of the Committee of Prosecu¬ tion is to my mind extraordinary, yet legitimate under the ruling of the Moderator this morning, supported after the appeal to the House. This Presbytery created a Commit¬ tee. According to all precedent and usage it was to be supposed that that Committee was to work in the service and under the direction and control of this Presbytery *, but a new doctrine has come in, and this Presbytery is now under the control of that Committee and has no lights whatever in the case, and we are told by Mr. McCook that one of the reasons for voting against—I presume he would apply the same thing to the amended resolution as to the original resolution—one of the reasons for voting against that resolution is, that if we dismiss the case now this Presbytery—this Committee—we are nowhere as a Presbytery—but this Committee, which represents in itself governing independence the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, proposed to take the case up to the Synod, and then if not satisfied with the Synod thence to the General Assembly. Well, sir, I confess that this is new doctrine to me as a Presbyterian. It has puzzled my feeble brain immensely. I cannot understand it, and though I had supposed myself a loyal and thorough Pres¬ byterian I cannot accept it. I have nothing to say against this Committee, but I have something to say against any Committee under such circumstances having such power. Dr. Robinson : Is this in order? Dr. Hastings : If my brother, Hr. Robinson, will let me alone, I think I will show I am in order. Dr. Robinson : That question was decided by the Mode¬ rator, sustained by the Presbytery, and the question is out of order. 213 Dr. Hastings: I know that question was decided this morning by the Moderator; but this is used here as an argument on the other side, and I am proceeding to answer that argument, and I think that is pertinent and in order. Am I right, Mr. Moderator? The Moderator : I think you should coniine yourself a little more, sir, to the questions before us for dismissing this case. Dr. Hastings : That is one of the reasons for dismissing this case which was given to this House but a short time ago by Mr. McCook, and I am talking against his reason. If it was not a reason for arguing against the dis¬ missal of the case then he should have been called to order, not I. (Applause.) The Moderator: I think he did not give it in that line. (Then in view of the applause by the audience): We occupy this house on a distinct understanding with the Pastor and elders of the Church, that we should re¬ frain from all demonstrations of this sort, and I hope that discretion will restrain the expression of feeling on the part of the audience. Dr. Hastings : I have said as much as I cared to about that point. I have somewhat to say about another point. I argue for the dismissal of this case for the sake of the peace of Jerusalem. They shall prosper who love her; and I pray and plead for the peace of Jerusalem. As I have listened to that remarkable paper which Dr. Briggs presented to us this morning, and followed it from point to point, and theme to theme, I could not see how any man who had in his heart a desire for the honor of the Church and her Blessed Head could permit this trial to go on. I am not a Pastor now, but have and always shall have the feeling and the heart of a Pastor; and for the sake of these dear Churches in this city I do desire, since Dr. Briggs has opened his mind and heart to us so freely 92 214 and in such a charming spirit—I do desire that this case should stop where it is; and that this beloved brother should be permitted to go back again to the important work to which the Lord has called him, for I have lived long enough to know that a heresy trial burns over the ground, and blasts and curses everything that is fairest and best—for the sake of these beloved Pastors and the 93 Churches which they represent, I desire that this case may stop where it is, on sufficient grounds, as I think, in the paper presented this morning. Then there is another reason: I feel jealous of the honor of this Presbytery. I love this Church more than I dare trust myself to say; but, sir, the rights and the honor of this Presbytery have been strangely, sadly interfered with. It is not our fault either; but I am prepared to say this, that under the existing circumstances, the 63 Presbyteries throughout the country have been interfering with the rights and prerogatives of this Presbytery in a way un¬ paralleled in the history of the Church. It is not our fault; but, sir, this is the fact because of what I consider a thoroughly un-Presbyterian, unconstitutional arrange¬ ment, it was possible that the rights of a Minister of Jesus Christ should be violated. According to our polity, the Minister that is to teach in a Seminary must be tried and approved first by his Presbytery, and not first by the General Assembly; and just there comes in all the trouble. We approach this trial with the impossibility of fairness staring us in the face, because without hearing, without judicial procedure, and without respect to the original right of the Presbytery, the stigma of the Court, the 94 highest Court of our Church has been put upon my beloved brother; and if there were no other reason than that, I for one should be here to argue that we cannot fairly try the case. Justice is impossible under the circumstances; and we had better turn to mercy, and see to it that hereafter 215 there should be no likelihood or chance of violating that noble polity of our noble Church in such a way as that the duty and business which belong primarily to the Presbytery shall be handled first by the General Assembly. Then I must say I have one other reason for arguing for the dismissal of this case. I know Dr. Briggs’ views prob¬ ably as well as any man in this house. I know that those charges are not true. I mean to say nothing against the character or integrity of the Committee; but I know of my own knowledge that he is not guilty under those charges and specifications; and I do think, or I believe I know what the English language means, although I shall not undertake to be an authority in Hebrew—I do think that paper read this morning, by its singular clearness and by its obvious spirit of honesty, should satisfy this house that the wisest and best thing that we can do for the interest of Christ’s Kingdom is to dismiss this case here and now. Mr. S. G. Law : Mr. Moderator- The Moderator: Which side do you speak on? Mr. Law : I speak on the side of the Committee, in support of this Committee. I do not wish to make a speech. I will be satisfied with presenting briefly some reasons why I would support the peace. I am in sympa¬ thy with the object too, and I think we all are. We all desire peace. But in the first place I do not think such a resolution would secure peace in this manner. Mr. McCook has presented certain reasons. Dr. Wylie: Will the brother take the platform? The people cannot hear the speaker. The Moderator : Let me remind the brother what we have distinctly before us is not the expediency of going further in this matter under the resolution presented, but as to the objections filed, and therefore as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications, and whether they shall be considered sufficient to put the accused on his defense. 95 216 Now please, brethren, bear that in mind as the precise point at which we are aiming. Mr. Law : I wonld simply like to say that, before speak¬ ing on the four reasons I have against this resolution, that I was very much pleased with the disavowals and explana¬ tions of Brother Briggs. I hope we can arrive at some¬ thing more satisfactory than this resolution; and the first 90 reason I object to it is because I am confident that it will not secure the peace of the Church. I do not wish to repeat the reason so ably presented by brother McCook. I only say in regard to one of the arguments presented by Dr. Hastings that there must be a right of appeal on the part of either party. If we afford the right of appeal to the brother who is the defendant in the case if the matter should go against him, shall we deny the right of appeal to the other party in the case? Let me just mention one instance in point. Of course, when a criminal or one accused of a crime is on trial, if he is convicted he has a right of appeal, and I suppose that it is rare for the Prosecuting Attorney to appeal, yet I know of one instance in which the Prose¬ cuting Attorney who represented the people appealed against the decision which acquitted the accused. I do not think we can deny the right of appeal to one of the original parties in the case. It has already been decided by the Moderator that it is the Presbyterian Church as represented by our Committee. I will not dwell on that point; but I think, even if we should deny this, the mat¬ ter will come up under review by the Synod. I do not think we really secure the end of peace in this matter. I wish to confine myself to these specific reasons. I do not think it would vindicate the cause of truth. It seems to be assumed that the only issue is the question of heresy. Heresy concerns essential doctrine. Are we forbidden to pass censure or disapprove the remarks of other brethren? Is there no right to reprove heresy? The other reason is 217 that it will put the prosecutor in a false light. I think it will put the whole Presbytery in a false light. Suppose this motion is carried by a bare majority. A large number of the Presbytery will be very much dissatisfied that our views are not represented in the matter. Many of us would be glad to have it decided that brother Briggs has not been guilty of heresy, and yet we wish to condemn certain utterances. I will not enter into any detail of the matter, but the last reason seems to me absolutely con¬ clusive, which is, if we pass this resolution it will be an ex parte judgment. We have heard one side and we refuse to hear the other. Dr. John R. Paxton: Mr. Moderator, cannot we have that question put. I do not think all this talk will change the vote. We have made up our minds. We had a test vote this morning. We know how we are going to vote and the Committee and its friends know how they are going to vote, and I think the trial will go on in any case, and the sooner we get on to the arguments the better it will be. Let the question be put now, and let us proceed with the trial, and be done with it. I am afraid the Com¬ mittee will have the Presbytery on its side any way; but don’t let us have any more talk and let us take this vote, and if it is dismissed, well. Then let the Committee go on and prove the charges. (Several members call for the question.) Dr. Henry M. Field: I shall not occupy the time 98 more than a few minutes. I want to say a word to Mr. McCook, who has urged very strongly that if this case be dismissed an injustice will be done to the Committee. Haven’t we heard the Committee the whole afternoon; haven’t they read their whole report; haven’t we heard their speeches on the floor? They have been heard as much as the other side has been. One word, which is very pertinent: I am afraid of this Committee. Under 218 the extraordinary doctrines we have heard to-day the ways of Presbyterianism are past finding out. We have discovered that a creation is greater than its creator, and we have created a Committee over which we have no power whatever. We are in an omnibus, and they have the reins, and will drive us whither they will. That is the very reason that I want to ask the Presbytery to stop here. If we can stop it, let us stop it now. As I was looking up to you, sir, I was thinking of that noble man who occupied this platform for so many years—Dr. Hamil¬ ton—and who, after that scene in the General Assembly, wrote to me that he was sorry that he could not be there to aid his friend Prof. Briggs, and said these words, which I hope every reporter will take down and print: “I have learned more of the height, and depth, and length, and breadth of the word of God from Prof. Briggs than from all other men put together.” (Cries of C£ Question.”) 