r .■■ t<;'Vi '.■ 
 
 i!5 •'>•■■ 
 
 
BX 9193 
 
 .B7 
 
 A6 
 
 1893 
 
 Briggs, 
 
 Charles 
 
 Augustus , 
 
 1841-1913. 
 
 
 
 The defence 
 
 of 
 
 Professor 
 
 R ** -i crcr c 
 
 K<a -Fz-v v-£i 
 
 ^-Hci 
 
THE DEFENCE 
 
 OF 
 
 PROFESSOE BRIGGS 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE PRESBYTERY OF :^EW YORK 
 
 December 13, U, 15, and 19, 1892 
 
 NEW YORK 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 1893 
 
Copyright, 1893, by 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
CO^TE^TS 
 
 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 Pi 
 (1) A court of Jesus Christ; (3) The character of the argument of 
 the prosecution ; (3) The serious charges not offerefl for proba- 
 tion ; (4) The unlawful use of tlie proofs from Holy Scripture 
 and the Standards ; (5) The contempt of court in the argument 
 upon Charges IV. and VII. ; (6) The neglect of the Standards of 
 the Church ; (7) The evidence from the writings of the defend- 
 ant ; (8) The prosecution have no case, .... vii- 
 
 I.— The Rule of Faith. 
 
 (1) Dangerous errors ; (2) A double rule ; (3) System of doctrine : 
 (4) The Constitution a compact ; (5) The right of making ex- 
 planations, 1-21 
 
 II. — Is THE Bible the only Fountain of Dhtne Authority? 
 
 (1) Analysis of Charges I. and II. ; (2) The evidence offered by the 
 prosecution from Holy Scripture tested ; (3) Their evidence from 
 the Westminster Standards reviewed, ..... 21-44 
 
 III.— The Reason. 
 
 (1) Tlie Westminster doctrine ; (2) The Biblical doctrine ; (3) The evi- 
 dence from Cln-istiau experience ; (4) The case of Martineau, 45-67 
 
 W.— The Church. 
 
 (1) The Westminster doctrine ; (2) The Biblical doctrine ; (3) Tlic 
 testimony of Cliristian experience ; (4) The case of Newman : 
 (5) The case of Spurgeon ; (6) Do we co-ordinate the Bible, the 
 Church, and the Reason? 67-^8 
 
VI CONTENTS 
 
 V. — The Inerrancy of Holy Scripture. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 (1) Analysis of Charge III. : (2) The deliverance of the General Assem- 
 bly respecting errors in Holy Scripture ; (3) Plenary inspiration ; 
 
 (4) "The word of God written;" (5) "Is" or "contains" the word 
 of God '? (6) " Immediately inspired ;" (7) " Kept pure in all ages ;" 
 
 (8) Some of the eiTors recognized by Christian scholars, . 84.-115 
 
 VI. — The Authenticity of Holy Scripture. 
 
 (1) Analysis of Charge IV. ; (2) The argument from the Westmin- 
 ster Confession ; (3) Consent of all the parts ; (4) The infallible 
 rule of interpretation : (o) The dogmatic bridge : (0) The testi- 
 mony of scholars, ........ 115-128 
 
 VII. — Who Wrote Isaiah ? 
 
 (1) Analysis of Charge V. -, (2) The traditional theory: (3) The testi- 
 mony of the Old Te.stament ; (4) The argument from language ; 
 
 (5) The argument from style ; (6) The argument from Biblical 
 theology ; (7) The historical situation ; (8) Tlie argument from the 
 New Testament : (9) Other anonymous prophecies : (10) Summary 
 
 of results, 128-1.')1 
 
 VIII.— Progressive Sanctification after Death. 
 
 (1) Analysis of Charge VI. ; (2) The Westminster doctrine ; (3) The 
 Biblical doctrine; (4) The testimony of the Church; (5) The doc- 
 trine of sanctification ; (6) The salvation of infants and incapa- 
 bles ; (7) The redemption of the heathen ; (8) The Middle State 
 attractive ; (9) Incitement to holy endeavor, . . . 151-182 
 
PEELIMIISrARY REMAEKS 
 
 Mr. Moderato7\ Ministers and Elders of the Presbytery of 
 New York. 
 
 We have at last reached the stage in this protracted process 
 when the defence can lawfully be made. I stand before a court 
 of the Church where the same general principles of jurisprudence 
 govern the procedure as those which are followed in the civil 
 courts; but where there are circumstances and usages which 
 make the administration of justice complex and difficult. This 
 court is not onlj^ a court, it is a Presbytery, composed of min- 
 isters and representative elders within the city of New York, 
 of the Presbyterian faith and order. You are accustomed to 
 sit as a deliberative body and as an executive body. You are 
 not accustomed to sit as a judicial body. Therefore there is 
 great danger lest yon unconsciously merge jouv functions and 
 duties as judges in the more comprehensive and more familiar 
 functions and duties of Presbyters. It will be necessary for 
 you to free your minds of every feeling of party, every prejudice 
 of opinion, every anxiety as to supjiosed perils to the Cliurch, 
 any and every thing that might influence your decision apart 
 from the merits of the case ; and you should concentrate your 
 attention upon the Charges which have been offered for proba- 
 tion, the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution 
 and the defence, the arguments which are made to prove and 
 disprove the Charges, and the rulings of the court itself, and 
 make your verdict on these grounds, and on these alone. The 
 theory of Presbyterian ism is that j'-ou are now sitting as a 
 court of Jesus Christ, that our King Messiah is present with us 
 by His Spirit, to guide you in your decisions. Let me beg you 
 to open your minds and your hearts to His gracious influence, 
 and so make an equitable decision which will voice your con- 
 
viii PRELIMINARY REMARKS 
 
 scientious convictions, and will show to the world that the Pres- 
 byterian theory is no mere illusion and delusion, but an expres- 
 sion of the experience of the Church in reality and in fact. 
 The defendant would welcome the voice of Jesus Christ even if 
 it should condemn him and humble him to the dust, for the 
 Master's decision could be no other than a heavenly discijDline. 
 He declines to listen to any other voice in the determination of 
 the questions now at issue. You cannot afford to give any 
 other decision than that which our King and Saviour gives. 
 
 Let me first call your attention to the argument of the prose- 
 cution, and remove from the case a mass of irrelevant material 
 which has been introduced into it. We shall then be prepared 
 to consider the real case. 
 
 Dr. Birch gave you an opening address of more than three 
 hours' duration. I listened attentively to it, and saw that the 
 speaker was honest, sincere, and fervent, and that he was labor- 
 ing under the impression that he was doing God service. I 
 have read it, and have found astonishing exegesis, unintelli- 
 gent reading of lexicons, an amusing resort to heathen oracles, 
 unlimited assertions of dangerous errors in the writings of Pro- 
 fessor Briggs, but I cannot find in it any serious attempt to 
 prove the Charges. 
 
 Mr. McCook gave you an argument of more than two hours, 
 which was forceful, plausible, and specious, but which for the 
 most part soared in the regions of abstract thought, far above 
 and beyond what the prosecution, to use the language of an 
 eminent member of the court, "were put up to do." I listened 
 to the argument with the closest attention. Its subtle analyses 
 (jf hj^pothetical premises, its simple-minded substitution of in- 
 ferences from the language of the defendant for that language 
 itself, its delicate balancing upon imaginary lines stretched 
 from speculative piers, the cool assumption of its logic and the 
 condensed heat of its rhetoric, all remind us of the intellectual 
 processes of a scholastic theologian rather than of a lawyer or a 
 man of affairs. This argument will receive the attention it 
 deserves. 
 
 I. The prosecution, judging from their argument, have made 
 a very unfortunate mistake in the selection of the Charges which 
 thej'- submitted for probation. They tell us of far more serious 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS IX 
 
 Charges than those contained in the six Charges they were 
 directed to prove. The Presbytery will remember, in the 
 Preamble to the original Charges, thej^ asserted that the teach- 
 ings of tlie Inaugural Address " 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 har- 
 mony with the Scriptures and are calculated to weaken confi- 
 dence in the Word of God and to encourage presumption on the 
 clemency and long-suffering of God ;" and they also claimed 
 " that the erroneous and ill-advised utterances of Dr. Briggs in 
 the Inaugural Address have seriously disturbed the peace of the 
 Church." I objected to these statements in my Response of 
 November 4th, 1891, as follows: 
 
 "I object (1) that, if there are any such errors contained in my In- 
 augural Address as the committee allege in the preamble of their ReiDort, it 
 was their duty to formulate them into Charges and specifications suffi- 
 cient 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 whicli thejir did not propose 
 to submit for probation, and which, so alleged without opportunity of 
 refutation, seem calculated to exert prejudice against mc in the minds 
 of the members of the court. 
 
 " (3) That, if, as the Eeport alleges, 'the eiToneous and ill-advised 
 utterances of Dr. Briggs in the Inaugural Address have seriously disturbed 
 the peace of the Church,' and these constitute a 'grave offence against 
 the peace of the Church, ' it was the duty of the committee to formulate 
 this grave offence into a Charge and specification, 'sufficient in form 
 and legal effect. ' 
 
 " (4) That, if it were not deemed best so to do. the Report should have 
 refrained from alleging a grave offence which was not proposed for 
 probation, the allegation of which might prejudice the decision of 
 those Charges and specifications offered for probation " ("The Case," 
 pp. 19, 20). 
 
 In their Appeal before the last General Assembly, the prose- 
 cution ol)jected to this Response to the Preamble, on the ground 
 that tho " so-called preamble was no part of the said Charges 
 and specifications, 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." The General Assembly sustained this 
 formal objection. 
 
 And now what do we see? The prosecution have wisely 
 
Si PRELIMINARY REMARKS 
 
 refrained from making any such statements in connection 
 with the Amended Charges ; but they renew them in a more 
 (offensive and a more extended form in their Argument. Is that 
 fain? Is it candid? Is it honorable thus to try to prejudice 
 the court by assertions of serious errors which they do not pro- 
 pose to prove? To any one who reads with attention the argu- 
 ment of the theologian who speaks in Mr. McCook, it will be 
 evident that he is not so much concerned with the errors named 
 in the Charges, as with other alleged errors of a still more 
 serious character. It is not the Holy Scripture for which he 
 is concerned, or the Westminster Standards ; but the system of 
 dogma of his school of theology, which he apprehends the 
 Biblical Theology of Professor Briggs will surely destroy, unless 
 the Presbyterian Church can be persuaded to discredit Professor 
 Briggs. See how naively he assumes that I am attacking the 
 citadel of Christianity when I said in the Inaugural : 
 
 "Criticism is at work with fire and knife. Let us cut down every- 
 thing that is dead and harmful, every kind of dead orthodoxy, every 
 species of effete ecclesiasticism, all merely formal morality, all those 
 dry and brittle fences, that constitute denominationalism, and are the 
 barriers of Church Unity." 
 
 Poor man ! Is his life so steeped in a dogmatic faith, that 
 he knows not the important difference between the three things, 
 Bible, creed, and system of dogma? Are the Bible and creed 
 summed up to him in the scholastic forms of a system of 
 dogma? I pointed out this difference in the letter of acceptance 
 of the Edward Robinson Chair, which I read in evidence, but 
 he ignores it. Those things which are to me dead orthodoxy, 
 effete ecclesiasticism, formal morality, denominationalism, are 
 to him Presbyterianism and Christianity. He doubtless agrees 
 with a recently uttered opinion, that " Dogma is more impor- 
 •int than religious experience," and if he were forced to choose 
 would deliberately choose dogma rather than Christian life. 
 
 I shall not take the time of the judicatory by calling atten- 
 tion to the insinuations and statements of larger errors which 
 pervade the argument of Mr. McCook, but your attention is 
 called to the closing section of that argument, in which an 
 attempt is made to explain all the errors imputed lo the defen- 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS X}. 
 
 dant by the root error of ISTaturalism, which it is said " in the 
 hands of a more logical writer than Professor Briggs, would be 
 pushed to far more radical conclusions . . . and will soon leave 
 you about as much exclusiveness as Christians, in having the 
 oracles of God, as Mahometans or Brahmins have " (p. 46^. 
 
 If the prosecution are serious in this statement of the case, 
 they are convicted out of their own mouth of gross neglect of 
 duty. If they have here struck at the root of all the errors of 
 Dr. Briggs, they certainly ought to have put it in a Charge. 
 If they made a mistake in the formulation of the original 
 Charges, why did they not confess their mistake, abandon the 
 old case, and bring in new Charges under a new case? That 
 would have been honest, that would have been manly, that 
 would have been welcomed by the defendant and all honorable 
 men. But to bring such a serious accusation into an argument 
 to prove other Charges, which have been recognized as suffi- 
 cient for probation, is to wrong the defendant and to presume 
 upon the patience and indulgence of the court. This new 
 charge is utterly and absolutely false. It was forged in the 
 brain of its author. It was invented in a diseased mind. You 
 have no right as a court to consider it. The laws of evidence 
 in all courts, civil and ecclesiastical, require you to blot out 
 from the argument any and every reference to other imputed 
 errors than those alleged in the Charges. These and these alone 
 the prosecution were entitled to prove. 
 
 II. In my Preliminary Objections I called the attention of 
 the Presbytery to the fact that the evidences from Holy Scrip- 
 ture and the Standards had all been placed under the specifica- 
 tions and so directed against the passages cited from the 
 Inaugural; when, by the law of the Church, they ought to have 
 l)een put under the Charges and used solely and alone to prove 
 that the doctrines claimed to be essential doctrines of the 
 Standards and of Holy Scripture were really and truly such. 
 You sustained this objection and directed the prosecution to 
 transfer all their proofs from Holy Scripture and the Standards 
 from the specifications to the Charges. The prosecution have 
 in a most flagrant manner disobeyed your instructions. In the 
 argument of Dr. Birch he used the passages of Holy Scripture 
 and the Standards for the very purpose you ruled he should not 
 
Xll PRELIMINARY REMARKS 
 
 use them ; for he used them to show that his interpretations of 
 the utterances of the Inaugural were dangerous errors ; but he 
 neglected to use them for the purpose you directed him to use 
 them, namely, to prove that there are essential doctrines of the 
 Holy Scripture and the Standards of our Church, which the 
 alleged errors of Dr. Briggs contravene. So far as the argument 
 of Mr. McCook is concerned, Holy Scripture is conspicuous by 
 its absence; and what need has siDeculative dogma of the West- 
 minster Standards? 
 
 The prosecution by this procedure have put themselves in 
 these awkward circumstances. 
 
 (1) Thej^ have used Scripture and Confession in a way it was 
 ruled by the court they should not use it. Therefore their entire 
 argument on Holy Scripture and all of their argument from 
 the Standards with a very few exceptions should be ruled out 
 of court. The argument of Dr. Birch thus shrivels up into 
 nothingness. "What he tried to prove he had no right to prove ; 
 and according to the ruling of this court you cannot consider it. 
 
 (2) By neglecting to use Scripture and Confession to prove 
 that the doctrines alleged to be essential and necessary articles 
 of the Confession are truly such, these essential doctrines are 
 not proven, and if they are left destitute of proof, the essential 
 premises of the Charges are unproven, and the prosecution have 
 no case. You have made your ruling, and if you follow it, as 
 you must if you do your duty as judges, you must throw all 
 the Charges out of court as unproven in their chief premises. 
 
 (3) The prosecution are guilty of contempt of court, for dis- 
 regarding the ruling of the court. The court should recognize 
 in some proper way this offence against its dignity. 
 
 III. After listening to the Preliminary Objections of the 
 defendant, the court directed the prosecuting committee to strike 
 out Charges IV. and VII. Dr. Birch obeyed the direction of 
 the Presbytery and made no argument upon these Charges. 
 But Mr. McCook disobeyed the direction of the Presbytery and 
 made elaborate arguments in proof of both of these Charges. 
 This must be evident to most of those who heard the argument. 
 I shall now try to make it evident to every member of the court. 
 
 Turn to page 27 of the Argument of Mr. McCook in the fifth 
 line from the bottom, and you will find the beginning of the 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS X1H 
 
 argument on the fourth Charge which you ordered stricken 
 out. It reads as follows : 
 
 " Professor Briggs has said ; " Kueueu has shown that if we insist upon 
 the fulfihneut of the details of the predictive prophecy of the Old Testa- 
 ment, man\' of the predictions have been reversed by history ; and tlie 
 great bodj' of the Messianic prediction has not only never been fulfilled, 
 but cannot now be fulfilled, for the reason that its own time has passed 
 forever. ' '' 
 
 Thus he begins with tho citation from the Inaugural, and in- 
 deed the only one given under the fourth Charge. The argument 
 of Mr. McCookon the fourth Charge continues through pages '2 s 
 and 29 as far as the middle of page 30. On the second line from 
 the bottom of page 28, Mr. McCook says: 
 
 ■' He [Professor Briggs] still holds to predictive prophecy, but he says, 
 of Messianic prophec}', that a large part of it not only has not been ful- 
 filled, but that from the nature of the case it can never be fulfilled." 
 
 This is a renewal of the false and slanderous imputation 
 made in the rejected Charge IV., which I have again and again 
 repudiated, and which you required them to strike out, in the 
 interest of justice. 
 
 On page 30 Mr. McCook says : 
 
 ■• But whether it be scholastic or whether it be critical— to deny the 
 fulfilment of the divine ])rediction is to deny that the prophecy is trvie, 
 for it must be either true or falscv To deny the fulfilment of prophecy 
 is to deny that God is faithful to His promises or His declarations of 
 judgment. It is to deny that (lod is a God of Truth." 
 
 Here Mr. McCook shows that he is endeavoring to bring the 
 teaching falsely attributed to me into conflict with the truth- 
 fulness of God, the very contradiction which is stated in the 
 rejected Charge IV. and which does not appear in Charge III., 
 or in an}' other of the Charges approved by the Presbytery as 
 sufficient. 
 
 On page 28 Mr. McCook says : 
 
 '"Here once more we are forced into the apparently illogical position 
 of using Scripture as an argument against one who denies the inerrancy 
 of Scripture. But as it is the principle of our Churcli, that the Jloly 
 Scriptiirps are infallible, the argument must appeal to all those who 
 have not lost their confidence in the Word of God." 
 
xiv PRELIMINARY REMARKS 
 
 But "once more" has no propriety in this place. There is 
 nothing in the previous context to which it can refer. It refers 
 back to two statements on page 3-2, the last of which begins with 
 the sentence, " But of what use is such an argument to those 
 who, like Professor Briggs, deny the inerrancy of the Scrip- 
 ture?" which thus appears to have originally preceded page 
 28. This shows that the entire section relating to prediction 
 has been transferred from its original position in the argument 
 after page 33 to its present position, pp. 27-30. 
 
 Turn again to page 27 and you will see that the argument 
 upon inerrancy fortified by the illustrations from the cracked 
 mirror and the spot on the Parthenon come to a sudden and 
 unexpected close with the sentence : 
 
 "When I say that a document is infallible, I mean that it is without 
 error, so that if I claim that I have found an error, unless I can give up 
 the error, I must in so far give up the infallibility of the document. 
 That is very different from saying that the whole of the document is 
 untrue. " 
 
 The reference to predictive prophecy which follows, pj). 27-30, 
 breaks into the argument abruptly. You will find its original 
 continuation, if I mistake not, on page 30, where the argument 
 on inerrancy is resumed : 
 
 " Well, then, suppose we admit that the inspiration extends to, and the 
 inerrancy covers, only that part of the teaching which has to do with 
 faith, and practice, " and so on. 
 