99 Dr. Shearer: Mr. Moderator- The Moderator: Dr. Shearer has a right to be heard. Dr. Shearer : We want light by a presentation of the whole case before deciding how to vote. It is right to seek all the information obtainable. Ho barriers should be erected to exclude the light, and the questions should not be withdrawn without allowing each member to consider and pass upon it, so that the members may reach a correct conclusion, whatever this judgment may be. To vote summarily at this stage to dismiss these charges would be practically rendering a decision. That is a negative method. By negative method, we would enter judgment in an informal way upon methods vital to the Church Catholic—the Church Presbyterian—the Presbyterian and every other interest closely identified with it. A Member : Is that an amended resolution as Dr. Sutton has offered it? 219 Dr. Shearer: I propose to give some reasons why the case should not be dismissed. The Moderator: In view of the paper that has been presented—the resolution—you will keep to that. Dr. Shearer: Our good brother, Dr. Hastings, but a few moments ago, Mr. Moderator, did appeal to the ques¬ tion of action of the former Presbytery, and the peace and purity of the Church, and that has been a common theme 100 throughout the whole discussion; and I think there are reasons—the honor of the Presbytery was said to be in¬ volved ; and I propose to give some reasons why the honor and peace would be greatly promoted by going forward with this case to the end; and I would say frankly, stat¬ ing that as a judge, I have made no determination what vote I shall cast in the matter. I want to know the facts; and I give these reasons for our examining the facts, and allowing the facts to be presented in their fullness so that we can judge. Now if the brethren will allow me—I may be out of order, and if so will submit, in all civil and eccle¬ siastical governments principles are first enacted, and sub¬ sequently the laws are applied. The enactments or the restrictive law, rule or regulation is in itself prima facie evidence of an alleged or real evil, to prevent which the law is formed. Now, turning to the action of the General Assembly in 1882, we find on page 92 of the minutes the following resolution: ‘ ‘ That in view of the crude and dangerous utterances of many of the secular and religious papers, periodicals and books, and some of the pulpits of the land, resulting from the introduction and prevalence of German Mysticism and ‘ higher criticism, 5 and of philosophic speculation and so-called scientific evolution; in view of the alarming defection from the faith of the Gospel, both in this country and abroad, and which seriously threat- p)l ens our own beloved Church; and in view of the fact that the revealed word of God, the Holy Scripture, is the only 220 infallible rule of faitli and practice, and, therefore, the only hope of mankind,—your Committee recommend that this Assembly, in the name of the great Head of the Church, solemnly warn all who give instruction in our Theological Seminaries against inculcating any views, or adopting any methods, which may tend to unsettle faith in the doctrine of the divine origin and plenary inspira¬ tion of the Scriptures, held by our Church, or in our Presbyterian system of doctrine, either by ignoring or depreciating the supernatural element in divine revelation, or by exalting human conjecture and speculation above historical and divine facts and truths; or by applying hypotheses of evolution, unverified and incapable of veri¬ fication, to the word of the living God.” It can be affirmed that the man in this case was in that Assembly. If such a statement needs corroboration, we appeal to the evidence of the resolution of this investigation accord¬ ing to the tenets of the higher criticism taken in 1883. In the General Assembly this resolution was passed when brother Crosby was chairman of the Committee on Theo¬ logical Seminaries. Would that his voice then heard may be heard in his own resolution, as follows: “ We are constrained also to make another suggestion which will not be taken amiss by right minds. It is doubtless neces¬ sary that heretical views should be made known to the 102 students of theology, that heretical authors should be quoted, but care should be taken that these heresies should not be presented in more attractive form than the truth, and there these authors should not be commended and their works urged upon the students’ reading. Em¬ phasis should be laid upon the truth as against such heresies and heretics and errors exposed and denounced with earnestness and zeal. There is to-day a vast amount of infidel and semi-infidel writing by professed commentators on the Holy Scripture, on Scripture history, especially in 221 Germany. These make light of God’s Word and treat the sacred volume as a mass of rubbish. Only condemnation of such writers should be heard from a seminary professor, whatever may be the secular learning of the infidel authors or their rationalistic imitators. It is not wise or righteous dealing with young candidates for the Gospel ministry to commend this poison to their minds without undertaking to instil instincts of caution. Truth must be emphasized and all falsehood unsparingly condemned. Excuse or apology for these errors or any modification of their hein¬ ousness, coming from a professor, is tantamount to an approval in the practical effect on a young student. A Member : I object, that it is not competent to this 103 body to discuss anything but Dr. Briggs’ demurrer. We must pass on that if it is denied, and then dismiss the case if it is not, and then we will hear the merits of the case. Brethren are making speeches on the merits of the case, when the case is not before the house. The Moderator : Your point of order is well taken. Dr. Shearer will confine himself specifically to the question of the objections presented this morning as the ground of his remarks. Dr. Shearer : I presume that when the reasons on one side were presented by Dr. Hastings, I might present them on the other side. I will give my reasons on my side. There has been great liberty allowed; and if the Moderator, when I state what I intend to bring to your attention, says I am out of order, I certainly will take my seat. What I pro¬ pose to say is, that this fama clamosa which was given in Dr. Crosby’s resolution had appeared in these three Assemblies within a period of ten years, had come into our ears by the action of nearly eight Presbyteries, and had come into our ears and before our eyes by the wide dissem¬ ination of these views through the secular and religious press—the religious press of our own denomination and other 222 104 denominations in this and other countries, gave it an extensive publication; and when the matter was taken up, as we believed legally, by the Presbytery, some of us believed that the charges would pass the members of this Presbytery almost in a majority, and that has been re¬ ferred to, as the Moderator will remember, by a former speaker. We were almost on the point of passing such a resolution to virtually say to the Assembly “ hands off, we intend to take care of this case.” A Member : I must beg leave to call the member to order. He is dragging up records of the Assembly with¬ out proving that they have any reference to Dr. Briggs. The Moderator : Dr. Shearer will confine himself to the matter under consideration. Let me just remind you of the way in which the resolution is before us. “ In consid¬ eration of the objections filed by Dr. Briggs as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect , the case against him be and hereby is dis¬ missed.” Dr. Shearer: We have given a pledge that we would take up and consider this case fairly, and I hold that the present status is one in which we are not in a position, in view of these resolutions, in view of the things that are offered—in view of all this, we are not in a position rightly 105 to-day to pass such a motion, because, as I have already said, we put ourselves in a wrong position before the world, and it will not satisfy. We cannot stifle these rumors against our brother. We offer him the vindication of this Presbytery, and the only way to vindicate him is by an orderly trial in which he shall know definitely the decision. If we have not made these charges definite enough we should amend them. The world will not be satisfied, and the Church will not be satisfied, and we can¬ not be satisfied, and we will have no basis on which to pass such a resolution. It will be interpreted on these grounds 223 as we have put them; it will be interpreted as a resolu¬ tion or certificate of good character without a thorough investigation, and there is wrong in it, because our Com¬ mittee stands ready to present the corrections and offer proof in support of them; and we cannot afford as a Presby¬ tery to dismiss them. I love the brother. He has my brotherly love in the matter, and I challenge any member in the Presbytery that has more love for him. I challenge any one that would more gladly vote for a complete vindi¬ cation ; and I say any vindication we could make by sti¬ fling this inquiry, by laying it on the table, will never bring peace, but will simply open up the arena of conflict in the whole Church, and we will have to meet it again and again. How will it come up? Why, the book there from which we read that article stating our tenets—you remember we 106 quoted that several times to-day—it says the party and the Judicatory. "We are not here to find fault with how the book reads. The book has been made and we are obliged to follow it. Suppose we pass the other resolution? The question will go up by appeal or complaint of the body of the members here who do not seem to be agreed. We are really in that position in which we are only adding trouble for ourselves and increasing the conflict throughout the Church to enter into such a motion as is now befoie us, and in the interest of the very objects which my good friend Dr. Hastings here gave us, in the interest of peace, not in the interest of a few, but in the interest of the whole Presbyterian Church, in the interest of the whole body of Christ, I would say let us end this trial by spend¬ ing one or two more days in looking this fully in the face, and let us see if we cannot give a certificate of entire exon¬ eration, and let us give him a certificate of perfect exoner¬ ation. Mr. McCook: I would not detain you a moment, but two of my highly esteemed friends, Drs. Hastings and 224 Field, have referred to my name in what they have said about the Committee. I simply wish to put the position of the Committee exactly right. They assume no power; they assume no authority other than that given by the book. The theory of this Book of Discipline was to keep out of 107 trials of this kind all personal animosity; that if the action was brought by a Judicatory it should, under Section 10 of the Book, be begun in the name of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Under Section 11, it is provided, not that the Presbytery might , but the Presbytery shall appoint a Committee to conduct the pro¬ ceedings in all its stages. It provides that those serving on the Committee, as well as the accused and Counsel, are prohibited from voting on the final issue. The theory was that the Presbytery sitting in a body were judges, were removed from passion or from feeling, or even, as my brother Field would say, not as a jury, but they were sitting in such a way as to be purely a court, and to be above any possible x>ersonal feeling; consequently the Committee was appointed and designated the Prosecuting Committee, and was also so designated in the 42d rule of this body; and we seek to keep the Presbytery on the high plane of judges or of jury, which require those of us who are less fortunate, and who have such a disagreeable duty to perform, to have in fact no vote on this case. The Presbytery named a Committee, and that vested the Committee with authority. They assume nothing more than what the book gave them; and if, in the wisdom of this body, we should be thrown out of court, it might be a great relief to some of us, but in view of your ordina¬ tion vows I do not see how that can be done. Dr. Wylie: I should like to present this resolution as 108 a substitute for Dr. Sutton’s: “ The Presbytery of New York having listened to the paper of Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., and without approving of the positions 225 stated in his inaugural address, at the same time desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church, deem it best to dismiss the case.” I present that as a substitute. Dr. Sutton : If that is presented as an amendment I accept it. Dr. Jno. R. Paxton : I move as a substitute for the motion now before the house: “Resolved , that the paper of Dr. Briggs, with the report of the Committee contain¬ ing charges and specifications, and the resolution of Dr. Van Dyke or its substitute now before this house, be referred to a special committee appointed by the Modera¬ tor to report, at the next stated meeting or monthly meet¬ ing of the Presbytery, what to do with the case. That very able paper of Prof. Briggs we cannot carry in our mind. The Committee ought to have that paper and these charges before them. They should consider the reply to the charges and specifications, and take that paper in their possession and prayerfully consider both papers, and then come to us and say whether or not to go on with the trial; and I would urge that as a substitute, that a special Committee, and an earnest, pious Committee, be appointed. Dr. Van Dyke: I want to accept that amendment very 109 promptly. We all want it. That resolution, as amended, is in the best possible shape that could be gotten to secure this result. Let us now vote on it. I cannot accept Dr. Paxton’s substitute. Dr. John Hall: Some of the brethren will remember that at a former meeting (Dr. Hall was requested to speak louder). I only began to say to my co-Presbyters that at a former meeting of the Presbytery, I took the liberty to make a suggestion in the form of a motion, which I thought, on the one hand, would promote the interest of peace, and on the other hand, protect us against any imputation of favoring what our Church does not believe; 226 but that motion did not commend itself to all of my brethren, so it fell to the ground. Now, I do not think we could do better in the interest of peace than to accept the resolution, but inserting two clauses of which I think the ultimate effect would be to guard us as a Presbytery against imputations, and at the same time do no injustice to the brother who, as the accused, is before us. At the proper point in the resolution that has been read, I would put in the words, ‘ 4 in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs, touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Standard, and by his disclaimer of 2 io the interpretation given to some of his words.” Mr. Spencer L. Eillier : We want to vote intelligently, and I want, to say one word about this last resolution at just this time in the case. I have been one of those who have voted persistently that we should enter upon a trial that would show what Hr. Briggs means. I find myself now in this position: We came here and have heard a full and to me a very satisfactory explanation of just what he believes; and I am prepared, on the strength of the state¬ ment that Hr. Briggs has made, to acquit him entirely, to vote that the proceeding at this time be dropped. If we are confined to the former resolution, which is practically a demurrer, we have to vote simply to say that for reasons that appear to us, objections that may be taken to this paper, that we drop the proceedings on that ground; while I am persuaded many of us, like myself, in the interest of peace and justice and righteousness, feel that we want this matter adjusted and finished on a proper basis. We want to give a full and free and thorough expression of our faith and confidence to Hr. Briggs in what he has said; and therefore I am delighted with this last resolu¬ tion, either as presented by Hr. Wylie or as presented by Hr. Hall. I am content to vote that I am not satisfied with this paper. I think there is no reason to try Hr. 227 Briggs. I want to go further—I want to say that this dear brother, although at a late date—oh! if he had only come ~ out and said long ago what he has said now. We wanted 111 him to stand np and say substantially what he has said now, and he has said it now, and I believe it thoroughly, and I believe when this motion is taken that it will end this thing now thoroughly and completely and entirely; and, therefore, I rise to speak and express myself, satisfied that I have expressed the conviction and opinions of others; and I hope' when we vote it will not be on a technicality, but we will come to the court, and know this thing, and vote on it with the light we now have, and show that we are entirely satisfied that the trial end here and now. (Cries of ‘ ‘ Question 5 5 ; and calls for the reading of the resolution as now prepared.) The Moderator: The Moderator understands you to accept Dr. Wylie’s resolution instead of yours. Dr. Van Dyhe: No; we accept it as an addition; we accept it as an amendment. The Moderator : It will require a moment to combine it. Dr. Sutton: While the audience is waiting, having offered that resolution, that we may settle this case on the merits of the objection, I still insist upon it that that is the projjer proceeding in a court like this. We are sitting as a court, not as a town meeting. The brother has been arraigned according to the forms of law in this court; he H2 has appeared; he has presented his objections to the forms of process as being insufficient and not according to the forms of law. Now, sir, as a court we are bound not to allow this call to prevail of “ Peace, peace ” when there is no peace. We must take it on its merits. If it is not of avail, dismiss it, and I will hold it to be valid. I have not been present with you many months, but I listened this 228 morning to his objections, and I am satisfied, according to our Book of Discipline, that his objections are valid, and that he deserves a dismissal of his case on the basis of that demurrer. And now, sir, this is all we need. We cannot patch up a peace. Part of the time we are discussing the demurrer, part of the time we are talking on the merits of the question, part of the time we are appealing to the senses of the brethren and deprecating the lack of peace. We are going to have peace. The truth is mighty and will prevail. (A Member rises to a point of order and asks for the motion before the house.) Dr. Sutton : I insist upon it this is the proper proceed¬ ing in this court, that we should have some documentary evidence to send up to the higher court. What will you have to send up to the higher court if you beg the matter off? Dr. Van Dy~ke: His amendment was accepted and 113 incorporated. They are simply explanations of the prin¬ ciples I put in there; they specify what are the facts presented. Dr. Sutton: Dr. Briggs stands before this Court, not as . pleading for forgiveness; he stands here having answered the proceeding in a legal manner, and he demands justice upon his answer, and this is what the Court should rule upon, I submit. Let us rule upon it. I am a conserva¬ tive of the conservatives, but I am clearly convinced that he has a right to the dismissal of his case on the ground of the objections he raises. (Question again called for.) Dr. W. T. G. Sliedd : I wish, Mr. Moderator, very briefly to give my reasons why I cannot vote for the disposal of this question. The Moderator: Will Dr. Shedd please come forward so that he can be heard readily. 229 Dr. Shedd: The amendments make no particular differ¬ ence with the original motion, and therefore what I have to say will be pertinent. I object to dismissing this whole subject in silence, in the first place because it is to be done on the supposition that the statements which have been made by the accused party, this defendant, are satisfactory to all, satisfactory to this Presbytery. Now, my ground is that there has been no explanation made by Dr. Briggs that at all changes the teaching of the inaugural discourse. 114 He has said that he does not believe in the doctrine of pur¬ gatory, but he has not said that he does not believe that part of the human family are redeemed in the middle state: that stands. He has said that he does not hold, when he affirms that there are three great fountains of divine authority, that he co-ordinates the Church and Reason and the Bible. Now I would like an opportunity, and the others would like the same thing, to be able to discuss that point here in open Court and see whether that is the fact. For one I do not believe it is. I believe that he co¬ ordinates, and in the whole discourse there co-equalizes, and if I had an opportunity I would endeavor to prove it. Dr. Brown: Would Dr. Shedd allow me to read a few extracts ? Dr. Shedd: I am only giving the reason for being opposed to dismissing that matter. I do not want to be muzzled, and there are others in the Presbytery who would like the whole subject discussed in a frank Christian manner, and find out for ourselves whether that docu¬ ment that was read to us this morning relieves our diffi¬ culty. Now, Mr. Moderator, there is a great difference of opinion in this Presbytery in regard to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of that discourse. Many believe that it is orthodox and could be squared to the Westminster standard; and there is a respectable quantity that do not 2 15 believe it is orthodox, and that it could not be squared 230 with the Westminster standards any more than you could square the circle ; and it will not do to affirm that theie is no difference of opinion, and that we can all agree to the orthodoxy of that inaugural address and repel the charge of heterodoxy; I for one cannot do that thing conscien¬ tiously. Dr. Briggs and I have been associated for many years, and I have nothing but the pleasantest relations with him. I have been associated with the faculty of Union Seminary also, but I think he and they are mistaken in saying that that inaugural discourse accords with the standard of the Presbyterian Church; and I for one would like an opportunity at the proper time to give my reasons for my belief. Now, Mr. Moderator, if you dismiss this whole thing I have no opportunity. The whole thing is dismissed, and virtually we, who have at a very great sac¬ rifice of personal feeling, taken the ground that there is heresy in that discourse, are left without any opportu¬ nity of giving a reason for the belief that is in us; and for that reason I say the Presbytery ought not to dodge that question, and ought not to muzzle the mouth of anybody, but to bring the whole subject into open Presbytery, and to have the thing fully discussed in a Christian way. 210 There is no reason for hard feeling or angry feeling. So far as I am concerned I have no feeling on the matter fur¬ ther than I would have in discussing a mathematical prop¬ osition. The question is, whether it is right or wrong. It should not be dismissed, especially after appointing a Committee, and they have done a great deal of hard work and brought the subject before us for discussion. Let us not give way all they have done. It prevents this Presbytery from expressing its views. It prevents two great divisions in this Presbytery, which correspond with the divisions in the Presbyterian Church, from giving their views. It is a great mistake to suppose that the Presbyterian Church is agreed not to differ on this subject. There is a great dif- 231 ference in sentiment; and my belief is that the difference in sentiment that appears in this Presbytery is quite different from what it is in the Church at large. Here we are quite evenly divided, and Dr. Briggs and his friends can well afford to have his views canvassed. Mr. W. M. Martin : I rise to a point of order here. He is not discussing the point which is before us now. The point is, that Dr. Briggs’ paper read here to-day is only an explanation. In view of that, and not in view of the inaugural, because he has a right to his own judgment in the matter. As I understand it, he should confine him¬ self to the point that is in that resolution. 117 The Moderator: Dr. Shedd will confine himself to the point. Dr. Shearer : Was not this last amendment that was proposed by Dr. Hall, giving a statement that in view of his acknowledgments we do so and so ? That brings Dr. Shedd certainly in order. Dr. Shedd: My sole reason is this, that if you dismiss this case, the members of the Presbytery have no oppor¬ tunity of presenting their views. That is the whole of my first objection. You are putting a gag into the mouth of some of us who would like to speak of it. Now, the second objection is this: It would be better for Dr. Briggs to have this matter go before the Presbytery of New York and be thoroughly discussed and a decision given then, than to put a blanket over the whole thing and do nothing. If you pass this resolution and dismiss this it will be understood, and it will be said very often that they were afraid to come to trial—they were afraid to have the thing discussed in open Presbytery. Now, I say if that be done, and this Presbytery dismisses the whole thing, and it should be appealed to the Synod, he will stand a much poorer chance before the Synod, in that case, than he will if the Presbytery of New York has made a 232 decision after discussion. Suppose this was thoroughly 118 discussed and the Presbytery after discussion say he is or¬ thodox, we will not condemn his view; then he stands before the Synod on a much better ground than he will if he comes before the Synod with this record, that the Pres¬ bytery dodge the question which he and his friends brought forward by a non-discussion. On the other hand, suppose the Presbytery of New York bring up the heresy matter, and it is decided to be contrary to the doctrines, then he will stand better than in the other case, because he will appear before them as one who has manfully stood before his peers, the Presbytery, and undergone an exam¬ ination ; and it may be the Synod will reverse the action of the Presbytery; so my second reason is, that it would be better for Dr. Briggs, for the following reason, that the Presbytery and all of us have an opportunity of giv¬ ing the reasons for the belief we have, either for or against, and consequently that our brother himself stands on a bet¬ ter ground than on the other. I shall vote in opposition to this motion. The Clerk then read the combined resolution, as follows : “ Resolved , that the Presbytery of New York, having listened to the paper of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against him, as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect; and without approving of the position stated in his inaugural address, at the same time desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church, and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster standards, and of his disclaimers of interpretations put on some of his words, deems it best to dismiss the case, and hereby does so dismiss it.” Dr. Sutton : What resolution is that, sir? The Moderator : That is your old friend in a different form. 233 Dr. Van Dyke: I can only say, how that baby has grown. The Moderator : Dr. Hall’s addition is in this paper, with Dr. Wylie’s. A Member : Dr. Sutton has not accepted that. The Moderator: Dr. Van Dyke accepted Dr. Sutton’s amendment, of which the first part is formed and the last part is Dr. Hall’s. Dr. Robinson : Dr. Hall has caused that amendment to be put on Dr. Sutton’s motion, and either Dr. Sutton must accept it, or not, that is our question, sir. The Moderator : Dr. Van Dyke is the original mover and he has accepted, and Dr. Wylie has presented a sug¬ gestion which is adopted. Dr. Hall: All I can say is that my idea in the matter was this: seeing there was a resolution before the body, it seemed advantageous to the truth and to the Church 120 and to ourselves that we should put in the two statements I have presented, and it has been read. I do not make a motion. I simply tried to strengthen our position in the way of truth and right. Dr. Brown: I would like to say one or two words, called out by my honored tutor and friend. As to what Dr. Shedd has said on this floor, in regard to his second reason, there need be no discussion. It was distinctly stated by Dr. Van Dyke that the motion was not made in the interest of Dr. Briggs, but in the interest of this Presbytery and of the Church at large. No single word further need be said there. In regard to his first point I would like to say that no restriction whatever is put upon any member of the Presbytery in explaining his views to as great length as he pleases in any proper way. The public prints are open. It is simply a question as to whether this Presbytery, in view of all these facts, sees fit to arrest the debate and dismiss the case. And further, when he began his re- 284 marks, when lie said that Dr. Briggs did not touch this point, I arise to state the facts right. I shall ask the liberty of quoting three passages. The first i^ssage is this, from the objections filed this morning to the charges and specifications, on page 15: “If I had been charged with teaching second probation or any probation whatever after death, I might have pointed to several of my writ- 121 ings in which this doctrine is distinctly disclaimed. If the doctrine of purgatory had been imputed, or regenera¬ tion after death, or transition after death from the state of the condemned to the state of the justified, any and all of these could have been disproved from my writings. If any insinuations had been made that I had taught that the redeemed enter the Middle State guilty and sinful, this could easily have been refuted. But no such doc¬ trines are specified. No specific doctrine whatever is mentioned. There is nothing in the specification that can be tested by the defendant or challenged by the Presbytery.” The only other point specified by Dr. Shedd was in reference to the Bible, the Church and the Reason. In the appendix to a second edition of the inau¬ gural address, upon which the Committee have based their charges, are contained these words (p. 85), when it was said, “There are historically three great fountains of divine authority—the Bible, the Church and the Reason. I did not say, and I did not give any one the right to infer from anything whatever in the Inaugural Address, or in any of my writings, that I co-ordinated the Bible, the Church and the Reason.” Then again, from the objec¬ tions filed this day on page 20 : “ The reason is a great fountain of divine authority, and yet not an infallible rule of faith and practice. The Church is a great fountain of divine authority, and yet not an infallible rule of faith and practice. The Bible is a great fountain of divine authority, and it is also the only infallible rule of faith 235 and practice. Here are two different statements of truths that may be embraced under a more general truth, but to affirm the one, as to Bible, Church and Reason, that they 122 are great fountains of divine authority, is not to deny that the Bible is the only one of which the other can be affirmed, viz., that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. When God speaks through the conscience He speaks with divine authority, and the conscience becomes a great fountain of divine authority; but the conscience does not become thereby an infallible rule of faith and practice. God speaks through the holy sacrament with divine authority, and the sacrament of the Church is then a great fountain of divine authority; but it does not become thereby an infallible rule of faith and practice. I affirm that I have never anywhere, or at any time, made any statement or taught any doctrine that in the slightest degree impair what I have ever regarded as a cardinal doctrine, that the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Those are simply questions of fact. The Moderator: The question is before you. Are you ready for the question? Dr. Booth called for the resolution. The Moderator: The resolution is called for. Dr. Elliot calls for the resolution, and it is again read by Mr. Hoadley. Dr. Andrew Shiland called for the ayes and nays and, on the motion being put for the ayes and nays, it was 123 declared carried. But the statement was made that the motion was not understood at the time it was put. The Moderator: It is conceded the motion was not understood. The motion is on calling for the ayes and nays. Dr . R. R. Booth: I do not feel satisfied with this ad¬ justment, but I should be content to acquiesce if the 236 brethren so decide in their present vote, because this case must go to the Synod and it must come back to us in some form, and therefore, perhaps, the most rapid and feasible way out of the present embarrassment is to hear the brethren on their vote, and to dismiss the matter until we hear from the Synod of New York, which has adjourned to meet at the call of the Moderator to take this case up; so I shall take no steps and interpose no objection, but I trust the brethren will sustain the call for the ayes and nays. The Moderator: Those in favor of taking the vote by yea and nay calling the roll will say aye; opposed, no. Carried. A Member: There ought to be one suggestion made which will help. I have been told by the highest authority that it is illegal and unconstitutional for the Synod to adjourn as it did, and it cannot adjourn to meet at such a call as that; therefore there will be no meeting for the year. Whether that is right or not I do not know; but I 124 am told by the highest authority that it is right. Dr. Booth: The Synod is adjourned to meet at least once a year. Mr. Hoadley: There are two or three men who came in a little late, and it seems to me that they should have the right to vote if they desire to do so. I think Mr. Rutan and Mr. Ruliffson are also in. Dr. Booth: I hope they will be allowed to vote, as in the nature of the case our present proceedings are some¬ what formal. I trust all these brethren who have this case clearly in mind will be allowed to vote, and so move you. The motion was seconded and carried. Dr. Chapin was also included in this privilege. Dr. Birch: The Committee call attention to the irregu¬ larity in allowing persons now who have not been men¬ tioned before to vote. We might bring a dozen in in that 237 way. It is too late. We call attention to the irregu¬ larity. Dr. Van Dyke: If the Committee protest we do not want those gentlemen to vote. The Moderator: If any make objection that shuts out the names. Those brethren have been here during the morning and afternoon; they only came in a little late. Dr. Birch: We object. A Member: Are we obliged to adjourn at 5 o’clock? The Moderator: No, there is no limit as to the hour for remaining. Before we proceed, perhaps we had better be clear as to the matter of the votes of the brethren named. A Member : These men cannot vote if the Committee objects. The Moderator ; We voted to receive a number of those who came in during the morning, and no objection was made then. Dr. Birch: The Committee does object to the names thus mentioned. A Member: Mr. Moderator, one of the names men¬ tioned—Mr. Kuliifson—was mentioned this morning, and he was accepted. Dr. Birch : I have no objection to his name. Mr. J. B. Shaw: I hope the Committee will not press that objection. One of the gentlemen came in late this morning. These other gentlemen came in only twenty minutes late, and they were in all the morning session, and they heard the opening speeches, and heard the report; and I think it is only fair to allow them to come in. Dr. Birch: We will object to names reported just before a vote is to be taken. When the parties come in and report at once I do not object, but they should be re¬ ported. Bev. Frederick N. Butan: My card has been in the 238 126 hands of the Moderator since early in the service. I came in early in the service. Dr. Birch: The objection is withdrawn to Mr. Rutan. Dr. J. S. Ramsay: I would like to ask you, when you are taking the roll, if a person, as is usual at the close of the summing up of the trial, can be privileged to briefly give the reason for his vote. I presume a good many are exceedingly anxious to get home to wife and children, and although some may object to this, I think some of us who have been trying to get five minutes on the floor should have that privilege. The Moderator: With a very simple restriction not to take too much time. Dr. Hastings: May I ask, as the brethren rise, that they will give their names. Some of the men voted by proxy at the last meeting. The Moderator: The brethren will rise when they vote. In accordance with the vote, the roll call was had, with the following result: Geo. Alexander, aye; S. D. Alexander, no; Andrew C. Armstrong, Jr., aye; A. P. Atterbury, aye; W. W. Atter- bury, aye; Lewis W. Barney, aye; William H. Beach 227 (no answer); Nicholas Bj erring, aye; Robert R. Booth, nay (I will vote no, in the interest of Dr. Briggs, which I think ought to be paramount. I will say no. I must vote no, because I think the process is not according to the spirit, and even the letter of our discipline. I vote only one no for these reasons); Thomas S. Bradner, no; Fran¬ cis Brown, aye; Walter D. Buchanan, no (and I simply want to say this, I vote this way, for the reasons named by Dr. Booth, while I differ from him at this point, only that I do not go into the merits of the case at all as to the exact status of Prof. Briggs here to-day, but in recogni¬ tion of the wisdom or unwisdom of giving up his trial at this time. My conscience will not permit me to vote for a 239 resolution which is condemnatory of brother Briggs, and which I believe, before the public, will be looked upon as a desire on the part of this Presbytery simply to solve this entire matter, while this is not at all the expression of my attitude on this question.) Dr. Van Dyke: I think the brethren should make no explanations and think none are in order, as it is simply opening the question again. A Member: Mr. Moderator, you have ruled already that they are in order. Roll call resumed. William T. Carr, aye; James Chambers, aye; HenryB. Chapin, aye: EdwardL. Clark, aye; Nathaniel W. Conk- 128 ling, aye; John B. Devins (I desire to be excused from voting for the reason given both times before the Presby¬ tery. I ask to be excused. On motion, Mr. Devins was excused). Ira S. Dodd, aye; D. Stuart Dodge, aye; Conrad Doench (no vote given); Thomas Douglas (no vote given); John H. Edwards, aye; FrankF. Ellinwood, aye; Henry B. Elliot. (This vote, if it is carried, will finish the whole case. I desire to say a few words lest I should be misun¬ derstood by the body. I belong to no party in this case, but I have had views in reference to the whole question which are known to some. I should have preferred, and came to the house expecting that this case should be carried through in due form of procedure; that these objections raised by Dr. Briggs should be duly answered, and the whole case discussed in due form; and yet, in view of all the circumstances of the case, in view of his own article, in view of the provisions made by this book, the caveat urged in the midst of this resolution—in view of all these facts I vote aye.) Henry M. Field, aye; William T. Elsing, aye; Arthur Folsom, no; Jesse F. Forbes, aye; Herbert Ford, aye; 240 Charles E. Gillett, aye ; Henri L. Grandlienard, aye; John Hall (I vote aye as on the whole the best thing under the circumstances, not that I vote with my whole heart. 