 It is plain that the argument on the fourth Charge has been 
 transposed from its original position in the paper and inserted 
 in the midst of the argument on the third Charge. 
 
 An argumeiit on the seventh Charge has also been made by 
 Mr. McCook. Turn to page 38 and you will see that the argu- 
 ment from page 38 through the ninth line of page 42 is on the 
 seventh Charge, which you required the prosecution to throw 
 out of their Charges. The only changes which have been 
 made so far as I have observed are that the introductory 
 reference to the old eighth Charge has been transposed and 
 placed before the iirgument on the rejected seventh Charge, and 
 the connection has been made by the insertion of a sentence 
 Avhich by some act of carelessness seems to be in the wrong 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS XV 
 
 place; for it is manifest that no writer with a logical mind 
 or a rhetorical experience could ever write : 
 
 " Professor Briggs affirms that the word ' redemption' includes the ' whole 
 l)rocess of grace. ' It comprehends regeneration, justification, repent- 
 ance, faith, sanctification and glorification ;" 
 
 and then go on to say : 
 
 "Now, the real meaning of the doctrine of progressive sanctification 
 cannot be fully understood without taking into consideration Professor 
 Briggs' doctrine of redemption, of which sanctification is a part." 
 
 If these sentences had been written in connection, at the 
 .^ame time, by any respectable writer, they would have been 
 transposed. The three words, " To do this, " at the beginning 
 of the next sentence, put in apparent!}^ in order to make a con- 
 nection with the previous clause, do not conceal the original 
 connection of this sentence with the clause before the last. 
 
 If it were necessary I could show you traces of the use of the 
 rejected Charges IV. and VII. at several points in the subse- 
 quent argument. But it is sufficient. Mr. McCook has argued 
 elaborately upon the rejected Charges IV. and VII. which you 
 directed the prosecution to remove from the Amended Charges. 
 He has not introduced these arguments in an ingenious or an 
 ingenuous way. It looks like a hasty use of scissors and paste 
 and a determination to get in this argument on the Charges 
 that were thrown out, in spite of the Presbytery. Your atten- 
 tion was called to this violation of jour ruling during the 
 delivery of the argument of Mr. McCook. It was detected by 
 the defendant so soon as he began it. But the defendant 
 decided to do no more at that time than object to it. Mr. 
 ]\IcCook has succeeded. His argument on the rejected Charges 
 IV. and VII. is all in. It goes up on the records to the 
 higher courts, to strengthen his exception against your decision 
 to rule them out. The defendant, in his Preliminary Objections, 
 called 3'our attention to the errors in law and equity in allowing 
 the prosecution to make such Charges and press them for 
 probation. You recognized his objection as valid, and you put 
 your shield over him to protect him from this unkind and dis- 
 coui'teous action of the prosecution. But your shield has 
 
XVI PRELIMINARY REMARKS 
 
 been pushed aside. Your protection has been scorned. Your 
 ruling has been trampled under foot. The defendant has been 
 again attacked in 3'our presence with these slanderous accusa- 
 tions ; and Mr. McCook is triumphant. 
 
 TV. The prosecution seem very zealous for the Standards 
 of the Presbyterian Church. We shall show further on that 
 their zeal is "without knowledge." But at the present time 
 I desire to call your attention to the fact that their zeal is not 
 "the fire of the sanctuary." There are many references to the 
 Standards of our Church under the printed specifications. 
 These were, by your order, transferred from the specifications 
 to the Charges, and the prosecution were directed to prove b}^ 
 them that the doctrines asserted to be essential doctrines of the 
 Westminster Standards were indeed and in truth such essential 
 doctrines. But every attentive hearer or reader of the argu- 
 ment of the prosecution must have observed how lightly they 
 tripped over the proofs from the Standards. 
 
 Let me call the attention of the court to the fact that the 
 prosecution have made no attempt to prove these so-called 
 essential doctrines of our Standards, They use the adjective 
 " essential" in the printed Charges, but, judging from the argu- 
 ment, this adjective is a mere appendage, without meaning 
 to them and without use to them. Dr. Birch in his argument 
 made no use of any of the passages from the Larger and 
 Shorter Catechisms given under the Charges. He made no use 
 of Chapter L, sections 5, 6, and 10, under the first Charge, and 
 no use whatever of any passages from the Standards under 
 Charges IV., V., and VI. I therefore ask the court to note the 
 omissions of proof under Charge I. and to strike out Charges 
 IV., v., and VI., altogether, as entirely destitute of evidence 
 that any essential doctrine of our Standards is contravened. 
 
 But some of you may ask, Did not the ingenious Mr. 
 McCook notice this serious gap in the argument and fill it upy 
 It is possibly surprising to some of you. But in fact he did 
 not. No use of passages from the Standards was made in his 
 brief argument under Charges IV. and V., and under the last 
 Charge, the only use of the Standards was this assertion 
 entirely destitute of proof : " On this point the Standards of 
 the Church teach a directly contradictory doctrine, the Shorter 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS XVU 
 
 Catechism being especially strong (Ques. 37), using first the 
 expression 'at' their death, and second, the word 'immedi- 
 ately ' "(p. 42). 
 
 Under such circumstances there is only one thing for this 
 court to do. The prosecution have made no case against me 
 undercharges IV., V., and VI., and you should rule them out 
 of court. In any civil court this would he the procedure. In an 
 ecclesiastical court, which should follow law and equity, such a 
 course becomes imperative. 
 
 V. In the argument of Mr. McCook the changes were rung 
 upon "contradictory statements," "flat contradictions," "retrac- 
 tion," and the like. These phrases have become familiar to us 
 during the past months, through reading of the New York " Ob- 
 server. " Whether propositions are contradictory or not depends 
 somewhat upon the angles of vision. Two parts of a straight 
 line may be in opposition to some diseased eyes. If from any 
 given point on a straight line slight deviations are made to the 
 right and the left, these deviations at once become opposites. 
 A logician balancing upon an imaginary line, looking now on 
 the right hand and then on the left, will see flat contradictions. 
 An author and a teacher has the right to explain himself, and 
 he is not to be regarded as contradictory or as inconsistent 
 simply because an enemy says so. 
 
 Mr. McCook calls your attention to the fact that I have not 
 " retracted" any statement in the Inaugural Address. But why 
 should I do so? No one has yet been able to show that any 
 statement made in the Address is erroneous. When it is clear 
 that I was wrong, I will confess it and retract — not before. 
 
 I put in evidence extracts from my writings beginning with 
 my first Inaugural Address in 187G, and closing with my 
 lectures on "The Bible, the Church, and the Reason," in 1891. 
 It is not necessary to read this evidence again. You have 
 heard it or you have read it, and you will again have an oppor- 
 tunity to read it in the printed form. It was presented in order 
 to show you what my views have really been during the whole 
 period of m}^ teaching in the Union Theological Semina^3^ In 
 the first Inaugural, the platform of my teaching was laid, upon 
 which I have stood through all these years. My views of the 
 Bible, of Biblical Theology, and of the Higher Criticism have 
 
xviii PRELIMINARY REMARKS 
 
 remained unchanged in essence. They have become more 
 mature. That is all. The opinions assailed in the Charges III. , 
 IV., and V. were repeatedly expressed in the "Presbyterian 
 Review " during the ten j^ears in which I acted as its editor in 
 association with Drs. A. A. Hodge and F. L. Patton. The 
 views assailed in Charge VI. had been before the public iov 
 some time as I have shown by extracts from " Whither?" and the 
 article "Redemption after Death." The only Charges with 
 regard to which it can be said with any propriety that they 
 charge me with doctrines which I had not taught prior to the 
 delivery of the Inaugural, are those respecting the two great 
 fountains of divine authority in religion — the Church and the 
 Reason; and yet I have shown you by extracts from "Biblical 
 Study" and from " Whither?" that these were also before the pub- 
 lic in those earlier publications in a less mature form but no less 
 truly in substance. The Inaugural Address was simply a con- 
 centration of opinions expressed more at length in other places 
 and under other circumstances. The defendant is altogether 
 unconscious of any substantial change of opinion on the sub- 
 ject-matters of the Charges for many years. 
 
 There are several statements in the conclusion of Mr. 
 McCook's argument which are some of them gratuitous 
 assumptions, others of them almost ludicrous. 
 
 What members of this court can be misled by the statement 
 that "you do approve of" the defendant's teaching " if you vote 
 for an acquittal?" That is not the question before you. The 
 question is, whether the Charges are true or false, whether 
 the defendant has taught the doctrines alleged in the Charges, 
 and whether, if he has, these doctrines conflict with the essen- 
 tial doctrines of the Standards named in the Charges. You 
 may disapprove of his teaching altogether, and yet you can do 
 no other than pronounce him innocent so far as any case that 
 the prosecution has made against him. 
 
 It is intimated that my teaching is beyond the limits of tol- 
 eration. It will be time enough for the prosecution to talk 
 about toleration after they have proved their Charges. The 
 defendant has not asked for toleration. He claims his rights 
 under the constitution of his Church to teach anything and 
 everything that he has ever taught. Mr, McCook uses an 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS XIX 
 
 ambiguous expression when he says "that men should be 
 required either to abide b}^ our doctrines or else submit to the 
 decisions of our courts." "Our doctrines" are not the tests of 
 orthodoxy if this means what I take it to mean, the doctrines 
 of the school of theology to which the prosecution belong. 
 The Westminster Standards and Holy Scripture give the doc- 
 trines by which I am required to abide and by which I shall 
 abide so long as I remain a minister of the Presbyterian 
 Church. The defendant asks no favors of the court. He asks 
 that they try him strictly by the Standards and the Constitu- 
 tion of the Church. 
 
 What shall we say of these prosecutors who, to say the least, 
 are no friends of Union Theological Seminary, taking upon 
 their lips the names of my revered teachers and friends, Edward 
 Robinson, Henry B. Smith, and William Adams? It is one of 
 the mysteries of human life that some minds may come in 
 contact with the masters of Christian thought without under- 
 standing them or learning from them. The best explanation 
 of it that I knoAv of is given in the words of an ancient Hindu 
 poet: 
 
 " The mind alike 
 Vigorous or weak is capable of culture, 
 But still bears fruit according to its nature. 
 'Tis not the teacher's skill that rears the scholar. 
 The sparkling gem gives back the glorious radiance 
 It drinks from other liglit, but tlie dull earth 
 Absorbs the blaze and yields no gleam again." 
 
 (Professor Wilson — Hindu Theatre, Bhavabluti.) 
 
 I have stripped from the argument of the prosecution its 
 irrelevant material. And what is left? Nothing substantial ! 
 If this were a civil court I would now ask you to dismiss the 
 case, because it has not been shown that there is a case. But as I 
 understand our Book of Discipline, we cannot take this action 
 in the present stage of the process. If this were a court of last 
 resort and your decision could be final, I would submit the case 
 to you without further argmnent, in the conviction that this 
 intelligent court could not vote me guilty on the evidence 
 adduced or the arguments made by the prosecution. But it 
 must be plain to you all that the prosecution have no such idea. 
 
XX PRELIMINARY REMARKS 
 
 They claim to represent the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America. The whole procedure in this court shows 
 that they are making up a case for a higher court. Therefore 
 it is necessary for me to make my argument upon the merits 
 of the case. 
 
THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS BEFORE 
 THE PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK. 
 
 I 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH 
 
 Mr. Moderator., Ministers, and Elders of the Presbytery of 
 Neiv York: 
 
 I SHALL endeavor to make my defence against the Charges 
 alleged against me ; but it is first necessary to consider several 
 preliminary principles which regulate all trials for heresy in 
 the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, 
 which have been entirely disregarded by the prosecution in 
 their arguments upon the Amended Charges and specifications. 
 
 , Presbyterian law requires that the Charges should set forth 
 that certain teachings are in irreconcilable conflict with certain 
 doctrines which are essential and necessary to the Westminster 
 Standards and Holy Scripture. 
 
 It is not sufficient for the prosecution to assert that a doctrine 
 is an essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Confession of 
 Faith. They are required to prove their statement by passages 
 from Holy Scripture and the Confession of Faith, interpreted 
 by strict historical and grammatical exegesis. They have to 
 convince you, and every other court to which the case may be 
 appealed, by argument which cannot be gainsayed, that these 
 doctrines are essential to the Westminster system. 
 
 I. — Dangerous Errors 
 
 It is not sufficient to maintain and try to prove that Dr. 
 Briggs teaches dangeijous errors. It is conceivable that a man 
 
2 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 might hold dangerous errors, and that this could be proven by 
 conclusive ar^iments, and yet such errors might not be an 
 offence to be condemned by a Presbytery. 
 
 E.g. (a) One of our ministers might hold that our republican 
 form of government is radically inconsistent with the Biblical 
 doctrine of the divine right of kings. He might make himself 
 very offensive to his people and to us by teaching this Tory 
 doctrine of the eighteenth century, and yet we could not prove 
 that he was guilty of heresy or immorality under the constitu- 
 tion of the Presbyterian Church for teaching this doctrine, 
 because you could not put in a definite charge any essential 
 doctrine of the Westminster Confession with which this opinion 
 is in conflict. 
 
 (b) An elder might maintain, as it used to be maintained by 
 many in the northern Presbyterian Church and as it is at pres- 
 ent maintained by some in the southern Presbyterian Church, 
 that slavery is a divine institution. Such a doctrine would be 
 very offensive in this community. But could you convict an 
 elder for holding it and teaching it? Could you frame a defi- 
 nite charge and assert an essential doctrine of the Confession 
 wfth which this doctrine would be in conflict? 
 
 There are many new questions in religion, doctrine, and 
 morals which the Church has not defined and where the guidance 
 of Holy Scripture is as yet not altogether clear, about which men 
 in our time differ widely, differ seriousl}', differ in some cases in 
 passion and bitterness. But these questions cannot lawfully 
 come under the forms of ecclesiastical process in our courts, 
 because our constitution has not yet determined them. It may 
 be that the Presbyterian Church will have to define some of 
 these questions, and it may be necessary to divide the denom- 
 inations of Christians now existing and to organize new denom- 
 inations distinguished by their attitudes toward these questions. 
 But the Presbyterian Church cannot by a majority vote in 
 Presbytery, Synod, or General Assembly determine any such 
 questions except in the forms of our constitution, by a revision 
 of the Confession after full delibergjfcion, by the vote of two- 
 thirds of the Presbyteries. The Inaugural Address may con- 
 tain ten or twenty dangerous errors in the opinion of some of 
 you, but that is not the question which as jurors you have to 
 
 h 
 
 •f. 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 
 
 3 
 
 decide. If such dangerous errors are not in irreconcilable con- 
 flict with essential and necessarj^ articles of the Westminster 
 Confession, you have no constitutional right to deal with them 
 in this Presbytery in the forms of ecclesiastical process. The 
 only thing you can do lawfully is to overture the General 
 Assembly to amend th6 Confession of Faith so as to exclude 
 the dangerous opinions of Dr. Briggs. If you should succeed 
 in such revision and bring about such a decision in a legal 
 manner, he would use his right of protest and then retire from 
 the Presbyter}'- and not wait for a judicial decision of his case. 
 This principle is of vast importance. But it has been entirely 
 disregarded by the prosecution in the Amended Charges and in 
 their argument upon them. Even if it be true that my teach- 
 ings contravene the seven doctrines of the Confession specified 
 in the Amended Charges, of not more than one of them could 
 it be said that they are dangerous errors in the sense that they 
 contravene essential doctrines of our Standards. 
 
 I L— Double Rule of Faith 
 
 The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 has a double standard, a double rule of faith. It affirms that 
 Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 
 But it also declares that the Westminster Confession and Cate- 
 chisms constitute the official rule of faith in the Presbyterian 
 Church. At our ordination we say yes, to the question "Do 
 you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this 
 Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the 
 Holy Scriptures? " From this double rule of faith these conse- 
 quences necessarily spring. 
 
 (1) The ecclesiastical rule of faith, the Confession, and the 
 Catechisms must yield to the divine rule of faith, Holy Scri})- 
 ture. (a) If, therefore, the ecclesiastical rule make any state- 
 ment that is not in harmony with the Holy Scripture, such 
 statement cannot be binding; e.g., " Tolerating a false religion " 
 is represented to be a sin forbidden in the second command- 
 ment, according to the original edition of the Larger Cate- 
 chism. This statement was stricken out by the men of the 
 American revolution as unscriptural. But before it was stricken 
 
i THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 out it was not regarded as binding because it was always recog- 
 nized by the American fathers of the eighteenth century as not 
 in harmony with Holy Scripture. There are other clauses re- 
 maining in the Confession and Catechisms of a similar charac- 
 ' ter, some of which the revision movement now in progress is 
 aiming to remove, (b) If the ecclesiastical rule make any 
 statenient which cannot be sustained by evidence from Holy 
 Scripture, it is not valid in law, because the Westminster 
 standards profess to set forth doctrines which are given in 
 Holy Scripture and those doctrines alone. Ifc is not sufficient, 
 therefore, to show that a doctrine is in opposition to a statement 
 of the Confession and Catechisms. It is also necessary to show 
 that it is against Holy Scripture; e.g., the statement in the 
 Confession XXV., G: 
 
 "Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that 
 antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself 
 in the church against Christ and all that is called God." 
 
 This cannot be regarded as a binding statement because it is 
 evident from the consensus of exegetical scholars that it rests 
 upon a misinterpretation of Holy Scripture; and therefore 
 every true Presbj'terian is bound by his vows of subscription to 
 eliminate this statement from his creed, and to follow Holy 
 Scripture rather than the Confession. There arise many cases 
 of difficulty under this head, but these may all be solved in a 
 constitutional manner by the forms of law in the Presbj^terian 
 Church. It is undoubtedly true that in most instances of 
 heresy the heretics will claim that they have the Scriptures as 
 their authority over against the Confession of Faith. But 
 every case will have to be decided on its merits, and the prin- 
 ciple is a plain one. If a man differ from the Confession in an 
 unessential matter, and claim that the Scripture sustains him 
 against the Confession, he is within his rights if he maintain 
 his position in the Church without making an issue. If, how- 
 ever, he differ from the Confession in an essential and necessary 
 article and claim that the Scripture sustains him, he is bound 
 to call the attention of the Presbytery to this difference and ask 
 their decision. The Presbytery in every case, when its atten- 
 tion is called to the difference, has the right of decision subject 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 5 
 
 to appeal. But the decision by the Presbytery must rest upon 
 this principle, that nothing shall be demanded of any one as an 
 article of faith which cannot be proven in the express language 
 of Holy Scripture. This is the law of an offence on the posijiive 
 and negative sides. 
 
 " An offence is anything, in the doctrine, principles, or practice of a 
 church member, officer, or judicatory, wliich is contrary to the Word of 
 God ; or wliich, if it be not in its own nature sinful, may tempt others to 
 sin, or mar their spiritual edification (3) . 
 
 "Nothing shall, therefore, be the object of judicial pi'ocess, which can- 
 not be i^roven to be contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or to the regula- 
 tions and practice of the Church founded thereon ; nor anything which 
 does not involve those evils which Discipline is intended to prevent" (4) . 
 
 Holy Scripture is the infallible test of every statement in the 
 Westminster standards, and no man can be proved guilty of 
 heresy or sin who is not in conflict with Holy Scripture. 
 