129 I would like much if the Presbytery expressed its disap¬ proval of the ambiguous teaching in a Professor’s chair). A. W. Halsey, aye; W. E. Harshaw, aye; Thomas S. Hastings, aye; Charles E. Herring, aye; Edward W. Hitchcock, aye; James H. Hoadley, aye; Samuel M. Jackson, aye; Augustus D. L. Jewett, no; Joseph E. Kerr, aye; Albert B. King, no; Bartolomew Krusi, aye; Sidney G. Law (Mr. Moderator, I would like to give an explanation of my vote. I voted on Dr. Hall’s resolution in the first place as offered in a former meeting, and I immediately saw my mistake, that it was passing judg¬ ment without trial, and I could not consistently vote now £ £ aye, ’ ’ for this resolution, although I think ultimately I should have voted for it. If there was a full trial, if both sides had been heard, I think I should have voted for it; but on the principle I give, that it is really an ex parte judgment, I vote no). Theodore Leonhard, aye; Joseph P. Lestrade, aye; John C. Lowrie, no; Daniel E. Lorenz, aye; William M. Martin, aye; William J. Macdowell, aye; Francis H. Mar¬ ling, aye; Henry T. McEwen, aye; James H. Mcllvaine, aye; Alex. McKinney, aye; Alex. McLean (I shall have to vote no under Dr. Briggs’ statement, because it implies censure without any trial. We have entered on a trial and had arrested it, and the resolution implies a cen¬ sure of Dr. Briggs, and I shall have to vote no). 130 Horace G. Miller (In view of Dr. Briggs’ excellent address this morning and his Christian manner I would like to vote aye, but I believe that the vote ‘‘ aye ’ ’ means more trouble to Dr. Briggs and more trouble to the Church ; and I, therefore, vote no). George J. Mingins, aye; James C. Nightingale, no; D. 241 H. Overton, aye; George Nixon, no; Charles H. Park- hurst, aye; Levi H. Parsons, no; John R. Paxton, aye; William M. Paxton (I have to vote no, simply because it strikes me the action which you propose to take is no vin¬ dication of Dr. Briggs whatever, but it will throw a cloud of suspicion over him during the rest of his life. If this matter had been brought to trial and Dr. Briggs cleared, then his way would be clear to any seminary in the land; but under the present circumstances he will be under sus- picion as long as lie lives). Edward P. Payson, no; Geo. S. Payson, aye: Vincent Pisek, aye; Geo. L. Prentiss, aye; Wendell Prime, no; Hugh Pritchard, aye; James S. Ramsay (Mr. Moderator I am constrained unfortunately to be in the minority, and I am on constitutional grounds obliged to vote no. While m ful1 sympathy with the words that I heard this morning from Dr. Briggs, and they gave me the thought and hope and belief that when this trial was carried through I could have, the privilege of conscientiously voting for his full acquittal; but I do not care for a compromise. I wish one thing or the other. Dr. Briggs, in pushing the privilege 131 accorded to him in the 22 d verse of this fourth chapter, I think, pushed it too far, and entered into the merits of the question. The Committee of Prosecution was not per¬ mitted to answer as wide as that, and therefore there seems to me to be a manifest injustice; and I would also vote on the ground that there is furnished by this rapid pushing without a discussion to a conclusion—that it fur¬ nishes a ground for appeal, that an appeal may be taken, when there is a hastening to a decision before the testimony is fully taken). Charles S. Robinson (I was from the beginning intensely ° P ??- S t d thlS trial 0f Dr - Bri g& s > although I have been published in the papers as a leader of the opposition. I have told the Board or Dr. Mcllvaine and Dr. Briggs so, 242 but they were determined if it was to be done it should be done in an orderly way. I have been keeping record, I think, for the first time in my life, so as to see the ayes hadn’t it. If they hadn’t it I should have voted with them in order to take it to the Synod or anywhere out of this. So I vote no). Stealy B. Rossiter, aye; Albert G. Ruliffson, aye; Frederick N. Rutan, aye; Robert F. Sample (did not vote, as he is on the Committee). Joseph Sanderson, no; Joseph A. Saxton, aye; Philip Schaflf, aye; Adolphus F. Schauffler, aye; James E. Sentz, aye; J. Balcom Shaw, aye; Geo. L. Shearer, no; William !39 G. T. Shedd, no ; Andrew Shiland, aye ; Wilton M. Smith, aye; John M. Stevenson, no; Charles A. Stoddard, aye. Dr. J. Ford Sutton : Mr. Moderator, what resolutions are we voting for? The Moderator : The resolution has been read, sir. You are called to vote. Dr. Sutton : Please to read the resolution. The Moderator: Do you wish to vote? Dr. Sutton : The clerk will read the resolution. (The resolution was read by Mr. Hoadley.) The Moderator : How do you vote, sir? Dr. Sutton : There is no such resolution before the house. The Moderator: How do you vote? Dr. Sutton : There is a resolution back of that, offered by myself, which has been swallowed up in the resolution which has been read. I stand for order, Mr. Moderator, and I protest that the only thing before the house is the amendment to the amendment. It is not my resolution. I vote no, sir. Dr. Booth: He is perfectly right on the point, Mr. Moderator. The Moderator: You are too late; we are taking the 243 vote, and we are now in the midst of taking the vote and your point of order is not in order. Dr. Sutton: I appeal to the house. Roll-call continued. Alex. W. Sproull, no; Geo. L. Spining, aye; C. L. Thompson, aye; John J. Thompson, no; Marvin R. Vin¬ cent, aye; Fred. E. Voegelin, aye; A. L. R. Waite (Mr. Moderator, in view of the disclaimer by Prof. Briggs I would like to vote yea; but in view of the compromise, which I have taken into account, I vote no). Geo. S. Webster, aye; Erskine N. White, aye; John T. Wilds, aye; David G. Wylie, aye. Roll-call of Elders. M. M. Brown, aye; Geo. M. Jaques, no; John C. Tucker, no; Wdlliam A. Richmond, no; Andrew Robin¬ son, no; Theron G. Strong, aye; David T. Peek, no; Robert Beggs (Mr. Moderator, for the reasons mentioned by Dr. Booth I vote no); Richard H. Bull, no; H. Zincke, aye; Fred’k Blume, no; John Stewart, aye; Samuel Reeve, aye; Francis Rogers, aye; J. Moorhead, no; Thomas S. Strong, aye; Charles H. Woodbury, aye; Henry Bruning, aye; M. E. Fox, aye; I. M. Dyckman, aye; Thomas Anderson, no; Henry Q. Hawley, aye; Sidney TVhittemore, aye: Geo. C. Day, aye; Cleveland H. Dodge, aye; William M. Onderdonk, no; H. B. Caithness, aye; Edward W. Thompson, aye; William Mitchell, aye; William R. Worrall, no; Robert Gentle, aye; William A. Wheelock, aye; Sidney F. Wilcox, 134 aye; C. P. Leggett, aye; J. B. Lindsay, aye. Dr. Hall: While the vote is being made up I make a suggestion. I think we ought, in justice in all directions, to express our approval of the earnestness of the Com¬ mittee on which we impose so much work. Dr. Van Dyke : I would like to call attention to the fact that there is one part of my motion on the table that 244 the Committee be discharged with the thanks of the Pres¬ bytery. If they object to the motion I will withdiaw it. (Motion seconded.) Dr. Booth: I understand Dr. Van Dyke makes a motion to discharge the Committee. I make the point of order that no such motion can be in order in this house without a reconsideration of the motion made. It was passed on the statement of the discipline that the Com¬ mittee represents the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. That was decided by a vote of 64 to 57 this morning, and can only be made now on this floor by a reconsideration of two-thirds. Dr. Van Dyke: I will submit, if you rule it out of order. Dr. Rail: My motion did not involve the question of discharge, simply that it was a simple expression of our appreciation of the efficiency and fidelity of the Com¬ mittee. (Motion seconded.) 135 Mr. Woodbury: Allow me to move an amendment to it, which is this : “ Resolved, that the Committee of Pros¬ ecution be, and the same is hereby, discharged with the thanks of this Presbytery.” The Moderator : That motion is not in order. Mr. Woodbury: I move it as a substitute for the motion. The Moderator : It cannot be entertained, sir, because we should have to reconsider by a vote of two-thirds the vote already taken. Mr. Woodbury: I think that is open to debate before the action becomes final. Although this Committee rep¬ resents at first the Presbyterian Church in the United States, there is nothing in the Book of Discipline that I can see that authorizes that Committee to continue its existence after the prosecution has ceased to exist. If this vote that we have taken here this afternoon results in 245 the closing of the case there is no longer any prosecution to conduct. The Moderator : I beg to call the brother to order. That point was raised distinctly this morning, and the Moderator was appealed from, and the appeal was sus¬ tained, and unless there is a reconsideration of the vote by a vote of two-thirds of the members present on a motion made by some one who voted in the majority, it cannot be entertained. Dr. Birch : I want to speak to that point of order. The gentleman forgets there are Superior Courts, and this 136 case is not ended by the dismissal of this Presbytery, and there is no other way of bringing it before the Synod or before the Assembly according to this rule, and I hope the Presbytery will stick to the book, and we ask you not to legislate against the book. He ignores the fact that there are Superior Courts- The Moderator: It is not the question of the Courts, but the province of the Committee; and I am obliged to decide as I have under the action that has been taken. The question now is on the adoption of Dr. Hall’s motion, that is, to extend to the Committee an expression of our appreciation of the efficiency and fidelity of the Commit¬ tee. (The motion was then put and carried.) The Stated Clerk bids me give notice of the regular meeting of our Presbytery on next Monday at 3 o’clock, and it would be proper, at that time, for the Committee appointed on the protest that has been made to present their report, and the brethren will be kind enough to be patient in order that we may have the minutes of this meeting, which are very important, presented, and see that they are correct before we adjourn; and then, I hope we will all be present at the adjournment, and we will close with prayer by Dr. Hall. Dr . Booth : Let it be proclaimed that at the adjourned 246 meeting some action may be taken by the members on the 1B7 floor. Will it be necessary to give notice of a complaint? The Moderator: A complaint may be lodged within ten days from this. Dr. Booth : When, in the next meeting? The Moderator : The next meeting is on Monday. The Moderator would substitute the name of Dr. Charles S. Robinson for Dr. Ramsay, to answer the protest of Dr. Van Dyke. Dr. Thompson : Mr. Moderator, while the vote is being counted, would you allow the Chairman of the Sunday School Committee to give a notice. (Notice was given.) 138 A Member: I want to know whether the question of re¬ vision comes up at the next meeting. The Moderator: Dr. Yan Dyke will report on the question of revision at the next meeting. The Commit¬ tee’s report will then be read. Dr. Van Dyke: It will be made on Monday, certainly, and it is hoped there will be a full attendance, because it is an important matter. If there are any other members who wish to sustain my view of the constitutionality of the Prosecuting Committee, I wish they would notify me. If there are any who wish to join me in the protest that is to be made, I hope that they will give me their names. The Moderator: Dr. Elliot will serve in the place of Dr. Robinson, to answer the protest made by Dr. Yan Dyke, since Dr. Robinson is not in the house. Dr. Elliot: I prefer to be excused. The Moderator: I think you can serve with Dr. Stod¬ dard. The Committee will consist of Drs. Elliot and 139 Stoddard, and Mr. Beggs. Dr. Elliot will please serve in the matter. Dr. Brown: May I simply give notice that I shall be very glad to know the names of any others who desire to join in the complaint on which notice was given from the 247 decision of the Presbytery this morning on the ques¬ tion. Dr. Briggs : May I ask if I am rightly recorded as giv¬ ing notice of the appeal on that question, because I have to give notice in view of the possibility of appeal from the other party on this question, in order that, if my case should eventually come before the General Assembly, I must appeal with it—I must appeal from the action which the Presbytery took this morning. I simply give notice of the appeal. Mr. Hoadley: This is the first we have heard of it. Dr. Briggs : I gave notice of it this morning. Dr. Elliot: At what time is this appeal to be presented? The Moderator: On Monday next. The vote was then declared as follows: 138 votes were cast; 94 ayes, 39 nays. The Moderator : Won’t you kindly keep order. Please let us not hurry away. We must have our minutes in proper shape. We have not concluded this whole business yet, gentlemen. Dr. Birch: On behalf of the Committee I give notice of appeal to the Synod. The Moderator: Dr. Briggs has already given notice of appeal from the decision this morning. The Minutes were then ordered to be read for final approval. Mr. Hoadley began the reading, but was inter¬ rupted by members objecting to the phraseology of certain portions. Dr. Birch: I want to know if it is essential now that the members of the Presbytery shall stay to the roll-call. The Moderator : There is no roll-call at the close. Dr. George Alexander offered the following motion : ‘ ‘ I move to incorporate in the minutes the statement that Dr. Woodbury had offered this motion, and that it was declared out of order.” (See p. 135.) 