 It must be shown that the doctrine against which the charge 
 is made is " contrary to the Holy Scripture or to the regula- 
 tions and practice of the Church founded thereon." There 
 are many regulations and practices of the Presbyterian Church 
 which are founded neither on Confession or Holy Scripture, 
 but which are mere traditions of doctrine and practice. I shall 
 show you at the proper time that the contradiction charged 
 against my doctrines is chiefly of this character of contradiction 
 — not with Bible or Confession, but with traditional dogma. 
 The prosecutors have not been able to show that there is con- 
 tradiction of " regulations and practice founded on the Confes- 
 sion," still less that there is contradiction of "regulations and 
 practice founded on Holy Scriptm^e." 
 
 (2) The Westminster Confession, the ecclesiastical rule of 
 faith, gives an official statement of the doctrines which the 
 Presbyterian Church finds in Holy Scripture. There are many 
 statements of Holy Scripture which are not comprehended in 
 the statements of the Westminster standards. Such statements 
 of Holy Scripture have not yet been taken up by the Church 
 into its system of doctrine and are not therefore to be regarded 
 as a part of the rule of faith of the denomination. 
 
 E.g. There is a doctrine of the millennium given in Rev. xx., 
 but there is no doctrine of the millennium given in the West- 
 
6 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 minster standards. There are differences of opinion in the 
 Church on this doctrine of the millennium. There are some who 
 think that it is an exact period of a thousand years to be ex- 
 pected in the future. Others think that the millennium has 
 already passed. Still others think that the millennium is only a 
 great symbol ; again others think that it is the complete period 
 of the kingdom of Christ on earth. If now the great majority 
 of this Presbytery were convinced that the scriptural doctrine 
 of the millennium made it a period of a thous^d years of bless- 
 edness in the future, and one member of the Presbytery held 
 the older view that the millennium is long past, could you try 
 him for heresy because he interpreted Holy Scripture differently 
 from his Presbytery in this regard? The Church has not j^et 
 officially determined its interpretation of the scriptural doctrine 
 of the millennium, and no Presbytery has the right by a majority 
 vote to determine any doctrine of the millennium whatever. If 
 any Presbytery should attempt to use such passages of Holy 
 Scripture to define dogma not already defined in the West- 
 minster Confession and Catechisms, it would add new dogma 
 to the official doctrine of the Church. The only way in which 
 new dogmatic statements may be added to the rule of faith of 
 the Church, is by overtures in the form of revision of the Con- 
 fession of Faith, adopted by two-thirds of the Presbyteries, in 
 the method provided by the form of government. 
 
 A court cannot consider any passages of Holy Scripture in 
 proof of any doctrines not defined in the Westminster Confes- 
 sion and Catechisms, nor any passages of Holy Scripture which 
 are not essential to the rule of faith and life. This principle 
 rules out of court all the proof texts under Charges IV. and V. 
 and a great majority of all those under the other specifications. 
 It also rules from Charges IV. and V. the statement " which 
 is contrary to direct statements of^oly Scripture." 
 
 It is the law of the Presbyterian Church, therefore, that this 
 double rule of faith, the divine rule, Holy Scripture, and the 
 ecclesiastical rule, the Westminster Confession, should coincide 
 in statement before that statement can be regarded as authori- 
 tative and binding. 
 
 This double standard has its disadvantages as the double 
 monetary standard in gold and silver has its disadvantages. 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 7 
 
 As silver must alwaj^s j'ield to gold, so the Confession must 
 always yield to Holy Scripture. It would be an ideal way to 
 have one gold standard in commerce and one Biblical standard 
 in theology. But there are theologians as well as merchants 
 who prefer the lower standard. So long as the double standard 
 exists in the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, we must 
 submit to it with all its inconveniences. It was necessary for 
 the prosecution to show (1) that the doctrines with which, as 
 they allege, my -^declarations are in irreconcilable conflict, are 
 really essential doctrinal statements of the Westminster sym- 
 bols, and then, (2) that they are also doctrinal statements of 
 Holy Scripture. This they have not done. This they can- 
 not do. 
 
 III. — The System of Doctrine 
 
 The Presbyterian Church has a formula of subscription which 
 defines the sense in which office bearers in the Presbyterian 
 Church are bound to the ecclesiastical rule of faith : 
 
 " Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this 
 Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures? " 
 
 This subscription does not bind us to every statement of the 
 Confession of Faith; but only to the system of doctrine con- 
 tained therein. This system of doctrine in the formula of sub- 
 scription is based upon the terms of the Adopting Act of 1729, 
 the Plan of Union of 1758, and the decision of the supreme court 
 in the Harker case in 1765. The Adopting Act of 1729 adopted 
 the Confession of Faith and the .0wo Catechisms " as being in 
 all the essential and necessary articles good forms of sound 
 words and systems of -Christian doctrine." The Scotch 
 Adopting Act of 1690 uses the phrase "as containing the 
 
 » siun and substance of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches." 
 The Irish Pacific Act contains the clause " as being a good 
 abridgment of the Christian doctrines contained in the 
 Holy Scriptures." The American Adopting Act, based on all 
 these earlier Presbyterian documents, gives tlie phrase, "as 
 
 ^ being in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms 
 
8 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine.'^ The 
 American expression has two sides. The latter, " good forms 
 of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine,'' is of the 
 same essential character as the Irish and Scotch Acts. There 
 is an important difference, however. The Scotch Act refers to 
 the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, the Irish Act to 
 Christian doctrine, and our American Act agrees with the 
 latter and not the former. The American Act, however, gives 
 a still further qualification in the direction of breadth and lib- 
 erty. The Confession does not say " good forms of sound words 
 and systems of Christian doctrine " in all its articles, but only 
 in "aZ? the essential and necessary articles.'- The subscrip- 
 tion is limited to essential and necessary articles. 
 
 Different theories of discipline and subscription prevailed in 
 the contests between the old side and the new side in the eigh- 
 teenth century, but the Plan of Union of 1758 reaffirmed the 
 principles of the Adopting Act as follows : 
 
 "That when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member 
 shall either actively concur with, or passively submit to, such determi- 
 nation ; or if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after suffi- ^ 
 cient liberty iQodestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw 
 from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided 
 always, that this shall be understood to extend only to such determina- 
 tions as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine and Presbyterian 
 government. " 
 
 We see in the phrase " indispensable in doctrine and Pres- 
 byterian government " only a synonym of the " essential and 
 necessary articles " and " agreeable in substance to the Word 
 of God" of the Adopting Act of 1729. 
 
 The difference as to subscription was harmonized in the 
 declaration of this same Plan of Union : 
 
 "Both Synods having always approved and received the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith and Larger "and Shorter Catechisms as an orthodox 
 and excellent system of Christian doctrine, founded on tlie Word of God, 
 we do still receive the same as the confession of our faith, and also 
 adhere to the plan of worship, government, and discipline contained in 
 the Westminster Directory, strictly enjoining it on all our members and 
 probationers for the ministry, that they preach and teach according to 
 the form of sound words in said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid 
 and oppose all errors contrary thereto. " 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 9 
 
 The phrase ^^ orthodox and excellent system of Christian 
 doctrine " is substantially the same as the phrase of the Adopt- 
 ing Act of 1729, " as being in all the essential and necessary 
 ar^ticles good forms of sound words and systems of Chris- 
 tian doctrine " in slightly different language. The system of 
 Christian doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards was 
 what was adopted by the Reunited Church in 17^ and this J^ 
 embraced only that which was " indispensable in doctrine or 
 Presbyterian government," that which was ^'essential and 
 necessary " to the Westminster system. 
 
 The Synod of New York and Philadelphia fell back upon the 
 Adopting Act of 1729, and declined to follow the strict views 
 of subscription of the Synod of Philadelphia as expressed in the 
 Declaratory Act of 173 G. 
 
 The position of the Synod of New York was well expressed 
 in their ultimatum in 1753 : 
 
 "Tliat difference in judgment should not oblige a dissenting member 
 to withdraw from our communion, unless the matter were judged by the 
 body to be essential in doctrine and discipline. And this, we must own, 
 is an important article with us, which we cannot anyway dispense with, 
 and it appears to us to be strictly Christian and Scriptural, as well as 
 Presbyterian ; otherwise we must make everything that appears plain duty 
 to us a term of communion, which we apprehend the Scripture prohibits. 
 And it appears plain to us that there may be many opinions relating to 
 the great truths of religion that are not great themselves, nor of sufficient 
 importance to be made terms of communion. Nor can these sentiments 
 'open a door to an unjustifiable latitude in principles and practices,' any 
 more than the apostolic prohibition of receiving those that are weak to 
 doubtful disputations. What is plain sin and plain duty in one's accoimt 
 is not so in another's ; and the Synod has still in their power to judge 
 what is essential and what is not. In order to prevent an unjustifiable 
 latitude, we must not make terms of communion which Christ has not 
 made, and we are convinced that He hath not made every truth and 
 every duty a term " (Records, p. 254) . 
 
 The Synod of New York insisted upon these judicious views, 
 until at last they were incorporated in the Declaration of Re- 
 union, in the terms, " orthodox and excellent systems of Chris- 
 tian doctrine, " and " only such determinations as the body 
 shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian govern- 
 ment.^'' 
 
 There was a heresy trial in the Sjoiod of New York which 
 
10 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 was not completed until after the reunion. Samuel Harker was 
 finally in 17G3 declared disqualified to exercise the ministerial 
 office: 
 
 "As he has departed from the truth and opposed this Church in some 
 important articles, and misrepresented the Church of Scotland, his doc- 
 trine and practice have a schismatical tendency " (Records, p. 330). 
 
 Mr. Harker made a written " Appeal to the Christian World" 
 against the Synod. John Blair, who had been familiar with 
 the case from the beginning in the New Side Presbytery of 
 New Brunswick, published a reply, giving a " New Side " view 
 of the Adopting Act of 1739, which was regarded as still in 
 force : 
 
 "He [Mr. Harker] would have it believed to be a violation of an Act 
 of Synod, a.d. 1729, which he calls one of the great Articles of their 
 Union, and which he thought sufficiently secured the right of private 
 .iudgmeut, wherein it is provided that a minister or candidate shall be 
 admitted notwithstanding scruples respecting article or articles the Synod 
 or Presbytery sliall judge not essential or necessary in Doctrine, Worship, 
 and Government. But in order to improve this to his purpose, he takes 
 the words essential or necessary in a sense in which it is plain from the 
 Act itself the Synod never intended they should be taken. He would have 
 them to signify what is essential to ' Communion with Jesus Christ, ' or the 
 Being of Grace in the heart, and accordingly supposes that no error can 
 be essential which is not of such malignity as to exclude the advocate or 
 maintainer of it from communion with Christ. But the Synod say essen- 
 tial in Doctrine, Worship, and GoA'ernment — i.e., essential to the system 
 of doctrine contained in our Westminster Confession of Faith considered 
 as a system, and to the mode of worship and plan of government con- 
 tained in our Directory " (" The Synod of New York and Philadelphia 
 Vindicated," Philadelphia, 1765, pp. 10, 11). 
 
 There can be no doubt that John Blair correctly interprets 
 the Adopting Act of 1739, and also the views of the Reunion 
 Synod of 17G3 : 
 
 "That, therefore, is an essential error in the Synod's sense, which is of 
 such malignity as to subvert or greatly injure the system of doctrine and 
 mode of worship and government contained in the Westminster Confes- 
 sion of Faith and Directory." 
 
 The terms of subscription of 1788 adopted in connection with 
 the whole constitution of our Church were based upon the 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 11 
 
 Adopting Act, the Plan of Union, and the decision in the 
 Harker case. 
 
 In these ordination vows are wrapped up all the principles for 
 which American Presbyterians had been contending from the 
 beginning — liberal subscription to the system of doctrine, a 
 general approval of the Presbyterian mode of government and 
 discipline, and the necessity of piety and religious experience in 
 the ministry. 
 
 That the Synod was a broad and tolerant body is clear from 
 this fact. The Presbytery of Suffolk was offended at some 
 proposed modifications in the Form of Government, in the 
 direction of strictness. The Synod replied to their overture in 
 1787 requesting a separation, with the desire that their request 
 should be reconsidered, representing : 
 
 "We have always supposed that you, as brethren with us, believed in 
 the same general system of doctrine, discipline, worship, and Church 
 government, as the same is contained in the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, Catechisms and Director}\ . . . We are Pi-esbyterians, and we 
 firmly believe the Presbyterian system of doctrine, discipline, and Church 
 government to be nearer to the Word of God than that of any other sect 
 or denomination of Christians. Shall all other sects and parties be united 
 among themselves for their support and increase, and Presbyterians 
 divided and subdivided, so as to be the scorn of some and the prey of 
 others? " (Eecords, p. 532). 
 
 This letter, and the able committee appointed by Synod to 
 "remove difficulties," gave satisfaction to the Presbytery of 
 Suffolk, and it continued cordially with the Synod, and united 
 in the adoption of the Constitution. It was the " general sys- 
 tem of doctrine, discipline, worship, and Church government," 
 which was adopted in the Constitution, and matters not essen- 
 tial and necessary to this "general system " were in 1789, as in 
 1729 and 1758, not binding.* 
 
 The Presbyterian Church during the past one hundred years 
 has adhered to this position. There have been great ecclesias- 
 tical and doctrinal controversies. The separation of old side 
 and new side in 1741 was repeated in the separation of old 
 schAol and new school in 1837. The Reunion of 1758 was re- 
 peated in the Reunion of 1870. There has ever been contention 
 
 *See Briggs' "American Presbyterianism, " pp. 371, 372. 
 
12 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 between stricter views of discipline and subscription and milder 
 views; but the Church through all its history has adhered to 
 its historic position and has never repealed its official declara- 
 tions in the colonial period, and has never changed its formula . 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that system of doctrine in our terms ot 
 subscription means the system of doctrine contained in ^e. 
 Westminster Confession, and that system is composed of the 
 essential and necessary articles — that is, those articles which 
 are essential and necessary to the system. The Church re- 
 serves the right to define what these essential and necessary 
 articles are ; but it must, when it makes such a decision, defi- 
 nitely and distinctly determine that they are necessary and 
 essential articles of the Westminster Confession. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 has never attempted to set forth what are the essential and 
 necessary articles of the Westminster Confession, and therefore 
 there is room for considerable difference of opinion with refer- 
 ence to any doctrine which may be in debate. But there are 
 certain historical and exegetical principles which guide to a 
 right decision in most cases. 
 
 (a) The Presbyterian Church has three ecclesiastical rules of 
 faith, three doctrinal standards, the Confession, the Lar-ger 
 Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. The Adopting Act 
 adopts them as three distinct systems. The term of subscrip- 
 tion now in use refers to the system contained in the Confession 
 alone, but there can be no doubt that the two Catechisms were 
 adopted in 1788 and are constituent parts of the Constitution. 
 Here then we have three par%llel systems of doctrine. The 
 Shorter Catechism is a compendium of the Larger Catechism. 
 The Larger Catechism was made subsequently to the Confes- 
 sion by the same Westminster Assembly, and simply put in a 
 catechetical form the doctrinal statements of the Confession of 
 Faith. The only difference is that several of the chapters of 
 the Confession cover ground that was not deemed appropriate 
 to Catechisms, and therefore have their parallels in the Form of 
 Government, Directory of Worship, and Book of Discipline. 
 
 But with regard to the strictly doctrinal chapters, those which 
 alone are in dispute in this case, there can be no doubt that the 
 three systepas cover jpie same ground. From this it appears 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 13 
 
 that nothing should be regarded as essential and necessary to 
 the system which is not contained in the three systems. The 
 Westminster divines could not, and they did not, omit from 
 their Catechisms anything that was essential and necessar}" to 
 their Confession. No statement of the Confession should be 
 regarded as an essential and necessasy statement which has not 
 in the doctrinal parts its parallel statement in the Larger and 
 Shorter Catechisms ; or in the ecclesiastical parts in the Form 
 of Government and Directory for Worship. 
 
 This principle rules out of the Amended Charges all but two 
 of the seven doctrines stated as essential doctrines. 
 
 The reverse of this proposition is equallj" true. No statement 
 of Larger or Shorter Catechism can be regarded as binding 
 which cannot be found in the Confession of Faith likewise. 
 And where the same doctrine is found in the three systems in 
 different terms, the terms of the one system are not to be pre- 
 ferred to the terms of the other systems. That only is the doc- 
 trine which may be expressed equally well in the terms of the 
 three systems. Nothing is essential to the doctrine which is 
 not common to the terminology of the Confession and of the 
 Larger and the Shorter Catechisms. It is sufficient here to call 
 your atteimon to one example. In the statement of the original 
 condition of our race prior to the Fall, the Confession of Faith 
 uses the term "original righteousness" (VI. 2), the Larger 
 Catechism uses the term " estate of innocency " (21) . No such 
 stress can be lawfully laid upon the term " righteousness " as to 
 exclude "innocency." It is as lawful to use the one phrase as 
 the other. The doctrine of our standards must be consistent 
 with the use of both of these terms. 
 
 (?>) Inasmuch as the formula of subscrij)tion binds us to the 
 essential and necessary articles and to those alone, no word or 
 sentence or section of a chapter can be .regarded as essential 
 which may be removed without impairing the Westminster 
 system- The distinction between essential and necessary on 
 the one hand, and unessential and unnecessary on the other, 
 must be made in a consistent manner. The question to be de- 
 termined is not what a majority of a Presbj^ter}'- may regard as 
 an essential and necessary article of faith at the present time. 
 You have to determine what is an essential and ne(?essary arti- 
 
14 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 cle in the "Westminster Confession, what the Westminster di- 
 vines regarded as an essential and necessary article of faith, and 
 which they made an essential and necessary article when they 
 constructed the Westminster system. An article might be re- 
 'garded as essential and necessary to the system of theology of 
 certain honored teachers now in use, and so to the systems in 
 the minds of their pupils, which was yet unessential and unneces- 
 sary in the minds of the Westminster divines. Many such in- 
 stances might be cited. There are many things essential to the 
 scholastic Calvinism of some of our schools of theology which 
 are unimportant in the Confession or omitted altogether from 
 the Westminster system. E.g., the doctrine of Repentance 
 unto Life is an essential and necessary doctrine of the West- 
 minster Confession. It is strongly and fully stated in the Con- 
 fession and in both Catechisms, and yet it is omitted from that 
 system of theology which is in greatest use in the Presbyterian 
 theological schools in this country at the present time. The 
 doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin is an essential and necessary 
 article of the Westminster system, and yet one looks for it in 
 vain in two of the systems of theology which are claimed to be 
 standards of orthodoxy. On the other hand, the doctrine of 
 Regeneration is regarded as an essential and necessary article 
 in modern Presbyterian theology since the rise of Methodism, 
 and yet the term Regeneration is only used incidentally in the 
 Confession of Faith. The broader and deeper doctrine of 
 Effectual Calling occupies the place of regeneration in the Con- 
 fession of Faith and in the older theologians. Baptismal Re- 
 generation is regarded by most modern Presbyterians as a dan- 
 gerous error, and yet Cornelius Burgess wrote a book entitled 
 ''Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants,''' and he was sub- 
 sequently made assessor of the Westminster Assembly, and was 
 one of the most honored and influential members of that As- 
 sembly during its long sessions. Through the influence of 
 Bishop Butler the doctrine of Probation entered into and 
 warped the theolog}" of the Presbyterian churches, and this 
 doctrine is regarded by many as essential and necessary to a 
 true moral system. But the doctrine of probation is unknown 
 to the Westminster divines. It had indeed an Arminian origin 
 through Daniel Whitby and is essentially contrary to the Cal- 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 15 
 
 vinistic scheme of grace. Great changes take place in the his- 
 tory of theology. Doctrines arise and decline in importance. 
 Old doctrines go into the background, new doctrines emerge. 
 The Westminster standards stereotyped the doctrines of the 
 Westminster divines of the seventeenth century. We have 
 subscribed to their system and to the essential and necessary 
 articles of their Confession. But we have not subscribed to 
 any other dogmatic systems or to the essential and necessary 
 articles in any other systems, whether these are stated in 
 printed books or are bubbling up in speculative minds. It is 
 necessary for the Presbytery to 'consider that they have no 
 authority to determine what is essential and necessary accord- 
 ing to their views of what is essential and necessary in the pres- 
 ent state of theology ; "but they must determine what is essen- 
 tial and necessary according to the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith. The Westminster system is the rule of judgment, not 
 any other system of theology which may possibly rule your 
 faith and life. 
 
 IV. — The Constitution a Compact 
 
 The Presbyterian Church is a chu-rch with a Constitution. 
 This Constitution is a compact between the ministers who 
 constitute the Church. It restricts the minister who subscribes 
 to it. He must hold to the essential and necessary articles of 
 that Constitution, or he has no lawful place in the Church. But 
 the Constitution also restricts the Church and protects the min- 
 ister. The Church cannot change its Constitution except in a 
 constitutional way, giving an opportunity to all who dissent 
 from the change to withdraw. The Church cannot impose upon 
 its ministry anything that is unconstitutional, or anything to 
 which he did not agree on his entrance upon the ministrj'', or in 
 a subsequent revision of the Constitution. The ordination of a 
 Presbyterian minister is of the nature of a .ompact which binds 
 both parties. Neither party can violat'^. that compact without 
 wrong-doing. If the minister viola^.e the compact he can be 
 tried and, if found guilty, expelled from the Church. But what 
 if the Church should violate the compact and thereby damage 
 the reputation and usefulness of the minister? In such a case 
 
16 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the minister can seek redress in the higher ecclesiastical courts, 
 and if these fail him and persist in their violation of compact 
 send do him any wrong which the civil courts can recognize, he 
 may resort to the civil court, and the civil court may compel the 
 Presbyterian Church to adhere to its part of the compact and 
 stay it from damaging the reputation and standing of its min- 
 isters by unconstitutional action. 
 
 The history of subscription is instructive here. The West- 
 minster diVines were opposed to subscription. They would 
 never have composed such elaborate systems if they had sup- 
 posed they would ever be imposed upon the ministry of the 
 Church of God. Anthony Tuckney, the chairman of the com- 
 mittee which framed the Shorter Catechism, tells us : 
 
 "In the Assemblie, I f^ave my vote with others that the Confession of 
 Faith, put outt by Authoritie should not bee ey tlier required to bee sworn 
 or subscribed too; wee having bin burnt in the hand in that liind before, 
 Ijut so as not to be publickly preached or written against " (Eiglit Letters 
 of Anthony Tuckney and Benjamin Whichcote, London, 1753, p. 76). 
 
 Internal evidence makes it plain that the Westminster divines 
 had no intention of making the Confession of Faith a rule of 
 faith. The Larger Catechism says : 
 
 "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of 
 God, the only rule of faith and obedience " (3) . 
 
 The Shorter Catechism says : 
 
 "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 " (2) . 
 
 Furthermore, the Confession represents that we must distin- 
 guish in Scripture itself between the essential and non-essential, 
 between those things which constitute the rule of faith and life ; 
 and those things which are not constituent parts of the rule of 
 faith and life. 
 
 "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike 
 clear unto all ; yet those things which are necessary to be known, be- 
 lieved, and observed, for salvation, 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 suffi- 
 cient understanding of them '' (I. 7). 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 17 
 
 This statement of our Confession is of vast importance. The 
 prosecution have overlooked it in their use of citations from the 
 Confession. They disregard it throughout their charges. Tiiis 
 section teaches that Holy Scripture is for all alike, rich and 
 poor, wise and ignorant, and that all may attain such sufiBcient 
 understanding of it as is necessary unto salvation. There- 
 fore a dogmatic faith is unnecessary unto salvation. It is not 
 necessary that any one should accept or hold any confession of 
 faith, or any catechism, or any creed, or any of the dogmatic 
 utterances of the Church in order to salvation. They may one 
 and all be unknown to the reader of the Scriptures, and yet he 
 may gain from Scripture itself " sufficient understanding of those 
 things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed 
 for salvation." Scripture needs no fences to inclose it, no 
 breastworks to defend it, no champion to espouse its cause, no 
 dogma to bar it in. It is entirely sufficient of itself alone to 
 convince, persuade, enlighten, and save mankind. 
 
 The Westminster divines had suffered from the imposition 
 of dogma and ritual, ceremonies and ecclesiastical regulations 
 which pinched their consciences and forced them into non- 
 conformity. They saw and they stated the true Biblical prin- 
 ciple. They were not altogether faultless in their own practice. 
 They constructed an elaborate system of doctrine, many state- 
 ments of which cannot be said to be " clearly propounded and 
 opened in some place of Scripture or other." But we are to 
 follow their teaching rather than their practice. In this teach- 
 ing they rebuke themselves in a measure. But later divines in 
 still greater measure are rebuked for the elaborate systems of 
 dogma which they have imposed upon the ministry in our 
 schools of theology as tests of orthodoxy. Ministers are con- 
 tending hotly for dogma which not onlj- is not " clearly pro- 
 pounded and opened in Holy Scripture," but which is not to 
 be found in Holy Scripture at all, and which is not even stated 
 in the Westminster standards. It is the achievement in part 
 of the modern discipline of Biblical theology that it presents 
 the teachings of Holy Scripture in their Biblical proportions, 
 thus showing the exaggerations of the traditional dogma, its 
 insertions of unscriptural dogma in its systems, its neglect of 
 important scriptural doctrine, and its depression of essential 
 2 
 
\ 
 
 18 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 doctrine of Holy Scripture. There is thus a conflict of Bible 
 with tradition which must go on in a life-and-death struggle 
 until tradition is once more defeated and destroyed. The mod- 
 ern Discipline of Sj^'mbolics shows the origin of the Westminste.- 
 symbols, traces the historic formation of its doctrine and their 
 expression in the three standards, interprets them by the writ- 
 ings of their authors and the history of opinion in their time, 
 and thus exposes the counterfeit theology which has been palmed 
 off upon modern Presbyterians by those who claim to be Puri- 
 tans but are none; who claim to be sound in the faith, when 
 they have abandoned the Westminster faith for another faith ; 
 and who are simply and alone scholastic Calvinists of the 
 school of Francis Turretine of Geneva, with a streak of modern 
 evangelicalism. It is clear that the Westminster Confession 
 binds us only to the Bible as a rule of faith and practice, and 
 only to those things in the Bible which are essential parts of 
 that rule of faith and practice. 
 The Confession says : 
 
 "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the 
 doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to 
 his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship " (XX. 3) . 
 
 And again : 
 
 "All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and 
 life " (I. 2) . 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that the Westminster Confession 
 makes Holy Scripture the only rule of faith, obedience, and wor- 
 ship, and that anything besides it as well as anything contrary 
 to it is a violation of liberty of conscience which should not be 
 tolerated. It is doubtful, therefore, whether subscription to the 
 Westminster Confession in any form is allowed by the Confes- 
 sion itself ; and it may be argued with plausibility that sub- 
 scription is against the doctrine of the three standards. So 
 thought the English Presbyterians in the seventeenth and eigh- 
 teenth centuries, and subscription was never imposed upon the 
 ministry by the old English Presbyterians. Subscription did 
 not originate in the Church of Scotland. It was imposed upon 
 the Church of Scotland by the Parliament of Scotland, not so 
 much to bind the ministry as to bind the Church. Its histori- 
 
THE RULE OF FAITH 19 
 
 cal design was to protect all ministers of the Episcopal Church 
 of Scotland, who after the Revolution were willing to conform 
 to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and prevent those retal- 
 iatory n^easures which the more rigid Presbyterians were de- 
 sirous of carrj^ing out against their former persecutors. Sub- 
 scription bound the Presbyteries and stajxd them from casting 
 out of their parishes any Episcopal ministers who were willing 
 to subscribe. 
 
 TUp historic origin of subscription in the Presbyterian Church 
 illustrates what has ever been the legal obligations of terms of 
 subscription. They bind the minister and they protect him 
 from further impositions by unreasonable majorities. They 
 protect the Presbytery from heretics within the limits assigned 
 — but they stay the Presbytery from pronouncing any minister 
 a heretic who is faithful to his subscription vow. 
 
 Considerable time has been taken to set clearly before joii the 
 ecclesiastical and civil issues which may be wrapped up in this 
 case, because it is important that you should confront all the 
 consequences that may be involved in a trial upon unlawful 
 charges. It will be necessary for the prosecution to show that 
 my teachings are in conflict with essential and necessary arti- 
 cles of the Westminster Confession and Holy Scripture, or you 
 cannot condemn rtle without a violation of the Constitution of 
 the Church. If you should violate the Constitution of the 
 Church and break the compa,ct made with me and others at 
 our ordination, we would seek relief in the Synod and General 
 Assembly, and if the General Assembly sustain the Violation 
 of that compact with me and those who agree with me, and do 
 any wrong which the civil courts can lawfully recognize, we 
 might be compelled to seek relief in the civil courts of our 
 country. 
 
 Explanations 
 
 It is a remarkable feature of this trial, that from the first 
 initiation of the process until the present time, attention has 
 been directed to the Inaugural Address on the Authority of 
 Holy Scripture. If the Inaugural Address contain heresy, 
 exactl}^ the same heresies were before the public in my printed 
 books for months previous to the delivery of the Address, e.g.: 
 
20 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 The question of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture was discussed in 
 my " Biblical Study," published in 1883, and in my " Whither?" 
 published in 1889. The question of the authorship of the Pen- 
 tateuch was discussed in the " Presbyterian Review," January, 
 1883. The question of Sanctification after Death is set forth in 
 "Whither?" 1889, and in an article entitled "Redemption after 
 Death" in the "Magazine of Christian Literature," December, 
 1890. What was stated more fully in these writings was given 
 in a condensed and rhetorical form in the Inaugural Address. I 
 know of no precedent in the history of ecclesiastical process, 
 where prosecutors subjected themselves to such limitations as 
 these prosecutors when they confine themselves to the Inaugural, 
 and shut their eyes against all the previous writings of the de- 
 fendant. If my Inaugural be heretical, all those other writings 
 are still more heretical. 
 
 Another remarkable feature of this case is that the prosecu- 
 tion have objected to any statements of explanations that I have 
 made since the publication of the Inaugural. They seem desir- 
 ous to convict the Inaugural of heresy rather than to convict 
 its author of heresy. But it is my right to set the Inaugural 
 Address in the light of its history, to point you to the previous 
 writings of the author in which his doctrines are more full}'' 
 set forth, to ask you to consider that he was speaking to his 
 own students and friends who knew of his writings and his 
 teachings; that the Address was academic in character, deliv- 
 ered in' the chapel of Union Theological Seminary, and neces- 
 sarily terse and compact in utterance ; that it is in the nature 
 of an outline of a great subject, and that the author is entitled 
 to fill up that outline and to explain anything in it in his own 
 way. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the 
 Address is herfetical as they interpret it. It is necessary that 
 they should convince you that the author of the Address holds 
 and teaches heretical opinions, or else you cannot convict him. 
 
 It is the law and usage of the Presbyterian Church that the 
 accused should be entitled to explain his own words. You can- 
 not convict me on the interpretation of the prosecution ; you are 
 obliged in law to accept my explanations. 
 
 Once more let me call your attention to the decision of the 
 supreme court in the Craighead case, 1824 : 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 21 
 
 "That a man cannot fairly be convicted of heresy, for using expressions 
 that may be so interpreted, as to involve heretical doctrines, if they niay 
 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 ha» 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 inference or impli- 
 cation ; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those 
 consequences which may legitimately fiov/ 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 connec- 
 tions and consequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion 
 which liQ disavows " (Craighead Case: "Minutes of the General Assem- 
 bly," 1824, p. 122). 
 
 It is necessary" for me to say again what I have said before 
 the Presbytery and also before the General Assembly, that the 
 process against me was instituted without giving me any op- 
 portunity to make such explanations as might have rendered 
 a process unnecessary. The process began with a violation of 
 law. I was entitled to make those explanations before pro- 
 cess was begun. You ought to have given me the privilege. 
 It was my right under Presbyterian law and ecclesiastical 
 practice. You did me a great wrong then ; you cannot deprive 
 me of my legal right to make these explanations now. You 
 are jurors, under your solemn obligation in a court of Jesus 
 Christ, and in the Divine Presence you must give heed to my ex- 
 planations and judge according to them. You cannot find me 
 guilty unless you find that the explanations I shall give of my 
 statements are contrary to essential and necessary articles of 
 the Westminster Confession and of Holy Scripture. 
 
 II 
 
 THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 
 
 In order to save valuable time, I shall venture to consider 
 Charges I. and II. together. This may be done with propriety 
 for several reasons: (1) They both relate to the same general 
 subject, namely^ "fountains of divine authority." (2) They 
 
22 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 both assert the same essential doctrines of Holy Scripture and 
 the Standards to which my teachings are alleged to be contrarj'. 
 (3) They both cite the same passages from Holy Scripture and 
 from the Standards of the Church in evidence. 
 
 The charges differ in two respects: (1) in several citations 
 from the Inaugural Address; (2) in the statements of doctrines 
 taught by me. I shall therefore consider first of all that which 
 is common to the two charges, and afterward what is special 
 under each of them. 
 
 The charges have three parts«: (1) the doctrines stated as the 
 essential doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and the Standards of 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America ; (2) 
 the doctrines attributed to me; and (3) the charge thfxt the 
 doctrines attributed to me "are contrary to the said essen- 
 tial doctrines." 
 
 Let us test these three parts in their order. 
 
 (1) The essential doctrine of our standards is said to be 
 "that the Holy Scripture is most necessary, and the rule of 
 faith and practice." 
 
 It is plain that two doctrines are here stated. The two doc- 
 trines are (1) "that the Holy Scripture is most necessary," and 
 (2) "the rule of faith and practice." These two doctrines might 
 have been embraced under a more general statement of doc- 
 trine if xhe prosecution had chosen to do so. But in fact they 
 state them as two different doctrines. You have decided to 
 try them together, but to vote on each charge separately. 
 
 I admit that the doctrine, " that Holy Scripture is the rule of 
 faith and practice," is an essential doctrine of our Standards 
 and of IJoly Scripture. There is no evidence required to prove 
 that proposition in the Charge. I admit that the doctrine that 
 " Holy Scripture is most necessary" is a doctrine of the West- 
 minster Confession. I am not prepared to admit that the state- 
 ment of that doctrine in the Westminster Confession is essential 
 in the form of its expression. But whether it be essential or 
 not, is immaterial. I do not care to argue that question, for 
 the reason that I firmly believe that " Holy Scripture is most 
 necessary " in that exposition of the phrase which the context 
 and the language demand. I subscribe to both of these doctrines 
 entirely, sincerely, and without any reservation whatever. But 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 23 
 
 it is evident that there is a difference of interpretation of these 
 two doctrines between the prosecution and the defendant. They 
 have the right to prove that their interpretation is the necessarj- 
 interpretation, and that my interpretation is the incorrect inter- 
 pretation. They have given you no such proof; I have now the 
 right to give you the correct interpretation of these phrases. I 
 shall consider the evidence offered from Holy Scripture at this 
 stage, the evidence from our Standards later on. The question 
 to be determined in our study of these passages of Scripture is 
 simply this. Do they show that Holy Scripture is the rule of 
 faith and practice, or that Holy Scripture is most necessary, 
 and in what sense? 
 
 (1) Is. viii. 20 was shown to be irrelevant in my Response 
 last year. I renew my objection to it as follows : 
 
 The passage is incorrectly translated in the version used, for 
 the meaning "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 ; 
 "Y^ 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 Scnp- 
 tures, or any part of them ; but is a rebuke of the people of 
 Judah for seeking necromancers and wizards, rather than the 
 living God (pp. 44, 45) . 
 
 They are not v/arned against seeking God in the forms of 
 the Reason or the Church. They are not taught that Holy 
 Scripture is most necessary, or that Holy Scripture is the rule 
 of faith and practice. The prosecution insist upon the render- 
 ing of King James' Version and upon the reference to Holy 
 Scripture. But the Church has not indorsed their version or 
 their interpretation, and you cannot insist upon them as tests 
 of orthodoxy. 
 
 (2) Matt. X. 32, 33 : 
 
 "Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also 
 confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny 
 
24 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in 
 heaven." 
 
 Our Saviour here tells His disciples what may be expected 
 in the final day of judgment. Then those who have confessed 
 Christ will be confessed before the Father and those who have 
 denied Christ will be denied. This passage has nothing what- 
 ever to do ^ith the mode in which Christ becomes Imqjvn, 
 whether through Bible, Chu|'ch, or Reason. Jesus does not 
 assert that Holy Scripture is most necessarj^, but that confes- 
 sion of Him is most necessary. He has nothing to say about 
 those who neither confess nor deny Him through lack of knowl- 
 edge of Christ. The denial here spoken of is the antithesis of 
 confession. It is not the attitude of the careless or indifferent, 
 or of those who have not yet been convinced of the Messiahship 
 of Jesus or of the divine authority of Holy Scripture. It is 
 solely and alone of those who have definitely examined the 
 claims of Christ and have deliberately and finally denied Him 
 before men. If the prosecution think that Martineau is such a 
 man, I do not agree with them. But I agree with them as to 
 the fact that all those who thus deny Christ will be denied of 
 Christ in the judgment. Now I ask the court whether I am 
 to be condemned simply on the spider's web of connection that 
 any one may see between this text and the experience of Marti- 
 neau? Have I said in my Inaugural that men may so deny 
 Christ and be saved? I have not. 
 
 (3) Luke xvi. 29-31 : 
 
 "But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear 
 them. And he said, Nay, Father Abraham : but if one go to them from 
 the dead, they will repent. And he said imto him. If they hear not 
 Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from 
 the dead." 
 
 It is difficult to see the relevancy of this passage. It is 
 doubtless a true reflection of Abraham that the one who refused 
 to hear Moses and the prophets, that is, the witness of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures, would not be persuaded to hear one who 
 rose from the dead. And yet Jesus Christ rose from the dead, 
 and we have the New Testament Scriptures in addition to the 
 Old Testament Scriptures. As the sufficiency of the Old Testa- 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 25 
 
 ment Scriptures did not obstruct the resurrection of Christ and 
 the giving- of the New Testament Scriptures, why should the 
 sufficiency of the whole Bible prevent men from finding God 
 also in the forms of the Church and the Reason? 
 
 If Holy Scri]3ture is most necessary, according to this pas- 
 sage, then it is Moses and the prophets that were most neces- 
 sar;^'. But are the prophets so necessary that we have no need 
 of apostles? Is. Moses so necessary that we hav^ no need of 
 Christ? If not, then the passage does not prove most necessary 
 to the exclusion of other things, as the prosecution would prove 
 from their use of the phrase " most necessary. " 
 
 (4) John V. 39 : 
 
 " Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eter- 
 nal life; and these are they which bear witness of me." 
 
 The reference here is to the Old Testament Scriptures and to 
 them alone. 
 
 The Old Testament Scriptures certainly bear witness of 
 Christ, but that is not to say that the New Testament Scrip- 
 tures may not bear witness of Him, or that the Church may not 
 bear witness of Him, or that the Holy Spirit may not bear wit- 
 ness of Him in the heart, in the forms of the Reason. 
 