140 248 Mr. Worrall: I make a point of order that that had no place in the records, that it had never been before the house, because it was ruled out of order, and therefore it has no place in the minutes of this meeting. Will you decide my point of order and say whether I am right? The Moderator : As a matter of usage it has no place on the minutes. Now we have a motion to put it on the minutes as an exceptional thing. 141 Mr. Worrall: You say it is not right now? The Moderator : It is simply a question of usage. I cannot decide as to the matter of right. Mr. Worrall: You say our usage is not to put that on? The Moderator: Yes. The following resolution was then offered by Dr. Alexander: “ Resolved, that the paper of Mr. Woodbury be entered upon the minutes with the decision of the motion, to include in the minutes that Mr. Woodbury offered the following resolution, which was declared out of order by the action in the morning.” Dr. Sutton : I object to this motion on the ground that it is most unusual; and second, that it is unnecessary, the previous ruling of the Moderator having covered that point. (A vote having been taken, the Moderator was still in doubt, and upon a rising vote there were 8 votes for placing the motion on the record and 9 votes against the motion, and the motion was declared lost.) Dr. Brown : I give notice of a complaint against the decision of the Moderator that Mr. Woodbury’s motion to discharge the Committee was out of order. Dr. Sutton : I rise to a point of order that that admits the very thing which we have just voted should not go on the record. 142 The Moderator : The Presbytery has taken this action. 249 Dr. Alexander has presented a motion which was voted down, and they have a right to complain. The Synod can rectify that. A motion lost has not usually been recorded in the minutes of this Presbytery, and therefore this motion lost will not be recorded. The complaint therefore which comes before the Synod will be a complaint upon something not found on the record; and, as a matter of course, the action of the Synod is on the record of the Presbytery. J\£t. Woodbury: This is a direct application to put it on the record, and the Presbytery in refusing to put in on the record has violated the rights of the party. The Moderator: It will appear by witnesses. It will come on the records of the Presbytery for review. Dr. Sutton : If it is an independent body it cannot be dis¬ missed. Dr. Briggs : We will take the risk. Mr. Woodbury: It will be asserted that the record is not true, because we claim an action which the Presbytery refused to spread on the record. The Moderator : This is a complaint against the refusal of the Presbytery. Mr. Woodbury : Yes, and also against the refusal of the Moderator. The Moderator : You can state that in the complaint before the Synod. Dr. Brown gave notice, on behalf of himself, and others, of a complaint against the decision of the Presbytery in refusing to enter upon the records a motion of Mr. Wood¬ bury to discharge the Prosecuting Committee, which was ruled by the Moderator not to be in order in view of the decision of the morning. The minutes of the Presbytery, as finally approved, were as follows: Nov. 4th, 10 o’clock A. M., Presbytery met in the Scotch 143 250 Churcli agreeably to amendment, and. was constituted with prayer. The roll was then called, and is as follows. Minis¬ ters—George Alexander, S. D. Alexander, Andrew C. Aim- strong, Jr., Anson P. Atterbnry, W. Wallace Atterbury, Lewis W. Barney, Win. H. Beach, Geo. W. P. Birch, Nicholas Bjerring, John C. Bliss, Robt. R. Booth, Thomas S. Bradner, Charles A. Briggs, Francis Brown, Walter I). Buchanan, Wm. T. Carr, James Chambers, Henry B. Chapin, Edward L. Clark, Nathaniel W. Conkling, John B. Devins, Ira S. Dodd, D. Stuart Dodge, Conrad Doench, Thomas Douglas, John H. Edwards, Frank F. Ellinwood, Henry B. Elliot, Wm. T. Elsing, Henry M. Field, Arthur Folsom, Jesse F. Forbes, Herbert Ford, Charles R. Gil- lett, Henri L. Grandlienard, John Hall, A. Woodruff Hal¬ sey, Edward P. Harmond, Wm. R. Harshaw, Thomas S. 144 Hastings, Charles E. Herring, Spencer L. Hillier, Edward W. Hitchcock, James H. Hoadley, Sam’l M. Jackson, Augustus D. L. Jewett, Joseph R. Kerr, Albert B. King, Bartolomew Krusi, Joseph J. Lampe, Sidney G. Law, Theodore Leonhard, Joseph P. Lestrade, John C. Lowrie, Daniel E. Lorenz, Wm. M. Martin, Wm. J. Macdowell, Francis H. Marling, Henry T. McEwen, James H. Mc- Ilvaine, Alex. McKinney, Alexander McLean, James C. Nightingale, Geo. Nixon, D. H. Overton, Charles H. Parkhurst, Levi H. Parsons, John R. Paxton, Edward P. Payson, Geo. S. Payson, Geo. L. Prentiss, Wendell Prime, Hugh Pritchard, James S. Ramsay, Charles S. Robinson, Stealy B. Rossiter, Albert G. Ruliffson, Fred¬ erick N. Rutan, Robert F. Sample, Joseph Sanderson, Joseph A. Saxton, Philip Schaff, A. F. Schauffler, James E. Sentz, J. Balcom Shaw, Geo. L. Shearer, W. G. T. Shedd, Andrew Shiland, Wilton M. Smith, John M. Ste¬ venson, Charles A. Stoddard, A. W. Sproull, Geo. L. Spining, Charles L. Thompson, John J. Thompson, Henry Van Dyke, Marvin R. Vincent, Frederick E. Voegelin, 251 Thomas G. Wall, George S. Webster, Erskine N. White, John T. Wilds, David G. Wylie. Elders : M. M. Brown, Adams Memorial; Geo. M. Jaques, Bethany; John C. Tucker, Brick; William A. 145 Richmond, Chalmers; Andrew Robinson, Christ; Theron G. Strong, Covenant; David T. Peek, Faith; Robert Beggs, Fifth Avenue; Richard H. Bull, First; H. Zincke, First Union; Frederick Blume, Fourth; John Stewart, Fourth Avenue; Samuel Reeve, 14th Street; Francis Rogers, Harlem; J. Moorhead, Knox; Thomas S. Strong, Madison Avenue; Chas. H. Woodbury, Madison Square; Henry Bruning, Madison Street; M. E. Fox, Morrisania; I. H. Dyckman, Mt. Washington; Thomas Anderson, Hew York; Henry Q. Hawley, Park; Sidney Whittemore, Phillips; George C. Lay, Puritans; Cleveland H. Dodge, Riverdale; William M. Onderdonk, Rutgers; H. B. Caithness, Scotch; Edward W. Thompson, Seventh; Will¬ iam Mitchell, Spring Street; William R. Worrall, 13th Street; Robert Gentle, Union Tabernacle; William A. Wheelock, Washington Heights; Sidney F. Wilcox, West; C. P. Leggett, West End; Alex. Wilson, West 51st Street; J. B. Lindsay, Westminster of West 23d Street. The Committee appointed at the last meeting to make arrangements for the sittings in the house reported as follows: First. —That pews be reserved for the members of Pres¬ bytery, for Elders belonging to our city churches not voting, and that the rest of the church be thrown open to the general public. 146 Second. —That while earnestly desiring to provide accommodation for all who come, when the pews are all filled the doors of the church be closed; and, in order to preserve quiet, no one be permitted to stand in the aisles. 252 Third.— The Committee also recommend that an official stenographer be employed, and that Presbytery order a special collection in all the churches to meet the necessary expenses of the Presbytery. Fourth.— The Committee recommend, in case that pro¬ ceedings extend beyond to-day, that the sessions be held from 2 to 5 P.M., and that a recess be taken to-day from 1 to 2 P.M. By order of Committee. David G. Wylie, Chairman . The report was accepted and recommendations adopted. Mr. L. W. How was, on motion, chosen by the Pres¬ bytery official stenographer. Mr. McEwen was, by unanimous consent, excused to attend a funeral. The general rules in the Book of Discipline for Judica- tories was, on motion, adopted as amended in 1885 (and in 1887). Presbytery was then constituted a court, and charged by the Moderator. Dr. Briggs was then asked by the Moderator whether he wanted counsel. He said he did not. The Moderator then explained the status of the ques- 147 tion. The reading of the minutes of the last meeting was dispensed with by order of the Presbytery. (Also, the reading of the charges and specifications by general agree¬ ment, because they were before all in printed form.) Dr. Briggs being called upon to make return to the citation, then proceeded to file objections against the suf¬ ficiency of the charges and specifications in form and in legal effect (see printed copy at p. 70). At this point the question as to the status of the Prose¬ cuting Committee was raised. The Moderator decided 253 that the Committee was properly a Committee of Prosecu¬ tion in view of the previous action of Presbytery as recorded, and represented the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and was in the house as an original party in the case, under provision of Section 10 of the Book of Discipline, and is now virtually independ¬ ent of the Presbytery. An appeal was taken from the decision of the Modera¬ tor. The question was divided. The Moderator was sus¬ tained in the point that the Committee was in the house as a properly appointed Committee of Prosecution. The Moderator was sustained in the point that the Committee, as representing the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, was an original party in the complaint. Dr. Yan Dyke gave notice of a protest in behalf of him¬ self and others against this action, which is as follows : “In accordance with the Book of Discipline, Section 105, I protest against the ruling of the Moderator of the Pres- 148 bytery of New York in the case of C. A. Briggs, that the Committee, consisting of G. W. F. Birch, J. J. Lampe, R. F. Sample, J. J. McCook, John J. Stevenson, is an original party in the case, and therefore entitled to be heard first under Rule 22, Book of Discipline, as an erroneous deci¬ sion on the following grounds : First.— In a case arising under common fame, the Prosecuting Committee is not an original party. (See Min¬ utes of General Assembly, O. S. 1859, page 563.) Second.— This Committee has not been appointed ‘ to conduct the prosecution in all its stages in whatever Judi¬ catory, ’ and there is no record of the Presbytery to show this appointment.” (Signed) Henry Van Dyke. Dr. Brown gave notice of a complaint against the deci¬ sion of the Judicatory in the same way, and Dr. Briggs 254 gave notice of an appeal. The Committee of Prosecution was then heard (in an argument by Prof. Stevenson). Dr. Yan Dyke presented the following resolution : ‘‘ That the Presbytery in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by the Book of Discipline, and in view of the facts which have been presented to us, do now dismiss the case. ’ ’ At 1 o’clock the Presbytery took a recess. After recess the roll was called, and by unanimous con- 149 sent of parties and of the Judicatory, a number of names of ministers and elders were added to the roll who were not present at the opening of the case, but who were present soon after, so as to be fully cognizant of what took place. Mr. Webster, having been called away by special duties, was in the same way excused. The following Committee was appointed to answer the protest of Dr. Yan Dyke: Rev. Drs. H. B. Elliot, Chas. A. Stoddard, with Elder Robert Beggs. The question before the house, at the hour of recess, was then taken up and amended so as to read as follows : “ Resolved, that the Presbytery of New York, having listened to the paper of Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against him as to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications in form and legal effect; and without approving of the positions stated in his inaugural address, at the same time desiring earnestly the peace and quiet of the Church, and in view of the declarations made by Dr. Briggs touching his loyalty to the Holy Scriptures and the Westminster standards and of his disclaimers, of interpretations put on some of his words, deems it best to dismiss the case, and hereby does so dismiss it.” On motion, the ayes and nays were ordered and, the roll being called, resulted as follows: 94 ayes and 39 nays. 255 Dr. Hall offered the following resolution: ‘ ‘Resolved, that a vote of thanks be tendered to the Com¬ mittee for its diligence and fidelity.” Adopted. Dr. Brown, on behalf of himself and others, gave notice of a complaint against the decision of the Presbytery in refusing to enter upon the records a motion of Mr. Wood¬ bury to discharge the Prosecuting Committee, which was ruled by the Moderator not be in order in view of the decision of the morning.