 (5) John xiv. 6 : 
 
 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no 
 one Cometh unto the Fatlier, but by me. " 
 
 Jesus is the way to God, and, indeed, the only way, because 
 He is the only mediator between God and man. But that does 
 not imply that all men shall have the same intellectual appre- 
 hension of Jesus or the same doctrine of His pei-son. His offices, 
 and His work. It does not tell us the way to Jesus. Holy 
 Scrij)ture is a way to Jesus. This passage does not tell us so, 
 and there is nothing in this passage to show that the Church 
 and the Reason are not also ways to the Son of God. It mat- 
 ters little how we get to the waj% if only we are in the way — so 
 it matters little Jiow tve get to Jesus, if Jesus is only o«7' wcnj 
 to God. WiU any of you undertake to say that Martineau is 
 not in this way? Or, if you do, will you convict me of heresy 
 because I cannot agree with you as to the question of fact? 
 
26 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 (6) I. John V. 10 is cited by the prosecution in King James' 
 Version : 
 
 " He that belieTeth 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 tliat God gave of his Son. " 
 
 This passage was tested in the Response last year. I repeat 
 what was then said : 
 
 " If one turn to the original Greek he will see that the trans- 
 lation, '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 specification, to prove 
 that I am in error in teaching that Martineau found divine 
 certainty through the Reason. In that this passage of Hoi}" 
 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" (pp. 45, 40). 
 
 (7) Gal. i. 9 : 
 
 "As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth 
 unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be 
 anathema. " 
 
 I know not what the prosecution would prove from this pas- 
 sage. But let me call your attention to the fact that the apostle 
 speaks of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not of a system of dogma, 
 I fear lest the prosecution may unconsciously confound the two, 
 and so think that because Martineau does not accept their 
 dogmatic system or the dogmatic system of the modern Evan- 
 gelical party, he has rejected the gospel and substituted another 
 gospel for it. But they present no evidence that this is the 
 case. It is true that Martineau does not accept our canonical 
 gospels in all respects, but it is evident that the apostle is not 
 alluding to the canonical gospels in this passage. It is doubt- 
 ful whether any gospel had yet been written when he wrote 
 these words. The apostle is referring to the gospel as the glad 
 tidings of salvation in Jesus Christ which he himself preached 
 as an apostle of Jesus Christ. The apostle is not thinking 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 27 
 
 even of his own theology, which at the early date when he wrote 
 this epistle was still in process of formation : but he is stating 
 the essential doctrine of salvation which in this epistle he is so 
 grandly sotting forth over against the Judaizers. But where do 
 I recognize another gospel than the gospel preached by Paul? 
 Where do I justify Martineau or any one else preaching another 
 gospel? I cannot preach the doctrines advocated by the prose- 
 cution, or those of the school of theology to which they are at- 
 tached ; for they are not the gospel. I will not say that they, 
 like those Judaizers, are insisting upon a different gospel, 
 " which is not another, " any more than I will say it of Martineau ; 
 but I venture to suggest that they are getting into dangerous 
 proximity with that different gospel, if they persist in maintain- 
 ing that the doctrines of their school of theology are essential 
 parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
 (S) II. Timothy, iii. 15-17 : 
 
 "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. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is prof- 
 itable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right- 
 eousness : that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
 unto all good works. " 
 
 I called attention in my Response last year to the fact that 
 this passage is cited from King James' Version, and said : " But 
 the Revised Version renders, 'Every Scripture 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 importance in the use of this text for 
 purposes of probation" (p. 45) . 
 
 As correctly rendered it teaches the profitableness of every 
 inspired Scripture ; it does not teach the unprofitableness of the 
 Church and the Reason. 
 
 (9) II. Peter i. 19-21: 
 
 " And we have the word of prophecy made more sui"e ; whereunto ye do 
 well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the 
 day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts : knowing this first, that 
 no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy 
 ever came by the will of man : but men spake from God, being moved 
 by the Holy Ghost." 
 
28 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 This passage tells us that the Old Testament prophets were 
 moved, driven, or impelled by the Holy Spirit in their prophecy ; 
 that their word of prophecy has been made more sure to us ; 
 and that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation ; 
 but it does not tell us that the Reason or the Church are not 
 great fountains of divine authority. It does not tell us that 
 men cannot find God through the Reason or the Church. We 
 may ask, How else were the prophets moved, driven, or impelled 
 except by the Holy Spirit acting in the forms of their Reason? 
 And if the Holy Spirit communicated the word of prophecy 
 and the divine authority to proclaim that word to the prophets 
 in the forms of their Reason, why may not the Holy Spirit com- 
 municate to other men divine guidance and certitude through 
 the forms of the Reason, even if He does not call them to be 
 prophets and give them a word of revelation? 
 
 "We have examined the nine passages from Holy Scripture 
 cited by the prosecution. Some of them establish the doctrine 
 that Holy Scripture is most necessary, which doctrine w^e do 
 not deny. But none of them are in conflict with the declara- 
 tions made in the Inaugural. The prosecution in their argu- 
 ment use four additional passages, Acts viii. 32-35 ; x. 35 seq. ; 
 xvii. 10 seq. ; xix. 1-7. These refer to the experience of the 
 Ethiopian, Cornelius, the Bereans, and Apollos in their accept- 
 ance of Christ. Their experience proves that Holy Scripture 
 was most necessary to them, in that it was necessary that their 
 lower stage of religious experience should advance to the higher 
 stage of Christianity ; but it does not prove that the unwritten 
 but oral gospel of Christ was necessary to them in the sense 
 that they could not have been in a state of grace and salvation 
 without it. It is well known that these were all pious men, 
 worshipping God as He had been revealed to them, and were 
 prepared to accept Christ, and did accept Him as soon as Christ 
 was made known to them. They present no evidence, there- 
 fore, of the proposition of the prosecution that Holy Scripture 
 is the only fountain of divine authority. And you have no right 
 to consider them as against me even if I have failed in convinc- 
 ing you of their irrelevanc}', because Scripture can only be used 
 by the prosecution to establish the essential doctrine set forth 
 in the Charge. They cannot be legally used to prove that my 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 29 
 
 declarations are erroneous, as you have already determined in 
 sustaining my preliminary objection. I am not obliged to de- 
 fend my Inaugural against these extracts from Holy Scripture 
 and Confession, as j^ou have already ruled. I am simply and 
 alone called upon to defend myself against the allegation that 
 my declarations are against the two essential doctrines men- 
 tioned in the Charge, namely, that "Holy Scripture is most 
 necessary," and that "Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and 
 practice." 
 
 The prosecution have no right to use Holy Scripture and 
 Confession in these charges further than to prove these two 
 essential doctrines. They cannot use these passages against 
 my declaration without violating the law of process in our 
 Church. You cannot use these passages against me and con- 
 demn me on their account without a violation of the obliga- 
 tion you assumed when you undertook to sit as jurors in this 
 case, and of the ruling of the Presbytery itself before the argu- 
 ment began. 
 
 (2) The doctrines attributed to me are as follows : 
 
 (A) " The Reason is a fountain of divine authority, which 
 may and does savingly enlighten men, even such men as reject 
 the Scriptures as the authoritative proclamation of the will of 
 God and reject also the way of salvation through the mediation 
 and sacrifice of the Son of God as revealed therein." 
 
 {B) " The Church is a fountain of divine authority which, 
 apart from the Holy Scripture, may and does savingly enlighten 
 men." 
 
 (a) The prosecution are obliged to prove these doctrines in 
 their specifications, by extracts from the Inaugural. There are 
 two specifications under each charge. These specifications con- 
 sist of four groups of extracts from the Inaugural. These ex- 
 tracts are properly proofs of some fact that the prosecution 
 should state. But what do they propose to prove? They do 
 not tell us in their specifications. If the extracts are statements 
 of fact such as the law of specification requires, where are the 
 proofs of the fact? If they are proofs, where are the statements 
 of fact? 
 
 {b) But suppose we take them as both facts and proofs of fact, 
 inasmuch as they are extracts from the Inaugural. We are 
 
30 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 then obliged to consider the question of their relevancy to the 
 charge. I am obliged to admit these extracts, and you are 
 obliged to vote that the specifications are true so far as the 
 extracts are concerned. But what is it that they prove? How 
 are you to bring them under the charge? Consider the effect 
 of these extracts upon the several members of the court. I take 
 it that my statement that "Martineau could not find divine 
 authority in the Church or the Bible, but did find God enthroned 
 in his own soul," is objectionable to many of you. You may 
 think me guilty of error or of indiscretion in making such a 
 statement. You might desire to condemn me on that account. 
 Would you then be justified in voting to sustain the charge for 
 that reason? On consideration you will see that there are sev; 
 eral links in a chain of argument before you can attach tins 
 statement about Martineau to the doctrine attributed to me. 
 You ought to test all the links of this chain before you can 
 honorably condemn me as guilty of the charge. This testing 
 ought to be made under the specification. The only way to 
 accomplish this under present circumstances is to insert in 
 these specifications the doctrine attributed to me in the charge, 
 i. e.: 
 
 " In an Inaugural Address, which the said Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D. , 
 delivered at tlie Union Theological 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 been published 
 and extensively circulated with the knowledge and approval of the said 
 Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D. , and has been republished by him in a 
 second edition with a i^reface and an appendix, the said Rev. Charles A. 
 Briggs, D. D. , taught that the Reason is a fountain of divine authority 
 which may and does savingly enlighten men, even such men as reject 
 the Scriptures as the authoritative proclamation of the will of God and 
 reject also the way of salvation through the mediation and sacrifice of 
 the Son of God as revealed therein ; all which is sustained by the follow- 
 ing sentences from the said Inaugural. " 
 
 Only by thus inserting the statement of fact can you vote 
 intelligently upon this specification. This is the form in which 
 I shall bring the question before you, 
 
 (c) We have simply to determine whether the doctrines at- 
 tributed to me are sustained by the extracts given from the 
 Inaugural. I admit the statements that " the Reason is a foun- 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 31 
 
 tain of divine authority," and "the Church is a fountain of 
 divine authority. " But I deny all the rest of the doctrines at- 
 tributed to me in the form and in the language in which the 
 prosecution state them in these two charges. They do not prove 
 and they cannot prove from the Inaugural that I teach that 
 men who reject the Scriptures and the salvation through Jesus 
 Christ are savingly enlightened by the Reason or bj^ the Church. 
 There are no express statements to that effect in the Inaugural. 
 There are no statements which by logical deduction involve 
 such conclusions. You cannot hold me responsible for any in- 
 ferences made from my statements by the prosecution or by 
 yourselves, whether such inferences appear valid to you or not. 
 There are several invalid assumptions which the prosecution 
 are forced to make before they can convince you even by in- 
 direction of the validity of such inferences. 
 
 (3) I shall waste no time in an attempt to expound the doc- 
 trines which have been invented by the prosecution and wrongly 
 attributed to me, but I shall proceed to the main question in 
 hand, namely, whether the doctrines which I truly hold, that 
 " the Reason is a fountain of divine authority " and " the Church 
 is a fountain of divine authority," are contrary to the essential 
 doctrines named in the charges, or to any other doctrines of 
 Holy Scripture and Confession. I shall show jou that they are 
 not contrary to, but in strict accordance with, the Westminster 
 Standards and Holy Scripture. 
 
 My doctrine is that " the Beason is historically a great 
 fountain of divine authority." Do I contradict the West- 
 minster Confession when I take this position? Some of you 
 think that I do. But you overlook some very important state- 
 ments in the Confession of Faith of our Church. It is a happy 
 circumstance that in the Inaugural Address itself I defined the 
 Reason in the use I made of it. The prosecution recognized my 
 definition when they quoted it in their original charge. I said 
 in the Inaugural that I was "using Reason in a broad sense to 
 embrace the metaphysical categories, the conscience, and the 
 religious feeling" (p. 2G). It seems probable that the prose- 
 cution do not keep this definition before them when they make 
 inferences from the statements which they cite from the In- 
 augural. This probability amounts almost to a certainty when 
 
32 • THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 we observe that they have omitted this definition from the hst of 
 extracts from the Inaugural given in the new charge ; for I hesi- 
 tate to impute to a committee of Presbj^tery an unworthy motive 
 for this omission. This court should notice this omission and 
 beware lest you make it yourselves. You should keep in mind 
 constantly that the Reason as I use it embraces the conscience 
 and the religious feeling. 
 
 The Testimony from the Standards 
 
 {a) The Westminster Confession sets forth the great distin- 
 guishing doctrine of the Reformed churches, that the divine 
 grace is sovereign and free, far above and beyond human in- 
 strumentalities, more comprehensive than any limits conceiv- 
 able by man ; free to go beyond the ordinary divinely appointed 
 means of grace ; free to persist and overcome every resistance 
 of sin and unbelief. While the Holy Spirit ordinarily uses 
 Bible, Church, and sacrament. He sometimes works apart from 
 them and without them. On this principle the Westminster 
 Confession bases its doctrine of the salvation of elect infants 
 and elect incapables, who from their tender age or their abnor- 
 mal organization are " incapable of being outwardly called by 
 the ministry of the Word" (X. 3). Such are saved by Christ 
 through the Spirit, " who worketh when, and where, and how 
 Hepleaseth" (X. 3). 
 
 This doctrine of the freedom of the divine grace and the 
 power of the divine Spirit to work anywhere, and in any place 
 and in any manner He pleaseth, opens a gate upon a wide ter- 
 ritory into which the Westminster divines looked with awe and 
 hesitating wonder, but which they left for later divines to ex- 
 plore as a region of liberty and extra confessional doctrine. 
 The Westminster divines did not themselves go any further 
 into this new field of the seventeenth century than to maintain 
 that there were elect infants and elect incapables, but modern 
 Presbyterians have with unanimity extended their doctrine of 
 elect infants and elect incapables to all infants and all incapa- 
 bles; and have also added the class of elect heathen, a class 
 which the Westminster divines excluded from the election of 
 grace. If any class of persons can be saved by the divine 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 33 
 
 Spirit apart from Church and Bible and sacraments, how else 
 can they be saved except by the direct contact of the divine 
 Spirit with their spirits in the forins of the Reason? I have 
 given a careful history of this doctrine in the little book " How 
 shall we Revise?" and have traced the several stages of change 
 toward this doctrine, through which our Presbyterian Church 
 has gone on advancing toward the present determination to re- 
 vise the tenth chapter of our Confession. Dr. Shedd says : 
 
 "That some evangelized men are saved in the present life by an extra- 
 ordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ has been the hope and 
 belief of Christendom" (" Dogmatic Theology," II. 706). 
 
 "This (X. 3) is commonly understood to refer not mei'ely or mainly to 
 idiots and insane persons, but to such of the pagan world as God pleases 
 to regenerate without the use of the written revelation " (II. 708) . 
 
 "It is certain that tke Holy Spirit can produce, if He please, such a 
 disposition and frame of mind [a habit of faith and penitence] in a jDagan 
 without employing, as He commonly does, the written Word " (II. 708) . 
 
 I do not approve of Dr. Shedd 's assertion that this modern 
 view "has been the hope and belief of CJwisteiidom," but there 
 is little doubt that his statement expresses the conviction of 
 modern Presbyterians. But if the Holy Spirit without media- 
 tion of Holy Scripture or Holy Church can produce faith and 
 penitence in a pagan, how else can the divine Spirit produce 
 these habits of soul, except through the forms of the Eeason? 
 
 Accordingly I said in the appendix to the Inaugural Address, 
 and I say it again : " Unless God's authority is discerned in the 
 forms of the Reason, there is no ground upon which any of the 
 heathen could ever have been saved, for they Imow nothing 
 of Bible or Church. If they are not savingly enlightened by 
 the Light of the World in the forms of the Reason, the whole 
 heathen world is lost forever" (pp. 88, 89). This is quoted by 
 the prosecution as if it were erroneous. But it states the exact 
 truth. 
 
 The Westminster Confession points the way into this terri- 
 tory of divine grace imparted through the Reason ; who then 
 shall venture to obstruct it? 
 
 The attitude of the Westminster Confession to the heathen 
 and the unbaptized in Christian lands is clear from the follow- 
 ing statement of Chapter XXV. 2 : " The visible Cliurch . . . 
 3 
 
34 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 of ail those throughout tho world that profess the true religion, 
 . . . together with their children — out of which there is no ordi- 
 nary possibility of salvation. " We cannot subscribe to this last 
 clause at the present time. We refuse to deny the possibility 
 of salvation to the unbaptized children of the Baptist churches, 
 or to members of the Society of Friends, or to soldiers of the 
 Salvation Army, which have no ministry, no sacraments, and 
 no church organization. We recognize that there may be and 
 that there are possibilities of salvation through the activity of 
 the divine Spirit in heathen lands. The faith of the modern 
 Presbj^terian Church has changed in this particular. If this 
 clause " out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salva- 
 tion" be an essential and necessary article, the whole Church 
 is heretical. But it is not an essential article. We could erase 
 this statement of XXV. 2 without impairing the great doctrine 
 of this section of the chapter. 
 
 The Society of Friends and the Salvation Army both use 
 Holy Scripture as a means of grace; but both agree in using 
 also the Reason in religion to an extent far beyond that which 
 is common to the evangelical Christian denominations. But 
 the elect heathen have no access to Holy Scripture. There is 
 no other avenue of grace for them than the Reason. And there 
 is no doubt that the Holy Spirit uses the Reason in these cases 
 as a fountain of divine authority and through it imparts relig- 
 ious certainty. 
 
 (b) Some may imagine that the introductory sentence of the 
 Confession of Faith is against this doctrine, when it says : 
 
 " Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and provi- 
 dence, 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 necessaiy unto salvation " (I.l). 
 
 This section is indeed cited by the prosecution in support of 
 their doctrine. But this statement of the Confession does not 
 contravene the doctrine that the Reason is a great fountain of 
 divine authority. The light of nature should be carefully dis- 
 tinguished from the light of grace. The Confession states how 
 far this light of nature goes. It " so far manifests the goodness, 
 wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable." I 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 35 
 
 agree to this, but I think the hght of nature goes further still. 
 It shines from the face of the sun ; it declares the glory of God 
 from the firmament; it discloses the wisdom of God in the 
 order of nature ; it unfolds the goodness of God in His beneficent 
 provisions for all creatures ; it manifests the power of God in 
 the irresistible forces of light, fire, and storm ; it appears in the 
 natural reason, framing all the operations of our mind in the 
 forms of time, place, and circumstance, and coloring them with 
 the hues of the true, the beautiful, and the good ; it is set forth 
 in the history of the world, which is the divine education of our 
 race. But the Confession is correct in stating that the light of 
 nature " is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of 
 His will which is necessary unto salvation." The knowledge 
 necessary unto salvation can only come from the light of grace. 
 The simple question is whether this light of grace shines outside 
 the boundaries of the Church, beyond the range of Holy Scrip- 
 ture and Holy Sacrament. The Confession does not assert this. 
 But it does not deny it, and we have a right as Presbyterians 
 to maintain the opinion a,s extra-confessional doctrine provided 
 we can prove it from Holy Scripture or from the experience of 
 mankind, or from any other valid reasons. The light of nature 
 is a glorious light of revelation. It should bring man to his 
 knees before God as a penitent sinner. But, as I have else- 
 where said, "the light of the eternal Logos is a still more blessed 
 light ; for it is the light of the Son of God, the Saviour of the 
 world. The world came into existence through Him. He was 
 ever in the world, even when the world knew Him not. He 
 was ever coming into the world in the progress of divine revela- 
 tion, until the theophany and prophecy ; historic guidance and 
 ideal aim were realized in the incarnate Redeemer." 
 
 " It is quite true that the Westminster divines did not catch 
 a glimpse of this light of the Logos. Their Christology was 
 defective at this point as well as other points. They did not 
 give expression to this doctrine. It is significant that they do 
 not cite from the prologue of John's gospel, with the exception 
 of verses 1 and 14 to prove the incarnation of the Logos. But 
 they did not exclude the doctrine of the Light of the world even 
 if they neglected it. It is the merit of the Society of Friends 
 or Quakers that they discerned this doctrine in the prologue of 
 
36 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 John's gospel, and held it up before the modern world until it 
 became one of the most characteristic doctrines of modern 
 times." Does the light of the Logos shine in heathen lands 
 apart from Bible and sacrament? Does the light of the Logos 
 shine in Christian lands to some of those whom the Church has 
 driven away from the sacred aisles of redemption? The Con- 
 fession does not deny it. If the prologue of the gospel of John 
 teaches it, the Confession must yield to Holy Scripture. Then 
 those who deny it are the real heretics. It matters not, however, 
 in point of law, what may be the correct opinion on this great 
 subject. Unless the prosecution can show that it is a cardinal 
 doctrine of the Confession, that the Logos does not shine with 
 sufficient light outside the Church to save men, and that H0I3" 
 Scripture sustains the Confession in this particular, you cannot 
 legally convict me of heresy for teaching that the Reason is a 
 great fountain of divine authority, when I explain that the 
 light of the Logos shines in some cases among the heathen, 
 through the Reason, with a divine authority, v>^hich convinces 
 and assures pious souls that they have and hold the truth and 
 salvation from God. 
 
 (c) The prosecution also cite in evidence the last half of 
 section 1st, as follows : 
 
 "Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers man- 
 ners, 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 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. " 
 
 This clearly teaches " Holy Scripture to be most necessary. " 
 There need be no dispute about that. I agree to it as fully as 
 the prosecution. The question is whether the Scriptures are 
 most necessary in the sense that no one can find God and salva- 
 tion without them. This the Confession does not teach. The 
 Confession refers to a divine revelation of salvation to the 
 Church before the divine revelation of salvation was committed 
 to writing in Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture was not most 
 necessary to salvation before it was given and written; but 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 37 
 
 only after it was written. It is most necessary to salvation to 
 those who enjoy the unspeakable privilege of possessing it. But 
 what shall we say of those who do not possess the Holy Scrip- 
 tures? Are they deprived of the opportunity of salvation on 
 the lower stage because others more highly favored enjoy the 
 privilege of salvation on the higher stage of Holy Scripture? 
 You cannot say so unless j^ou would exclude from salvation all 
 who know not Holy Scripture, including the heathen, imbeciles, 
 and babes. You must make these exceptions to the statement 
 that Holy Scripture is most necessary. But are we shut up to 
 these exceptions? Are there none in Christian lands to whom 
 Holy Scripture is practically an unknown book? Some are kept 
 from Holy Scripture by priestcraft, others by the use that has 
 been made of it in the interests of the privileged classes, others 
 still by the dogmatic barriers to which attention was called in 
 the Inaugural. Doubtless there is guilt on the part of these, 
 but in my opinion there is much greater guilt on the part of 
 the modern pharisees who have obstructed the access of these 
 multitudes to the word of God. What now shall we say with 
 reference to all these who for one reason or another have no 
 saving knowledge of Holy Scripture? Is Holy Scripture so 
 necessary in the case of all of them that there can be no salva- 
 tion without their knowledge of it and faith in it? I do not 
 believe it. You do not believe it. You preach to them Jesus 
 Christ and salvation through Him. You do not go to them 
 with the Bible and demand of them that they shall accept the 
 Scriptures in order to salvation. If they accept Jesus Christ as 
 their Saviour they will be saved even if they have never seen a 
 copy of the Bible, or have never read or heard a chapter from 
 its pages. The Scripture is most necessary as the rule of faith 
 and life to guide the Church and the people in the paths of 
 redemption until they attain its full salvation; but it is not 
 most necessary in the sense that no individual man may be 
 saved without a personal knowledge of it and a personal faith 
 in it. Christianity is a personal faith in Christ the living and 
 reigning Redeemer. 
 
 The more concise statement of the Larger Catechism cited by 
 the prosecution must be interpreted in the same way. It is 
 true that " God's word and spirit only, do sufficiently and effect- 
 
38 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 ually reveal Him (God) tinto men for their salvation." But 
 " word and spirit " are combined in this statement. The " Holy 
 Spirit only" one can always say, and also "word and spirit 
 only ; " but we cannot say " word only " if we mean by word 
 the written Scripture ; for all admit that some men are saved 
 by the Holy Spirit's effectual calling without the use of Holy 
 Scripture. Indeed, that is expressly stated in the chapter on 
 Effectual Calling, as we have seen. 
 
 (d) The prosecution cite in evidence section 5th, as follows : 
 
 " 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 excellences, 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 tlie 
 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. " 
 
 It is difficult to see why the prosecution cite this passage. 
 They overlooked it in their original charges. This section is to 
 me the choicest one in the chapter, one which I not only agree 
 to, but greatly admire in all its sentences and words. The only 
 clew I have to the use the prosecution propose to make of it is 
 their italicizing of the words, " the only ivay of man's salva- 
 tion." I know not what they propose to prove b}^ this phrase. 
 " What is the only way of man's salvation?" Is it Holy Scrip- 
 ture? Is it not rather Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and 
 the life? The Confession calls attention to the " full discovery " 
 Holy Scripture " makes of the only way of man's salvation." It 
 does not say that the only discovery of the way of man's salva- 
 tion is in Holy Scripture, but that the full discovery is there. 
 The prosecution have to substitute their " only " for the "full " of 
 the Confession, ere they can use this sentence to prove anything 
 which they have proposed in the charge. 
 
 In point of fact this section of the Confession is in direct 
 conflict with that dogmatic theory of the canon, which under- 
 lies the whole attack upon my doctrine of Holy Scripture. 
 This section of the Confession gives the human testimony of 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 39 
 
 the Church its full force as probable evidence ; but distiuctl}- 
 asserts that the divine evidence, the only one that can give cer- 
 tainty, is the Holy Spirit bearing witness by, and vi^ith the 
 word in our hearts. 
 
 Those who are charging me with error are themselves guilty 
 at this point, for they rest the authority of the canon upon the 
 probable evidence of the early Church. I agree with the Con- 
 fession in resting it upon the internal divine evidence of the 
 Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. 
 They make it a purely historical question, and can therefore 
 never go beyond the range of probability in their doctrine of 
 the canon, can never reach certainty. They close the way to 
 that divine evidence which alone, according to our Confession, 
 can give certainty of the divine authority of Holy Scripture. 
 And they say that " there is no other fountain of divine author- 
 ity than Holy Scripture. You cannot gain certainty through 
 the Church or the Reason." I said in the passages quoted from 
 the Inaugural, and I say again : " Divine authority is the only 
 authority to which man can yield implicit obedience, on which 
 he can rest in loving certainty and build with joyous confidence. 
 . . . There are historically three great fountains of divine 
 authority — the Bible, the Church and the Reason " (p. 4) . 
 
 Those v/ho deny this statement are the true heretics. For 
 they would deprive us of loving certainty and joyous confidence 
 in our religion. As the ancient pharisees were rebuked by our 
 Lord because they shut the kingdom of heaven against men, 
 refusing to enter themselves or to permit others to enter, so these 
 modern pharisees should be rebuked by the Presbyterian Church 
 for obstructing all the divinely appointed means of access to 
 divine autliority, all the avenues by which the divine Spirit 
 gives certainty to men in religion. They would deprive us of 
 that assurance of grace and salvation which is such an unspeak- 
 able comfort in our holy religion. 
 
 (e) The prosecution cite in evidence section 6th of the Con- 
 fession as follows : 
 
 " Tlie ivhole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for Jiis oum 
 glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either ex,pvessly set down in 
 Scr'pture, or by good an I necessary consequence may be deduced from 
 Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, tchcther by new 
 
40 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowl- 
 edge 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, accord- 
 ing to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. " 
 
 The part italicized was cited in the original charges. The 
 part not italicized was left out of the citation in the original 
 charge. A sense of propriety has doubtless induced the prose- 
 cution to give the latter in their new charges. They may itali- 
 cize the first half, I shall emphasize the whole of it. For I fail 
 to see how the first half can be properly used against my 
 declarations. I agree to it without exception. It does not say 
 that " the whole counsel of God " is revealed in Holy Scripture ; 
 but only that part of the counsel of God " concerning all things 
 necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life." 
 The statement limits the revelation in Holy Scripture to neces- 
 sary things. These necessary things are (1) either expressly 
 set down in Scripture, or (2) by good and necessary consequence 
 may be deduced from Scripture. These are necessary things 
 and no others. The sentence now closes with a prohibition 
 from adding any other necessary things ; for that is certainly 
 the meaning of the sentence " unto which nothing at any time 
 is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or tradi- 
 tions of men." That is just the doctrine the prosecution should 
 keep distinctly in mind at the present time, because, as will 
 appear, the Confession here prohibits exactly what they are 
 doing in this prosecution, namely, adding to the necesary doc- 
 trines of Holy Scripture other doctrines of modern dogmaticians 
 which they are claiming to be so necessary that I must be 
 adjudged a heretic for not holding them. I certainly do not 
 sin against this passage of the Confession, because I am not 
 adding to the list of necessary doctrines. My effort for some 
 years has been rather to show that many doctrines deemed 
 necessary to the traditional dogma are not necessary from the 
 point of view of Scripture and Confession. That is indeed the 
 underlying issue of the present contest in the Presbyterian 
 Church. The prosecution could not have done me a better 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 41 
 
 service than by bringing this passage into evidence, thus 
 enabling me to empliasize what has already been said, that no 
 one can be condemned for heresy who does not transgress an 
 essential doctrine of Holy Scripture. 
 
 The first part of this section has nothing in it in contraven- 
 tion of the doctrine that the Reason is a great fountain of divine 
 authority. But the second part distinctly favors that doctrine, 
 for it states (1) that something more is necessary than the 
 written or spoken word of Holy Scripture. " 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." This illumination of the Spirit of God is an illumina- 
 tion of the Reason, or to use the sentence of the previous sec- 
 tion, "bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."' 
 This "inward illumination," this illumination in our hearts, 
 what can it be but in the conscience, the religious feeling, the 
 forms of the Reason? 
 
 (3) Circumstances concerning the vrorship and church gov- 
 ernment are " to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian 
 prudence." Here is a field of unnecessary and unessential 
 things where there is no light in Holy Scripture and where 
 man is left to the use of the reason and the light of nature, in 
 which the Holy Spirit may guide the individual Christian and 
 the Church without the use of the written Word. This passage 
 of the Confession therefore teaches that Scripture reveals neces- 
 sary things, and that unnecessary things are beyond its scope 
 and are to be determined from other authoritative sources ; that 
 the inward illumination of the Spirit in the heart, in the con- 
 science, in the Reason, is necessary in any case. 
 
 (/) The prosecution cite in evidence section 10th, as follows: 
 
 " 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 Sjnrit speaking in 
 the Scripture. " 
 
 They emphasize the words which give the essence of the doc- 
 trine, namely, that " The Supreme Judge can be no other but 
 the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." 
 
43 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 In what respect do I controvert that? Any one at all familiar 
 Avith my writings will recognize that I have been in the habit 
 of using this doctrine as one of the great doctrines of the 
 Reformation and of Puritanism. Let me repeat what I wrote 
 some years ago : 
 
 "It was this principle that made the Puritan faith and life invincible. 
 
 " O that their descendants had maintained it ! If they had laid less 
 stress upon the minor matters : the order of the decrees, the extent of the 
 atonement, the nature of imputation, the mode of inspiration, and the 
 divine right of presbytery — and had adhered to this essential principle 
 of their fathers, the history of Puritanism would have been higher, 
 grander, and more successful. We would not now be threatened with 
 the ruin that has overtaken all its unfaithful predecessors in their turn. 
 Let their children return to it ; let them cling to it as the most precious 
 achievement of British Christianity ; let them raise it on their banners, 
 and advance with it into the conflicts of the day ; let them plant it on 
 every hill and in every valley throughout the world ; let them not only 
 give the Bible into the hands of men and translate it into their tongues, 
 but let them put it into their hearts and translate it into their lives. 
 Tlien will Biblical interpi-etation reach its culmination in practical in- 
 terpretation, in the experience and life of mankind " (pp. 365, 366) . 
 
 It is not Holy Scripture which is the supreme Judge, it is 
 the Holy SjDirit, and the Holy Spirit alone. Holy Scripture 
 is that in which the Holy Spirit speaks, and He speaks bearing 
 witness by and with the word in the heart of the believer. The 
 Holy Spirit speaks to the reason of the godly man through 
 Holy Scripture and gives him the ultimate decision in all 
 matters of faith and practice. 
 
 I never taught any other doctrine. If any one thinks that 
 this doctrine conflicts with the doctrine that the Reason is a 
 great fountain of divine authority, he thinks wrongly and is 
 aj)art from the true lines of logical reasoning. The Confession 
 does not here say that the Holy Spirit does not speak in the 
 Reason apart from Holy Scripture, and so speaking, speak with 
 divine authority. It says that the Holy Spirit is the supreme 
 Judge. He is the supreme Judge wherever and whenever and 
 in whatever form He speaks. The Confession is only con- 
 cerned to teach that it is when speaking in the Holy Scripture 
 that He is the supreme Judge, and that when so speaking the 
 Church must yield allegiance v/hatever may have been the 
 
THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 43 
 
 decrees of councils or opinions of ancient writers; and that 
 private spirits must obey, whatever the doctrines of men may 
 have been ; in other words that Church and Reason must yield 
 to the supreme Judge the Holy Spirit, when speaking in Holy 
 Scripture. I have not said that the Holy Spirit speaks the final 
 \vord in the Reason to which the Church and the Bible must 
 yield. I have not exalted the Reason above the Bible. I am 
 no Rationalist. It is the teaching of the Confession to which 
 I subscribe, that the Holy Spirit when He speaks the infallible 
 word in Holy Scripture always speaks through the Scripture 
 to the Reason, and by His inward work in the heart, in the 
 Reason, gives certainty, assurance, and infallible conviction of 
 the truth and grace of God. There is no conflict between 
 Reason and Scripture in such a case. There can be none. The 
 Holy Spirit unites them in an infallible bond of certainty. 
 
 (g) The prosecution also cite in evidence several answers to 
 questions in the Catechisms which teach that Holy Scripture is 
 "the only rule of faith and obedience," "the only rule to direct 
 us how we may glorify and enjoy Him." 
 
 The only matter charged against me in the original charge 
 was that my doctrine was in irreconcilable conflict with the 
 cardinal doctrine of Holy Scripture and Confession, that " Holy 
 Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice." 
 The prosecution leave off the adjective infallible, and now 
 charge me with teaching a doctrine which is in conflict with 
 the doctrine that Holy Scripture is the only rule of faith and 
 practice. Let me call your attention to the purpose of the 
 Inaugural. 
 
 The aim of the Inaugural Address was not to vindicate the 
 Bible as a rule of faith ; certainly not to say anything which could 
 directly or indirectly militate against that essential doctrine. 
 If that had been my aim I would have made it my theme. My 
 aim was to set forth the divine authority of Holy Scripture, and 
 therefore the title given to the Address was " The Authority of 
 Holy Scripture." That was its theme, that was the objective 
 point of its argument and its rhetoric. It aimed to remove 
 every stumbling-block set up by the traditional dogma in the 
 way of the authority of Holy Scripture. It endeavored to set 
 forth the authority of Holy Scripture by adducing such evi- 
 
44 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 dence from Scripture itself as every reasonable man might 
 understand and estimate at its intrinsic value. 
 
 It is not charged that I deny the authority of Holy Scripture, 
 The complaint is that I do not make the authority of the Bible 
 sufficiently great to be the rule of faith and practice. But this 
 complaint is without justification, for it is not necessary to 
 maintain that the Bible is the only authority in matters of re- 
 ligion, or the only great fountain of divine authority, or the 
 only channel of divine guidance, in order to maintain consist- 
 ently that Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and practice. 
 May not the light of nature have divine authority? Listen to 
 the Confession : 
 
 "Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence 
 do so far manifest the greatness and power of God, as to leave men in- 
 excusable" (I. 1). 
 
 If the light of nature so manifest the greatness and power 
 of God — does it not bear divine authority? 
 Listen to Holy Scripture : 
 
 " For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things 
 contained in tlie law, these, having not the law, are a law unto them- 
 selves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their 
 conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the meanwhile accus- 
 ing or else excusing one another " (Rom. i. 19, 20) . 
 
 There is a divine law in the heart and conscience of men. 
 Paul here teaches that this law is divine, but it is not infallible. 
 
 Is it a necessary consequence that " the rule" should be " the 
 only great fountain of divine authority?" I claim that the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority and yet not a 
 rule of faith and practice. I shall explain this further on. But 
 I am not obliged to explain it. It is the duty of the prosecu- 
 tion to prove that there is irreconcilable conflict here. They 
 do not propose this in their charge. They have not proffered 
 any evidence of it. They have simply assumed it, and they have 
 asked you to take this leap over a chasm of difference in 
 order to give an illogical verdict. 
 
THE REASON 45 
 
 III 
 
 THE REASON 
 
 We have tested all the proofs given by the prosecution from 
 the Westminster standards and have seen that they do not 
 sustain the thesis of the prosecution ; but rather bear witness 
 against them. Let me now call your attention to the great 
 change that has taken place in the doctrine of the Reason since 
 the 17th century. 
 
 Christian philosophy has made rapid strides forward since 
 the Westminster Confession was framed. The Cambridge 
 Platonists, many of whom were pupils of the Westminster 
 divines, led the way in this great movement. The result has 
 been that the human reason has gained a place in Christian 
 theology that it could not have had before. How can we as 
 Christian scholars go back to the psychology and metaphysics 
 of the Westminster divines? Who will venture to ignore the 
 history of modern philosophy, or the achievements that have 
 been made in the field of theology in the long conflict with 
 Deism, Rationalism, and Agnosticism? The conscience has 
 assumed a vastly higher place in Christian ethics. The Meta- 
 physical Categories have been more correctly defined and ex- 
 plained. The Religious Feeling has emerged as an original 
 endowment of man which lies at the roots of his religious 
 nature. The witness of the Christian consciousness is of 
 immense- consequence to Christian theology. The Reason is 
 acknowledged to be the greatest endowment God has given to 
 man. It is the holy of holies of human nature, the presence 
 chamber of God within the soul, into which the divine Spirit 
 enters when He would influence the man, and in which our 
 Saviour dwells when He would make the man altogether His 
 own. We shall admit that the Westminster Confession is 
 altogether inadequate in its doctrine of the Reason. As I said 
 some years ago, " The Reason, the Conscience, and the Religious 
 Feeling, all of which have arisen during these discussions of the 
 last century, into a light and vigor unknown and unanticipated 
 at the Reformation, should not be antagonized the one with the 
 other, or with the Spirit of God " (" Biblical Study," p. 138) . The 
 
46 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 divine Spirit uses all these forms of the Reason in His influence 
 upon men, making them so many streams of the fountain of au- 
 thority which He causes to burst forth from the innermost soul of 
 man. The letters between Antony Tuckney and his pupil Ben- 
 jamin Whichcote show how much this venerable divine feared 
 the use of the Reason by the Cambridge school in the 17th cen- 
 tar3^ This attitude of Tuckney is assumed by conservatives in 
 every generation. The same class of men show similar fears at the 
 present time. But as each generation of scholars has overcome 
 the opposition of their times and shown such fears to be ground- 
 less, as due in part to old age and in part to the rigidity of 
 opinions in some minds, and in part to a natural reluctance to 
 accept the new with its consequences of change and uncer- 
 tainties of result — so the conservatives of our generation will 
 be overcome and their fears will ere long prove to be ghosts of 
 their oivn fashioning and illusions of their oivn creation. 
 