* After the announcement of the vote the Chairman of the Committee of Prosecution gave notice of an appeal to Synod from the decision of Presbytery. Presbytery approved the minutes and adjourned with prayer, the Moderator pronouncing the benediction. The Moderator : Will Dr. George Alexander lead us in 151 a word of prayer. Dr. Alexander delivered the prayer, as follows: “O merciful God, we humbly entreat Thy blessing upon us in the work of this case. We bless Thee that Thou hast so guided our hearts that we have been enabled, in the spirit of brotherly kindness, to meet these issues which have been given to us, and we pray Thee that, though we may have erred in judgment, our errors may be overruled by Thee, and that the glory of Thy holy name may be advanced; and we hope that we have done that which is in accord with Thy mind; and we pray and we beseech Thee that in all subsequent action connected with this case which has been before us, each one of us may be guided and directed by that spirit which is from above. We pray Thee that Thou wilt guide us in all our ways and in all our works. Bless the Church to which we belong, and may we live in its service, and love it above all else. For Christ’s sake we ask it, Amen.” * See pp. 22-29, 32, 33 of these notes. 256 The Moderator pronounced the benediction and the Presbytery adjourned. I hereby certify that the foregoing type-written notes, pp. 1 to 151 inclusive, with the corrections therein made by my pen, are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a full and true report of all that was said and done at this meeting. New Yoek, Nov’r 18, ’91. (Signed) John C. Bliss, Moderator. 257 Notice of Complaint (I.) Notice of Complaint, to be made before the higher judi¬ catory by the undersigned and others agreeing with him, is hereby filed, in accordance with Sections 83 and 84 of the Revised Book of Discipline, against the action of the Presbytery of New York, November 4, 1891, in sustain¬ ing, by a vote of 64 to 57, the ruling of the Moderator, as follows: 1 . That the Committee which prepared charges against Dr. Briggs (presented to Presbytery October 5, 1891), was a Committee of Prosecution under Section 11 of the Re¬ vised Book of Discipline. 2 . That this Committee was in the house on the day on which the citation was returnable (November 4, 1891, as aforesaid), as an original party . 3. That the Committee, as an original party, was virtu¬ ally and practically independent of the Presbytery. Against this action complaint is made for the following reasons:— 1 . The records of Presbytery do not show that the Com¬ mittee was appointed as a Committee of Prosecution under Section 11 of the Revised Book of Discipline. 2 . Section 10 of the Revised Book of Discipline de¬ clares that “ when the prosecution is initiated by a judi¬ catory, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America shall be the prosecutor, an original party.” But the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was represented in the house by the Presbytery of New York itself, and not by a Committee of the Presbytery. 3. Every Committee appointed by Presbytery is subject to the control of Presbytery; otherwise the creature is greater than the body creating it, the sovereignty of Pres¬ bytery over its members, its Committees, and all the inter- 258 ests committed to it by the laws of the Church aie seriously impaired, and an undue power is placed in the hands of a few persons. 4. It was, therefore, competent for the Presbytery to discharge the Committee on dismissing the case against Dr. Briggs. But a motion to this effect was ruled out of order by the Moderator, on the ground of the Presbytery’s action in sustaining him as cited above (see also Complaint II). 5. The Committee being a creature of Presbytery, had no right to appeal from the decision of Presbytery in vot¬ ing by a large majority (94 to 39) to dismiss the aforesaid case. Yet this, the action of Presbytery in sustaining the ruling of the Moderator, as above, permitted them to do. 6. By this appeal of the Committee, the Presbytery is placed in the absurd position of being compelled to defend its own action in dismissing a case—not against the com¬ plaint of any individual, nor against the appeal of one who has suffered personal detriment by a judicial decision, but against a Committee which was appointed by, and derives all its authority from, the very body against whose judg¬ ment it now proposes to maintain its opinion. This an¬ omalous situation results from the action of the Presby¬ tery in sustaining the Moderator, as above. For these reasons, notice of Complaint is hereby given to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of New York, this thirteenth day of November, 1891, being less than ten days after the action complained of. (Signed) Francis Brown, In behalf of himself and others. 259 Notice of Complaint (II.) Notice of Complaint to be made before the higher judi catory by the undersigned and others agreeing with him, is hereby filed, in accordance with Sections 83 and 84 of the Revised Book of Discipline, against the action of the Presbytery of New York, November 4, 1891, in refusing, by a vote of 9 to 8, to enter upon the records of Presbytery the fact that a motion was made to discharge the Committee appointed (in May, 1891) to prepare charges against Dr. Briggs, after the Presbytery had voted, 94 to 39, to dismiss the case; which motion was ruled out of order by the Moderator on the ground of the action of Presbytery on the same day in sustaining his rulings as to the function and rights of the Committee (see Complaint I.). The reason for this Complaint is the following:— It was important as a basis for Complaint I., and in order to bring all the facts before the higher judicatory for review, that it should appear on the records of Presbytery that a motion was made, as above, and ruled out of order. Notice of Complaint is accordingly given to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of New York, this thirteenth day of November, 1891, being less than ten days after the action complained of. (Signed) Francis Brown, In behalf of himself and others. The Committee appointed to answer the protest of Rev. Dr. Henry Van Dyke report as follows: £< The peculiarity of the subject matter, and the con¬ nected points involved in the ruling of the Moderator, under which the protest was entered, seem to us to justify some enlargement of the scope of our inquiries, in order to greater definiteness in the answer. 260 We recite the ruling, viz. : “ That the Committee was properly a Committee of Prosecution, in view of the pre¬ vious action of the Presbytery, as recorded; that it repre¬ sented the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; that it was in the house as an ‘ original party ’ in the case under provision of Section 10th of the Book of Discipline, and is now virtually independent of the Pres¬ bytery. 5 ’ We recite the protest of Dr. Van Dyke, viz. : “ In accordance with the Book of Discipline, Section 105, I protest against the ruling of the Moderator in the case of C. A. Briggs, that the Committee, consisting of G. W. F. Birch, J. J. Lampe, B. F. Sample, J. J. McCook and John J. Stevenson, is an original party in the case, and, there¬ fore, entitled to be heard first under Pule 22, Book of Dis¬ cipline, as an erroneous decision, on the following grounds, viz. : 1st. In a case arising under Common Fame the Prosecut¬ ing Committee is not an Original Party. See Minutes of General Assembly (0. S.), 1859, page 563. 2d. This Committee has not been appointed “to con¬ duct the prosecution in all its stages in whatever judica¬ tory, 5 5 and there is no record of the Presbytery to show such appointment. The Book of Discipline makes no provision for a protest against the ruling of a Moderator. Section 105 concerns only the spirit of a protest against, not the Moderator, but “ the majority .” Section 103, describing the nature of a “ Dissent;” or, as in 104, a “ Protest” (which is merely a “ more formal declaration ”), states : “ It is a declaration of one or more members of a minority expressing disagree¬ ment with a decision of the majority.” A member may appeal to the house against the ruling of the Moderator. If the house sustain the ruling, the only further action of I 261 the dissentient must be against the majority or against the judicatory as represented by the vote of the majority. The protest of Dr. Van Dyke is, therefore, defective in this essential particular, and might be thrown out upon that ground. We prefer, however, to waive this point and answer fully the questions at issue. The Committee beg leave to offer a preliminary state¬ ment of certain principles which they deem rational and fundamental to the whole subject. A party in a judicial proceeding is necessarily, as the word indicates, a person or combination of persons anaved on one side or the other of the case; taking the part in it which belongs to that side. Impartiality is un¬ avoidably excluded from its position, however candid may be the temper cherished. A party accused must have a party accusing, each maintaining its side. A process con¬ ducted before a Presbytery must, therefore, have its two original parties. But as the Presbytery becomes the court to consider, try and decide the case, it cannot be one of those parties. Its position in the trial must be that of strict impartiality. b In a case originating in personal offence, the first ori¬ ginal party is the person aggrieved and bringing the charge. In a case where no individual brings the charge (though one or more may call attention to an alleged public offence), the first party is assumed to be, and by our Disci¬ pline declared to be, the Church at large (or by ecclesiastical limitation the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America), which is aggrieved by the public offence a lleged against one of its members, who is the second party. But, as it is impossible for the Presbyterian Church in the United States to perform its functions directly, it ■must commission some individuals to represent it. As it is equally impossible for the whole Church to select and commission such individuals, the duty of so doing is 262 properly relegated to the particular Presbytery within whose bounds the offence was alleged to be committed, which designates and elects them as a Committee of Pros¬ ecution in the name, not of the Presbytery, but of the Church at large, and representing not the Presbytery, but the Church at large, and sets them aside for that definite purpose. For the time being, therefore, the Committee so appointed is separate from the Presbytery and independent of it in the matter in hand, except as to the orderly arrangements and processes of trial; responsible no longer to the Presbytery, but to the Church at large, in whose name and behalf it must conduct the case. It is in this respect unlike any other committee appointed by the body; is not in any proper sense the ‘ 6 creature 5 ’ of the Presby¬ tery, but the creature of the Presbyterian Church in the United States; only designated as to its component mem¬ bership by the Presbytery which, in such designation or appointment, is acting as the agent of the larger body; and it is not subject to the will of the Presbytery except for the maintenance of constitutional order, so long as the case continues. It takes the place of and becomes, both dejurewaiide facto , an “ original party.” The Presby¬ tery is “ the judicatory initiating the prosecution (accord¬ ing to Section 10th), not the “ prosecutors,” and thence¬ forth separates itself from the prosecution to remain only the court before which the two original parties were to submit their cause. The Presbytery is competent to decide the case temporarily by a verdict, though still subject to appeal by either party; and competent, also, to decide it temporarily by dismissal, though still subject to a demand from either party for a fair and full representation of its claims before dismissal and to an appeal after dismissal. Such verdict or dismissal bears only upon the Presbytery’s own further cognizance of the case. When it has initiated the prosecution, the committee so appointed has, by the 263 express terms of its appointment, authority to “ conduct the prosecution in all its stages, in whatever judicatory, until the final issue be reached ” (Section 11th), and is not subject to discharge until that issue be reached. Then the Presbytery, its functions as a court having ceased and act¬ ing again as the agent of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, discharges the committee. The question now occurs whether these principles apply to the matter in hand; whether the Moderator was justified in so applying them in his ruling. Against this the pro¬ test is made, and the present Committee is directed to answer under the two items into which it is divided. 1st. u In a case arising under Common Fame the Pros¬ ecuting Committee is not an original party. See Minutes of General Assembly (O. S.), 1859, page 563, Moore’s Digest. ’ ’ Answer 1. The Revised Book of Discipline by which the Presbytery must be governed, does not recognize Common Fame. The phrase nowhere occurs. The statement of the old book “ Common Fame is the Accuser,” is dropped, perhaps because of its vagueness, and the difficulty of reducing such a personification to the dimensions of an actual person, and we are left only to the more general form. “ Process shall not be commenced unless a Judica¬ tory finds it necessary to investigate the alleged offence.” Section 6.