 There is no barrier whatever in the Westminster Confession 
 to this use of the Reason as a great fountain of divine authority. 
 The Confession does not unfold the doctrine of the light of the 
 Logos, or the mode by which the Holy Spirit regenerates and 
 sanctifies children, idiots, and redeemed pagans apart from 
 Bible and Church — it does not describe the activities of the 
 Holy Spirit in the forms of the Reason. But that does not 
 justify us in shutting our eyes to new light and new evidence 
 on this important doctrine. Our subscription protects our 
 liberty in all matters not defined by the Confession. Here is 
 the open field of extra-confessional doctrine in which the 
 Church has not given its decision and where, if it be ready to 
 decide, it must make its decision in the constitutional way by 
 revision overtures to the presbyteries. "The Westminster 
 Confession opens the gates to this doctrine when it represents 
 that the divine Spirit 'works when, and where, and how he 
 pleaseth, ' and it does not exclude the light of the Logos by its 
 denial of the sufficiency of the light of Nature. The authority 
 of the light of Nature is one thing, the authority of the light 
 of Grace is another thing. The authority of the natural Reason 
 is one thing, the authority of the Reason as informed by the 
 divine Spirit is another thing. The sufficiency of the light of 
 Nature is a doctrinal error, but the sufficiency of the Light that 
 
THE REASON 47 
 
 shines forth from the divine countenance in the presence cham- 
 ber of the Reason, through the religious feeling and the con- 
 science, is one of the grandest doctrines of the Bible, of history, 
 and of human experience." 
 
 I. — Positive Evidence from the Confession 
 
 We have shown that there is nothing in the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith which contravenes the doctrine that the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. We shall now 
 show that the Confession -distinctly recognizes the Reason as a 
 great fountain of divine authority. The prosecution shut their 
 eyes to seven chapters of the Confession (12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 
 26) when they represent that my doctrine of the Reason is 
 erroneous. In their original charges they state that I " strike 
 at the vitals of religion" in teaching that the Reason is a gi-eat 
 fountain of divine authority. I do indeed " strike at the vitals 
 of religion," but in a sense quite different from that in their 
 minds, for this doctrine so strilxes at the vitals of religion 
 that there can he no vital religion without it. It does indeed 
 enter into the very life of the i^eligion of Jesus Christ. It 
 strikes at the harriers of dead orthodoxy and harren eccle- 
 siasticism and strikes through them to the fountain-head of 
 Christian Life. 
 
 (a) There can be no such thing as Effectual Calling unless 
 the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The 
 Westminster Confession teaches that — 
 
 "^\11 those whom God hath predestinated imto life, and those only, he 
 is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, eflfectually to call, by his 
 word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by 
 nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ ; enlightening their minds 
 spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God ; taking away 
 their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh ; renewing 
 their wills and by his almighty power determining them to that whidi 
 is good ; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they 
 come most freely, being made willing by his grace" (X. 1) . 
 
 In effectual calling the Holy Spirit acts upon the soul of man. 
 The call is b}' the divine word and the divine Spirit; always by 
 the di Wne Spirit but not always by the divine word ; but whether 
 
48 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the divine word is used or not, in any case it is the divine Spirit 
 who enlightens the mind to understand the things of God; 
 gives a new heart of flesh for the old heart of stone ; renews the 
 will, determining it by almighty power to that which is good. 
 All these operations of the divine Spirit change the mind, the 
 heart, the will, the constituent parts of the inner man. Does 
 any one suppose that the divine Spirit enlightens the mind 
 v/ithout using the Reason? Can the heart be transformed from 
 a hard stone to sensitive flesh without using the Religious 
 Feeling? Can the will be determined to that which is good 
 without using the Conscience? If mind, heart, and will are 
 changed in effectual calling, then Reason, Religious Feeling, 
 and Conscience are quickened with the pulsations of the divine 
 Spirit and animated with new life. When the mind is savingly 
 enlightened by the Spirit of God, how can this be otherwise 
 than by the Spirit of God speaking with divine authoritj^ 
 through the forms of the Reason, so that the mind understands 
 the things of God on the authority of God? When the will is 
 renewed and determined by the divine Spirit to that vrhich is 
 good, how otherwise can it be determined than by a divine au- 
 thority in the conscience overcoming every doubt as to the good, 
 and ever}'- disinclination to the good? 
 
 In effectual calling, the calling is effectual simply because 
 the Holy Spirit enters the human Reason with divine energy to 
 work through the Reason effectually in all the avenues of human 
 nature. By effectual calling the redeemed enter into a new 
 world in which divine authoritj'' flows through the fountain of 
 the Reason to govern and enrich all their lives. 
 
 (b) There can be no such thing as Sanctification unless the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The Westmin- 
 ster Confession teaches that — 
 
 "They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart 
 and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and per- 
 sonally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his 
 word and Spirit dwelling in them" (XIII. 1) . 
 
 Sanctification is accomplished by Christ's word and Spirit 
 dwelling in them — not by Christ's word alone, but also by the 
 indwelling Spirit ; by the v\''ord and Spirit usually in Christian 
 
THE REASON 49 
 
 lands; but by the Spirit always in every land and in every 
 redeemed person. By the word dwelling in us we understand 
 not only Holy Scripture engraved on the memory, but appro- 
 priated by the soul and transformed into principles of holy 
 living and doing. How then shall we understand the indwell- 
 ing Spirit? "Where does the holy Spirit dwell if not at the cen- 
 tral point of our human nature, and where else can that be for 
 anj^ intelligent person than in the Reason, where the conscience is 
 taught to speak the categorical imperative which is now truly 
 a word divine ; where the religious feeling is stimulated to holy 
 impulses which are as the breath of God to men ; where the 
 Reason is informed with holy thoughts which are truth from 
 heaven ; and where the divine presence fills the soul with the 
 assurance of a divine authority which is no bondage, but peace 
 and joy? There can be no sanctification unless the Holy Spirit 
 dwell in the Reason and so by divine authority govern the life 
 and conduct. This was distinctly taught by the old Puritans 
 in their pursuit of personal holiness. It was imbedded by them 
 in the Westminster Confession. This Puritan principle was 
 revived by Wesley and made by him one of the cardinal prin- 
 ciples of Methodism. He committed the sad mistake of inclos- 
 ing it in inadequate and erroneous statements of the doctrines 
 of sin and of grace, and yet it has proved a life-giving force to 
 that great organization. This principle has been again here 
 asserted with power by the Salvation Army. 
 
 It is very significant at the close of our century, that we have 
 a great military organization outside the Christian Church, 
 without a ministry and without the sacraments, which seeks 
 above all things the salvation of the lost and endeavors to im- 
 part a full salvation to all people. The Salvation Army has be- 
 come one of the most powerful religious organizations in the 
 world. It has the presence of Christ and the power of the 
 Holy Spirit and the blessing of God the Father in its redemp- 
 tive work. Like the Society of Friends, the Army claims 
 immediate communion with Christ. It uses the Bible but it 
 does not use the Church. It uses the Reason and especiallj'" the 
 Religious Feeling, still more than it uses the Bible in order to 
 direct union with the Holy Spirit and communion with Christ. 
 You will find these statements among its orders for field officers : 
 4 
 
50 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 " Tlie F. O. must hare been converted or changed by the power of the 
 Holy Spirit from the old, worldly, selfish, sinful nature to the new, 
 holy, heavenly, divine nature ; and not only must he thus have received 
 a new heart, but he nuist have the Holy Spirit living in that heart, pos- 
 sessing it and working through it, to will and to do the good pleasure of 
 God " (Section II. 1) . 
 
 " (d) He has been changed by the Divine power into the image of God. 
 He has been remodelled after the pattern of the second Adam, having 
 been born again of the Spirit of God, so that now he has become a par- 
 taker of the Divine natTire. 
 
 " (e) He is possessed and controlled by God. His body is the dwelling- 
 place of the Holy Spirit. As God hath said, ' I will dwell in them and 
 walk in them. I will be their God and thej^ shall be my people ' (I. Cor. 
 vi. 16). Consequently the will of God is done in him, and through him, 
 and by him. He lives the same kind of life and is actuated by the same 
 pui-pose as God Himself ; that is, a life of benevolence. God lives for the 
 welfare of the universe ; the F. O. lives for the happiness of mankind." 
 
 I do not approve of all the statements of General Booth and 
 his officers with regard to sanctification, but in the language 
 quoted they state the Biblical ideal and the Puritan ideal of 
 our Westminster Confession. Christian life in the Presbj^terian 
 Church has too often not been in accordance with this idea. Our 
 dogmatic divines have neglected the doctrine of sanctification. 
 Our ministry, trained for the most part in speculative dogma 
 rather than in a Biblical faith, to a scholastic theology rather 
 than to a Westminster theology, have failed to honor sufficiently 
 the indwelling Spirit of God. It would seem that God has 
 raised up the Salvation Army to stimulate us all to seek a full 
 salvation and to live Christian lives which are directed by the 
 Holy Spirit dwelling in the Reason and sending forth streams 
 of divine authority through all the activities of our nature in 
 order to make our souls like a well- watered garden, a fruitful 
 paradise of God. 
 
 (c) There can be no such thing as Saving Faith unless the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The West- 
 minster Confession teaches that — 
 
 "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the 
 saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts ; 
 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word : by which also, 
 and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased 
 and strengthened " (XIV. 1) . 
 
THE REASON 61 
 
 This section teaches that the grace of faith is the work of the 
 Spirit of Christ in the hearts of the elect, whereby they are 
 enabled to believe. If faith is wrought in our hearts by the 
 divine Spirit, can it bo wrought in any other wayithan through 
 the Reason? Can there be any faith in which the conscience, 
 the religious feeling, and the Reason do not share? 
 
 " The principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and rest- 
 ing upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal redemp- 
 tion " (XIV. 2). 
 
 Can there be any " receiving and resting upon Christ " if the 
 Reason exclude Christ, if the conscience disapprove of Christ, 
 if the religious feeling shrink from Christ? It is because the 
 Holy Spirit lights up the chambers of the soul, it is because 
 Jesus Christ shines in our hearts with light divine that we see 
 Him and know our Saviour, as we see and know the sun when 
 he rises at the break of day. It is through the effusion of divine 
 energy, the infusion of divine life, the suffusion of divine light, 
 that sinful man is born of God to live in the Spirit and know 
 his Saviour. As an old Puritan says : 
 
 " Faith then is the gift of God, and the act of man : a wonderfull and 
 supernaturall gift of God, and a lively motion of the heart renewed by 
 grace, and powerfully moved by the Spirit. The power to beleeve, and 
 will to use that power, is of God : But the act of the will in resting upon 
 Christ is mans. It is man that beleeveth, but it is God only and al- 
 together that inableth, stirreth up, putteth forward, and inclineth the heart 
 to beleeve. By Gods enlightening man seeth, by his teaching he under- 
 stands : and the Lord inclining his will, hee willeth, embraceth, possessetli 
 and keepeth Christ with all blessings promised in him. So that faith is 
 the motion of mans heart wrought in him by the Spirit of God. Even 
 as a wheele, which of itselfe cannot move, yet being moved of another, 
 doth move ; whose motion though but one, is said to be the motion of 
 the mover, and of the thing moved ; so faith is nothing but the action of 
 God in man, but considered in a diverse manner it is both the act of God 
 and man : as wrought by God in man, it is the work of the Lord ; as the 
 motion of man, his heart being moved of God, it is the act of man. 
 For the action of man in boleeving with the heart, is nothing but hi.s 
 knowing and acknowledging of things, by Gods making him know and 
 acknowledge them ; his apprehending, willing, chusing. embracing, and 
 retaining them, by Gods making him to apprehend, will, chuse, embrace, 
 and retaine them" ("A Treatise of Faith," Ball., pp. 11, 12). 
 
52 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 (d) There can be no such thing as Good Works well pleasing 
 to God, unless the Reason is a great fountain of divine author- 
 ity. The Westminster Confession teaches that — 
 
 " Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly 
 from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, be- 
 sides the graces they have already received, thei'e is required an actual 
 influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of 
 liis good pleasure " (XVI. 3). 
 
 In order to good works it is therefore necessary that the Holj'' 
 Spirit should "work in the believer to will and to do of his 
 good pleasure. " If the Holy Spirit work in a man, how els© 
 shall He work than in the forms of the Reason? The Holy 
 Spirit not only works in the man, but He dwells in him while 
 working, in his innermost soul. And where can the Holy 
 Spirit dwell within us save in the forms of the Reason? 
 
 (e) There can be no such thing as Assurance of Grace unless 
 the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The West- 
 minster Confession teaches that — 
 
 "This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, 
 grounded upon a fallible hope ; but an infallible assurance of faith, 
 founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward 
 evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony 
 of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with ovir spirits that we are the 
 children of God : which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby 
 we are sealed to the day of redemption " (XVIII. 2) . 
 
 The " inward evidence of these graces," " the testimony of the 
 Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits, " what is this ex- 
 cept the witness of the Holy Spirit within the forms of the 
 Reason? 
 
 "A Methodist minister some years ago insisted to me that Presbyterians 
 did not believe in the doctrine of assurance. I could hardly convince 
 him by reading to him the statement of the Confession of Faith. He 
 said that he had never met a Presbyterian who believed the doctrine ; 
 that Presbyterians only hoped they were saved, but were never assured 
 of their salvation. My observations and inquiries have led me to the 
 opinion that in the main the Methodist minister was correct. The min- 
 istry and people of the Presbyterian Church have not as a rule sought 
 assurance of grace and salvation as it has ever been their privilege and 
 duty to do. The Reformed doctrine, that 'this infallible assurance doth 
 not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait 
 
THE REASON 53 
 
 long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it' 
 (XVIII. 3) , has induced Presbyterians to rest content with the posses- 
 sion of simple justifying faith. They have not realized the grace of 
 adoption and 'the testimony of the Spirit of adoption ;' they have not suf- 
 ficiently advanced in the grace of sanctification and so have not the in- 
 ward evidences of those graces unto which these promises are made " 
 ("Whither?" pp. 157, 158). 
 
 If the Westminster doctrine of the Assurance of Grace were 
 reallj^ a part of the living faith of the Presbj^terian Church, no 
 one could accuse me of heresy for teaching that the Reason is a 
 great fountain of divine authority, for let any one consider what 
 is involved in this doctrine. It is the assurance of a believer, 
 the making him certain that he is a child of God. This comes 
 by inward evidence within the soul of man, not merely by out- 
 ward evidence from Bible or Church. It is the Holy Spirit 
 witnessing with our spirits — Spirit with spirit — not simply the 
 Holy Spirit witnessing through Holy Scripture and Holy Sac- 
 rament. It is the direct and immediate contact of the Holy 
 Spirit with the spirit of the believer — a contact which gives 
 certainty. What can give certainty except divine evidence? 
 What can assure our souls but divine authority? The Confes- 
 sion distinctly teaches that the Holy Spirit is present to the 
 spirit of man with divine authority, and that presence is within 
 the man, in his inmost being, his higher spiritual nature. 
 Where is that presence if not in the forms of the Reason? 
 
 (/) There can be no true Liberty of Conscience unless the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The Confession 
 states the great practical principle of Puritanism as follows : 
 
 "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the 
 doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to 
 his word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe 
 such docti'ines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience is to 
 beti-ay true liberty of conscience ; and the requiring an implicit faith, 
 and au absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, 
 and reason also " (XX. 2) . 
 
 God is the Lord of the conscience. The conscience has no 
 other Lord. The conscience is especially the place where God 
 is Lord and through which He exercises His divine authority. 
 Liberty of conscience is essential to true religious life and 
 
54 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 activity. No " implicit faith " is required. No blind obedience 
 is lawful. The Christian conscience refuses to close its eyes. 
 It ever looks upward for authority divine, to enjoy the vision 
 of God. Conscience refuses bondage, it is the free-born daugh- 
 ter of God. True religion appeals to the conscience, the faith- 
 ful monitor of God within the breast. Let the conscience rule 
 the man and God will rule him. Bind him to blind obedience, 
 any external authority whatever, whether church or state, 
 whether system of dogma or letter of Scripture, and you ob- 
 struct the dominion of God in the man. The conscience must 
 remain free in order to healthful religious life. The Lord of 
 the conscience must speak with divine authority through the 
 conscience in order that the life may be a holy life. If the Lord 
 of glor}' inhabit the conscience, make it His throne within the 
 man, all its monitions will be divine. This is the ideal of lib- 
 erty of conscience which every Christian should seek. You 
 shatter this ideal for j^ourselves, if you say it is heresy to teach 
 that the Reason — explaining Reason as the conscience — is a 
 great fountain of divine authority. 
 
 (g) There can be no real communion with Christ, unless the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The West- 
 minster Confession teaches : 
 
 "All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their head, by his Spirit 
 and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, 
 resurrection, and glory : and, being united to one another in love, they 
 have communion in each other's gifts and graces ; and are obliged to the 
 performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their 
 mutual good, both in the inward and outward man " (XXVI. 1) . 
 
 The bond between the saints is a bond of faith tied by the 
 Holy Spirit. The Church and the Bible often mediate between 
 the appropriating faith and the bestowing Holy Spirit; but 
 they do not take the place of either the Holy Spirit or of faith. 
 Faith lays hold of Christ, the direct object of the soul's activ- 
 ities. Faith so unites to Christ as to give fellowship in the 
 graces of Christ and in the life of Christ from His incarnation 
 to His reign and second advent. This faith so unites with 
 Christ that there is direct and immediate communion with 
 Him, Christ with irresistible attraction draws faith to Him 
 and faith rests on His breast. Where can faith and Christ 
 
THE REASON 55 
 
 meet save in the Reason? Faith does not ascend to heaven. 
 Christ descends from heaven. Christ presents Himself to faith 
 as its appropriate object, as its source and inspiration, as the 
 ground of its existence and its certaint}'. Christ imparts cer- 
 tainty to faith in this communion; where alone it can be 
 imparted, in the forms of the Reason. 
 
 I called attention to the neglect of these chapters of our Con- 
 fession by the traditional orthodox^" in my "Whither?" three 
 j-ears ago. I said : " We have gone over the eleven chapters 
 that make up the central section of the Westminster Confes- 
 sion. We have seen a general neglect of these precious doc- 
 trines by the Traditional Orthodoxy. The current orthodoxism 
 has fallen sadlj^ short of the Westminster ideal. As it erred 
 by excessive definition in the first eleven chapters, it has erred 
 by a general failure in the second eleven chapters, so that the 
 Presbyterian Church at the present time is at an angle with its 
 Confession of Faith ; and subscription to the Westminster sj^s- 
 tem in the historic sense is out of the question" (p. 1G2). I am 
 not surprised, therefore, that the prosecution seem so uncon- 
 scious of the existence of these doctrines of our Confession, as 
 to suppose that I am heretical because I subscribe to them and 
 teach them in their historical meaning. These chapters declare 
 me innocent and convict the prosecution of heresy. 
 
 (g) In addition to these seven chapters of our Confession, let 
 me call your attention to two important statements with refer- 
 ence to the Reason in connection with the doctrine of H0I3' 
 Scripture : 
 
 "The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be be- 
 lieved and obej'ed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or 
 church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof " (I. 4) . 
 