—The natural implication is that some member has openly made such an allegation, or brought it to the notice of the body, and the Judicatory having, like a Grand Jury, received it and found it necessary to investi¬ gate the offence, commences a process. In order to do so it “ initiates a prosecution,” according to Section 11th, by appointing a committee to conduct it. The committee so appointed and for that purpose becomes, as we have shown, the prosecutor, and the only possible 264 “ original party, ” except the accused, as fully as in any case of personal offence where an individual has undertaken to make the charge, and becomes thereby the original party on that side. As sustaining these statements we notice in Moore’s Digest, 1886, the following foot-note: “Common Fame, since the adoption of the Devised Book of Discipline, is no longer a ground of Process.” Chap. II., Section 8. II.—In the absence of any legislation upon the subject by the Book, it may be supposed that the new ‘ ‘ Buies for Judicatories ” should be our guide. These rules, however, are not mandatory upon the judicatories, but merely recommended for adoption by them. Moreover, they were not adopted by this Presbytery until the October Session, and were not in use by us. Therefore, when the process was initiated—but waiving this point, and referring to Buie 42, we find it merely re¬ affirming (though it has no right to do so) the conditions recognized under the old form, viz.: “ In case of process under general rumor, there may be a committee appointed (if convenient) who shall be the Committee of Prosecution, and who shall conduct the whole course on the part of the prosecution.” Nothing is here declared or intimated in regard to the status of such a committee, as an original party, and the inference is legitimate that no distinction was intended in that respect between a prose¬ cuting committee and a prosecuting individual or u a particular accuser, ’ ’ as he is termed in the rule, that if the latter were of necessity an original party, so also the former as acting instead of one, must be. Otherwise, indeed, there is and can be, in a case so initiated “ under general rumor,” no original party on that side; the Presbytery itself, as a court, being unavoidably estopped (barred by its own act) from assuming that position. 265 The protest, however, cites, in confirmation, the min¬ utes of the General Assembly, 1859, page 563 of the Digest, which is as follows: In an appeal of Alex. Frazer against the Synod of Buffalo. “The original parties being called for, the Moderator decided that the case having arisen without an individual prosecutor, there was but one original party before the Court (meaning evidently the accused appealing), who was now to be heard by A. G-. Hall and J. Bliss, representing him.” Upon this we remark, 1st. That the case mentioned occurred long prior to the Book of Discipline, under which we are now acting. The provision of Section 10th that “the Presbyterian Church of the United States shall be the prosecutor and an original party” had not then been made, and a Committee to conduct the piosecution in all its stages, as representing the Presbyterian Church of the United States was, of course, unknown, otherwise such a decision could not have been given. The cases are not analogous. If, however, any weight be still attached to the precedent, we remark, 2d. That on the same page of the Digest, under the minutes of 1861, we find the follow- ing, which seems to have escaped the notice of the protest- ant: In the case of complaint of the Presbytery of Passaic against the Synod of New York, “ Resolved, that the case be returned to the Synod, because it appears from the record of the Synod, that the original parties in the case were never heard by them; the original parties in the judgment of the Assembly being Mr. Wm. B. Gould and the committee prosecuting for Common Fame” This, be it observed, is not a mere decision by the Moderator, but a judgment of the Assembly ? ’ in its combined wisdom, and, we submit, is of more weight, and would be of more binding force (if, in the changed conditions, either were binding—which it is not) than the previous mere official decision. It is proper to add, however, that the 266 quoting of decisions from the Old or New School branches of the Church at that period is in itself considered of no avail as bearing upon more recent issues. The Concurrent Declaration of both Assemblies in 1869 is that “ No rule or precedent which does not stand approved by both bodies should be of any authority until re-established in the united body.” These decisions have not been so re-established— as, indeed, would be impossible since ‘ ‘ Common Fame 5 ’ is no longer recognized as a ground for charges. The Committee find, therefore, no sufficient ground for the 1st item of the protest. The 2d item is that “ This Committee has not been appointed c to conduct the prosecution in all its stages, in whatever judicatory,’ and there is no record of the Presby¬ tery to show such appointment.” Answer. It is true that the language in quotation marks, ‘ ‘ To conduct the prosecution in all its stages, in whatever judicatory,” is not found upon the records. The proper question is whether the fact of its appointment to a position which of necessity involves this prerogative is not found there. The Book does not require that the lahguage shall be used, if the fact and the intent are evident. No other 6 ‘ committee to prosecute 5 ’ is recognized in the Book except such as is provided by Section 11th. It is there mentioned in a single connected sentence, which we have no right to break, either in intent or application. It is simply and positively ‘ ‘ a committee to conduct the prosecution in all its stages to whatever judicatory, until the final issue be reached,” and the remainder of the sec¬ tion exhibits it as appearing before the “ Appellate Judi¬ catory, 5 5 independently , controlling even the action of that body in regard to any assistance given it, which can be only upon “its (the committee’s) desire and nomina¬ tion.” This is the large responsibility entrusted to it by 267 “ the Presbyterian Church in the United States,” at the first moment of appointment, which neither the committee nor the Presbytery can evade. The law does not read “ to conduct in all its stages, if the Presbytery shall so order,’ ’ but, in whatever way the case may reach a second or third judicatory, the committee shall be there to conduct it, whether the Presbytery shall consent or not. Indeed, the Presbytery has no consent either to give or to withhold. It has become a court, and a court does not appeal to a higher court—a prosecutor or a defendant appeals, and no other party can appeal. If the prosecuting committee is not there to do its part no one else can take its place, and the prosecution is absolutely without representation. This seems to have been precisely the difficulty in the case against the Synod of Buffalo. There having been “ no individual prosecutor’ ’ at the outset, and no committee of prosecution presenting itself at the Assembly, there was, of course, but one original party, the defendant, before the highest court (whatever may have been before the lowest court), and the case “ went by default,” if we may be permitted to use the phrase on the side opposite to that to which it is usually technically applied. The entire action of the Presbytery, taken in connection with the object proposed, confirms the opinion that it was the design to appoint just such a committee, because it could appoint no other, whatever may have been the failure of individual members to apprehend the reach of their action. The body was entering upon a judicial pro¬ ceeding—“the business assigned for trial,” as the Moderator solemnly announced. It was from the outset conducted, as the Moderator’s ruling stated, “under the power given by Section 11th,” which expressly assigns that prerogative to the Committee, and could not have been conducted under any other power. At various points in the proceeding the nature and object of the appointment 268 was indicated and unchallenged. May 12th. After adopt¬ ing the report of the preliminary Committee to examine the inaugural address, it was “ resolved to enter at once upon the judicial investigation of the case.” This accords perfectly with Section 6th, “ a judiciary finds it necessary to investigate the alleged offence,” which is expressly included under the title of “ process against an alleged offender,” a phrase covering the general matter of process. Under this resolution the records show that ‘ 6 a Committee was appointed to arrange and prepare the necessary pro¬ ceedings appropriate to the case.” May 17th. The records again refer to “the Committee appointed to arrange and prepare the necessary proceedings appropriate to the case,” the necessary proceedings being the formulating and presenting of charges against Dr. Briggs. June 5th. The Committee, under the same title, “reported progress.” Next, the record of October 6th is, that “the Committee of Prosecution ’ 5 (being those named in the protest) “ appointed in compliance with Sec. 11 of the Book of Discipline ,” reported such charges. The report was accepted, unchallenged—the Presbytery, by that accept¬ ance, recognizing as undisputed the title of the Committee and its appointment under the Section named. On the same day it is recorded that, “by agreement between Dr. Briggs and the Prosecuting Committee , the 4th day of Nov., at 10 o’clock, be fixed as the day on which the citation is returnable,” and the citation so drawn was duly presented to and accepted by Dr. Briggs. This agreement and acceptance by both parties in the case still further settled the title, status and object of the Committee, as acknowledged by both, and effectually disposes of any subsequent claims to the contrary. At the close of that session the minutes were approved without demur on that account; the Presbytery thus again unanimously acknowl¬ edging and making itself responsible for both the general 269 and special character of the committee, the accused party and all concerned for him also being responsible for the same by their failure to object. Moreover, on the 22d of Oct., the Synod of New York examined and approved all the records of the Presbytery which we have cited previous to Nov. 4th, thus indicating its acceptance and approval of and making itself to a degree responsible for the legal appointment and legal action of the Committee as a Com¬ mittee of Prosecution under Section 11. We once more remind the members of the positive requirement of the Book in that section—which is that ‘ ‘ when the prosecu¬ tion is initiated by a judicatory it shall appoint one or more of its own members a Committee to conduct the prosecution in all its stages, in whatever judicatory, until the final issue be reached, 5 5 and we affirm that the minutes of the Presbytery do positively and fully show such an appointment in strict conformity to the requirement. We find, therefore, no sufficient ground for the 2d item of the protest, and consider the protest, as a whole, an inadequate objection to the ruling of the Moderator, and the decision of the majority sustaining that ruling. Respectfully offered, to be entered on the records of the Presbytery as the answer of the majority.” ( H. B. Elliot. (Signed) < Chas A. Stoddard. ( R. Beggs. The above was presented and entered upon the records at the meeting of Presbytery, December 14th, 1891. 270 Presbytery of New York. 153 East 78th Street, April 11, 1892. I have examined the above printed Record in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., includ¬ ing the appeal to the General Assembly, and all papers pertaining to the case, and hereby authenticate the same as in entire agreement with the records of this Presbytery. S. D. Alexander, Stated Clerk. 271 184 Willis Avenue, New York, March 7th, 1892. Rev. Charles A. Briggs, B.B., 120 West 93d Street, New York City. Bear Br. Briggs, In behalf of the Committee, I beg to inform you, that the appeal to the General Assembly, taken by the Prose¬ cuting Committee, from the final judgment of the Presby¬ tery of New York, in the matter of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, B.B., will be presented and brought on for hearing during the sessions of the next General Assem- bly, which will be held at the City of Portland, Oregon, on Thursday, the 19th day of May, 1892, and following days. This notice is not required by the Book of Biscipline, nor by precedent, and is sent simply as a matter of courtesy, and out of abundant caution, to prevent the possibility of any misunderstanding. Very respectfully yours, George W. F. Birch, Chairman. 272 120 West Ninety-Third Street. Rev. Geo. W. F. Birch, D.D. Dear Sir: Dr. Briggs desires to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of March seventh, and thanks you for the courtesy. March the eighth. Very truly, J. Y. Briggs. ' . llli wmm