 "Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine 
 authorit}"^ thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing 
 witness by and with the word in our hearts " (I. 5) . 
 
 These clauses of our Confession give the Reason a very im- 
 portant oflSce in the use of Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is 
 in itself an external means of grace. It is necessary that the 
 grace contained therein should in some way be communicated 
 to the human soul. Its grace must be transferred from the 
 written page and the speaking voice into the heart of man. By 
 
66 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the eye and the ear it approaches man. How shall it gain a 
 lodgment in his mind and transform his heart? The Confes- 
 sion represents that only the Holy Spirit can accomplish this by 
 His inward work in our hearts, that is, working in our con- 
 sciences and in our religious feelings, in our reason. The West- 
 minster Confession, therefore, in eight chapters teaches that the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority, and that there 
 can be no impartation of the grace of God to men and no appro- 
 priation of the grace of God by men, unless this grace enters 
 with divine authority into the forms of the Reason. You cannot 
 deny this doctrine without destroying the great central doctrines 
 of our Confession of Faith. 
 
 II. — Evidence from Holy Scripture 
 
 We have consumed so much time in our proofs from the 
 Confession, that we hesitate to consume any more in the argu- 
 ment from Holy Scripture. And yet it seems necessary under 
 present circumstances to give at least an outline of this argu- 
 ment. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the highest forms of prophecy 
 under the Old Testament dispensation, and the New Testament 
 as well, originated by the influence of the Holy Spirit speaking 
 to holy men through the forms of their reason. If there is 
 anything supernatural in Biblical prophecy, that prophecy, at 
 least in a measure, must have originated from the direct contact 
 of the divine Spirit with the human spirit. Even in the lower 
 forms of prophecy, in the ecstatic state, when the man lies 
 prostrate on the ground, or has his eyes closed and his senses 
 shut to the external world, the divine Spirit gives the holy im- 
 pulse, the insight, and the foresight, those great prophetic en- 
 dowments which enable the prophet to declare the things of 
 God. How much more is this the case in those holy writers 
 who have given us the sacred Scriptures. Unless they were 
 holy penmen with extraordinary prophetic gifts, with super- 
 natural endowments communicated by divine authority speak- 
 ing in the forms of the Reason, there is no basis for the divine 
 authority of Scripture at all. The Confession recognizes this 
 when it says : 
 
THE REASON 57 
 
 "Therefore it pleased the Tjord, at sundry times and in divers man- 
 ners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church ' 
 (I. 1). 
 
 When therefore I say that " the Reason is historically a great 
 fountain of divine authority," I am justified by the histor}' of 
 divine revelation until the close of the canon, whether the state- 
 ment be true with regard to later times or not. On this account 
 I claim that the first charge should be thrown out of court. 
 But inasmuch as I claim that this divine authority in the, 
 forms of the Reason extends to the present age, as for example 
 in the case of Martineau, I will at once proceed to set forth m}'- 
 Biblical authority for this opinion. Let me, however, say at 
 once that I subscribe to this statement of the Confession : '" These 
 former waj'S of God's revealing his will unto his people being now 
 ceased" (I. 1). Nothing has been added to the canon of Holy 
 Scripture by divine revelation since the days of the apostles, 
 and it seems altogether improbable that anything will be added 
 in the future. The question is, therefore, whether there is any 
 divine authority in the forms of the Reason for other purposes 
 than formulating inspired writings for a canon of Holy Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 VVe appeal to the statements of Holy Scripture respecting 
 those outside the visible kingdom of God, and therefore ex- 
 cluded from contact with Holy Scripture and Church. What 
 shall we say to the preaching of Paul? 
 
 "And he made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face 
 of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds 
 of their habitation ; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel 
 after him, and find him, though he is not far from each one of us : for 
 in him we live, and move, and have our being ; as certain even of your 
 own poets have said. For we are also his offspring " (Acts xvii. 26-28) . 
 
 Do none of these offspring of God among the heathen feel after 
 Him? Do those who feel fail to find Him? Do none of those, 
 the root of whose being is in God, look to the root and become 
 conscious of that fountain of life springing up within them? 
 Or are these words of Paul a fancy, incapable of realization, 
 a dream which finds no counterpart in the real heathen man? 
 
 What of the preaching of Peter? 
 
58 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but in 
 every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accept- 
 r.blo to him " (Acts x. 34, 35). 
 
 Are there no God-fearing men among the nations who hold to 
 the ethnic religions'? Are there none who give alms and work 
 righteousness? Was Peter mistaken? Does God really respect 
 persons and reject a man because he was not born a Hebrew or 
 because he was not educated in Christian lands? Was Corne- 
 lius the only illustration of this profound utterance? And was 
 he accepted simply because he might have been a proselyte? 
 
 What of the preaching of Jesus? 
 
 "The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this genera- 
 tion, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah ; 
 and behold, a greater than Jonah is liere. The queen of the south shall 
 rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it : for 
 she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; 
 and beRold, a greater than Solomon is here" (Matt. xii. 41, 42) . 
 
 If the proud Assyrians, the inhabitants of Nineveh, were not 
 excluded from repentance and redemption because the}^ had no 
 Bible and were hostile to the kingdom of Israel, why should any 
 other metropolis of the ethnic religions be excluded if they 
 repent in accordance with the teaching they have? Is the 
 Oriental queen the only potentate who has found God by wis- 
 dom outside the kingdom? True, the one heard the preaching 
 of Jonah and the other the wisdom of Solomon. But there is 
 no evidence that either of them accepted Holy Scripture or 
 united with Holy Church. 
 
 We appeal to the promises of our Lord. 
 
 (1) The presence of Christ Himself is promised: 
 
 "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in 
 the midst of them" (Matt, xviii. 20). 
 
 "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt, 
 xxviii. 20). 
 
 "I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you. Yet a little while, 
 and the world beholdeth me no more ; but ye behold me : because I live, 
 ye shall live also. In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, 
 and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and 
 keepeth them, he it is that loveth me : and he that loveth me shall be 
 loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself ud*:o 
 
THE REASON 59 
 
 him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto liin:", Lord, what is to come to 
 pass that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world ? 
 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my 
 word : and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and 
 make our abode with him " (John xiv. 18-24) . 
 
 Jesus distinctly promises His own abiding presence with His 
 people. If we have not so seen Christ and known Him, it is 
 because we have not lived in accordance with the privileges of 
 our religion. 
 
 (2) The presence of the Holy Spirit is promised: 
 
 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, 
 that he may be with you for ever ; even the Spirit of truth : whom the 
 world cannot receive ; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him : 
 ye know him ; for he abideth with you and shall be in you" (John xiv. 
 16-18). 
 
 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into 
 all the truth : for he shall not speak from himself ; but what things so- 
 ever he shall hear, these shall he speak : and he shall declare unto you 
 the things that are to come. He shall glorify me : for he shall take of 
 mine, and shall declare it unto you " (John xvi. 13, 14) . 
 
 If Ave have not the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, it 
 is an evidence that we are feeble Christians. 
 Consider the teachings of the Epistles : 
 
 " Kjiow ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God 
 dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall 
 God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are " 
 (I. Cor. iii. 16, 17). 
 
 " Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost which 
 is in you, which ye have from God? and je are not your own; for ye 
 were bought with a price : glorify God therefore in your body " (I. Cor. 
 vi. 19, 20). 
 
 "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves 
 as your servants for Jesus' sake. Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall 
 shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the 
 knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ " (II. Cor. 
 iv. 5, 6). 
 
 "For this cause I bow mj^ knees unto the Father, from whom every 
 family in heaven and on earth is named, that he would grant you, ac- 
 cording to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with 
 power through his Spirit in the inward man ; that Christ may dwell in 
 
60 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 your heai-ts thi'ough faith ; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded 
 in love, may be sti-ong to apprehend with all the saints what is the 
 breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ 
 which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled xinto all the fulness of 
 God" (Ephesians iii. 14-19). 
 
 "If then ye were raised together with Chi-ist, seek the things that are 
 above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind 
 on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the eartli. 
 For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who 
 is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested 
 in glory " (Colossians iii. 1-4). 
 
 "And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in 
 him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which 
 he gave us " (I. John iii. 24) . 
 
 These are only specimens of a multitude of passages which 
 distinctly teach that the Church as a bodj', and Christians as 
 individual members of that body, have the presence of Christ, 
 the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the power from God the 
 Father with them, and that it is their privilege to recognize 
 this divine presence and to live under the authority of God. 
 Those therefore who deny that the Reason is a great fountain 
 of divine authority overlook some of the most important pas- 
 sages of Holy Scripture, especially those which guide into the 
 higher life of communion with the Triune God. 
 
 III. — Tlie Testimony of Christian Experience 
 
 Let me call your attention to my motive for introducing 
 the divine authority in the forms of the Reason into my 
 Inaugural Address. If you will read the Inaugural with any 
 degree of attention, you will see that my purpose was not to 
 extol Rationalism or to magnify Martineau or to teach the sal- 
 vation of the heathen ; but as I distinctly said : " We have ex- 
 amined the Church and the Reason as seats of divine authority 
 in an introduction to our theme, the authority of the Scrip- 
 tures, because they open our eyes to see mistakes that are com- 
 mon to the three departments " (p. 28). 
 
 My subsequent use of the divine authority in the forms of 
 the Reason was in order to show that the three seats of 
 authority speak in harmony ; and in order to point to their vast 
 
THE REASON 61 
 
 importance for a higher Christian life. I said, and I reaffirm 
 what I said : " The Reason also has its rights, its place and 
 importance in the economy of Redemption. I rejoice at the 
 age of Rationalism, with all its wonderful achievements in 
 philosophy. I look upon it as preparing men to use their 
 reasons in the last great age of the world. Criticism will go 
 on with its destruction of errors and its verification of truth 
 and fact. The human mind will learn to know its powers and 
 to use them. The forms of the reason, the conscience, the 
 religious feeling, the aesthetic taste — all the highest energies of 
 our nature will exert themselves as never before. God will 
 appear in their forms and give an inward assurance and cer- 
 tainty greater than that given in former ages. These increased 
 powers of the human soul will enable men to search those 
 higher mysteries of Biblical theology that no theologian has 
 yet mastered, and those mysteries that are wrapped up in the 
 institutions of the Church to all who really know them. It is 
 impossible that the Bible and the Church should ever exert their 
 full power until the human reason, trained and strained to the 
 uttermost, rise to the heights of its energies and reach forth 
 after God and His Christ with absolute devotion and self- 
 renouncing love. Then we may expect on the heights of theo- 
 logical speculation, and from the peaks of Christian experience, 
 that those profound doctrines that now divide Christendom by 
 their antinomies will appear as the two sides of the same law, 
 or the foci of a divine ellipse, which is itself but one of the 
 curves in that conic section of God's dominion in which, in 
 loving wisdom. He has appointed the lines of our destiny " 
 (pp. 65, 66). 
 
 Consider for a moment, (a) What can you do in private 
 jfrayer unless divine authority comes to you in the forms of 
 the Reason? How can you fix your mind on God, how can 
 you send forth a petition unto His ears, how can you expect an 
 answer unless the soul reaches forth with all its powers in 
 order to lay hold upon God? And where will you find Him? 
 In the air? Can you ascend to Him? We speak of it in local 
 relations, but we do not really ascend to heaven — God descends 
 to us. He condescends to answer us by entering into us and 
 taking possession of us by His almighty presence and power. 
 
63 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 How can you know that your prayers have been heard? 
 How can you know that they have been answered unless the 
 divine Spirit gives you that knowledge through a fountain of 
 divine authority bursting forth within you? I appeal to your 
 Christian experience in private prayer. Are you not accus- 
 tomed to turn away from the world and fix your attention on 
 God in earnest pleas for help or glad thanksgiving? Have 
 you not been assured as by a touch divine flashing the light 
 you need to see the pathway of privilege and duty, determining 
 you to pursue the right course and calming your feelings into 
 a heavenly peace? No possible influence, of friendly counsel, 
 or hostile threats, can stay or deflect the course of the man 
 whom God has taught in prayer. 
 
 I cannot understand hov/ any one who is accustomed to 
 private prayer, and especially to ejaculatory prayer, and who 
 endeavors to follow the guidance of God's Spirit in his daily 
 life — I cannot understand how anj' such man could possibly 
 consent to a denial of a fountain of divine authority within 
 his own soul. 
 
 (b) Think also of your hours of religious meditation and pri- 
 vate communion with God. Some of you, I doubt not, have 
 enjoyed such hours when the world has vanished, Holy Church 
 is forgotten, the Bible lies unnoticed, and nothing interposes 
 between you and God. What heights of religious ecstasy, 
 what raptures of heavenly bliss do those enjoy whose religious 
 feelings thrill with the touch of the divine Spirit, whose con- 
 science is alive with holy concepts, and whose religious imagi- 
 nation sees Jesus Christ in His wondrous grace and matchless 
 beauty. Such heavenly places in Christ Jesus are open to us 
 because Christ Jesus comes to us in accordance with His 
 promise and enters the forms of the Reason, and fills all the 
 avenues of the soul with fountain-streams of sweetest authority. 
 
 (c) How can Christian doctrine be rightlj" unfolded unless 
 by a Christian speculation guided hj the divine Spirit working 
 within the Reason? There is speculative theologj" which is 
 mere rationalizing — there is scholastic theology that is mere 
 scholasticism. All such theologj^ is a mere process of logical 
 evolution, subject to the errors into which weak man is ever 
 falling. But a true Christian theologian who would know the 
 
THE REASON 63 
 
 truth of God must be willing to do the will of God. Faith can- 
 not go far ahead of practice. Theology cannot outstrip life. 
 Nothing is genuine in Christian theology which is not born of 
 God's Spirit. How else shall the Christian theologian get the 
 truth of God unless he be guided by the Holy Spirit into tl^e 
 truth? The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and in the indi- 
 vidual Christian for this purpose, giving divine authority and 
 certainty of truth in the forms of the Reason. Thus the theo- 
 logian grows in the divine doctrine. Thus the Church advances 
 in its most holy faith. 
 
 I have shown you by indubitable evidence from Confession 
 and from Scripture and from Christian experience that " there 
 are historically three great fountains of divine authority, the 
 Bible, the Church, and the Reason." It is an historical fact 
 which cannot be gainsaid without closing the eyes to evidence 
 which pervades history. 
 
 Early in our century a great revival movement took its rise 
 in Oxford, and spread all over the Church of England and the 
 churches which are her daughters. It was the Anglo-catholic 
 revival, whose essential principle was the recognition of the 
 divine authority in the Church. In the middle of our century 
 another revival movement spread over the English-speaking 
 world, having as its great principle the divine authority in the 
 Bible. In the closing years of our century another great 
 revival took its rise in the East of London and spread all over 
 Christendom in the form of the Salvation Army. This Arm}- 
 is the antithesis of the Anglo-catholic movement because it is 
 altogether unchurchly. It seeks immediate communion with 
 God, divine authority within the soul by the baptism of Blood 
 and Fire which come from the real presence of Christ and the 
 all-pervading power of the indwelling Spirit. 
 
 I call these three great revival movements of our centur}- to 
 witness that divine authority comes to men througli the three 
 great fountains, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Every 
 revival movement of the past witnesses a similar confession. 
 Wherever there has been vital religion, wherever there have 
 been holy men and women seeking after the living God, God 
 has given them the assurance of His presence and authority, 
 sometimes through the Church, sometimes through the Bible, 
 
C)4 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 and sometimes through the Reason. We cannot deny this 
 without shutting our eyes to history, or refusing to recognize 
 in these revival movements anything but illusions and delu- 
 sions of pious enthusiasts. I decline to recognize one form as 
 genuine and refuse the others as delusions. I recognize them 
 all, each in its place combining to accomplish the full work of 
 grace in the world. 
 
 Convict me of heresy under Charge I. and you challenge the 
 Christian centuries. All the ages will be against you and, in a 
 multitude of voices like the roar of many waters, will denounce 
 5'ou as knowing neither the truth nor the power of God. 
 
 The Case of Martineau 
 
 I have shown you that the doctrine which I truly hold, that 
 "the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority," is an im- 
 portant doctrine of Holy Scripture and of our Standards. I 
 shall now show you that the inferences from this doctrine made 
 by the prosecution in their charge are inferences for which thej' 
 are exclusively responsible, and for which you cannot hold me 
 responsible without a violation of the laws of process in our 
 Church and without a violation of the laws of logic established 
 by God in our minds. 
 
 It seems altogether probable that this clause is directed 
 jtgainst what I said with reference to Martineau ; for the only 
 passage cited from my Inaugural which can in any way be tor- 
 tured into sustaining it is the following : 
 
 " 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 the}^ forget that the essential 
 thing is to find God and divine certaint}-^, 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 depre- 
 ciate the means of grace so essential to most of us, but we are 
 warned lest we commit a similar error, and depreciate the rea- 
 ■* son and the Christian consciousness" (Charge, p. 4). 
 
 I am glad that the prosecution omit Martineau's name from 
 
THE REASON 65 
 
 the charge, and that therefore they make no such imputations 
 against him as they made in Specification III. of the original first 
 Charge, when they said : " such as James Martineau, who denies 
 the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atone- 
 ment, 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 w^ell as most of the theology 
 of the Epistles. " But they have introduced these imputations 
 into their argument ; and it appears that thej^ use Martineau 
 as a representative of "such men as reject the Scriptures as 
 the authoritative proclamation of the will of God and reject 
 also the way of salvation through the mediation and sacrifice 
 of the Son of God as revealed therein ; " for in no other possible 
 way than by proving that Martineau does so reject the Scrip- 
 tures and the Son of God, can they prove this section of their 
 charge. I mentioned no other name than Martineau in connec- 
 tion with my doctrine of the Reason, and I certainly did not say 
 that either Martineau as an individual or the rationalists as a 
 class rejected Christ and the Scriptures. I am not responsible 
 for anything I did not say in my Inaugural. I am not respon- 
 sible for any opinions the prosecution may impute to Martineau. 
 If it be true that James Martineau denies so many doctrines 
 vviiich I hold dear, I greatly regret it. I have not learned from 
 his writings that he was so sweeping in his denials as the pros- 
 ecution allege. The prosecution certainly present no proof of 
 it. But it makes no difference to this court whether the prose- 
 cution are right or wrong in their charges against Martineau. 
 These have nothing whatever to do with the case. We are all 
 of us shocked at times b}- his utterances. I am as strongly 
 opposed to his speculative errors as any of you. I am not a 
 sponsor for his orthodoxy. He is not a party in this case. He 
 is beyond the reach of these prosecutors. He is a member of a 
 Presbytery in Ireland. They should confine themselves to the 
 offences of Dr. Briggs, whom they are able to reach through 
 the circumstance that they are fortunate enough to be members 
 of the Presbytery of New York. But here as elsewhere the 
 offence is one in the imagination of the prosecution, for which 
 they have no justification in the Inaugural Address. I have 
 nowhere said that Holy Scripture is " not sufficient to give that 
 5 ••*. 
 
66 THE DEFENCE OF PKOFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto 
 salvation." I said that " Martipeau did not find divine author- 
 ity in the Church or the Bible, but he did find God enthroned 
 in his own soul." Holy Scripture is sufiicient to give saving 
 knowledge even when men do not find it. It is sufiicient for all 
 men — for the entire world. But all men do not in fact gain this 
 saving knowledge from the Bible. I did not say whether Mar- 
 tineau gained saving knowledge from the Bible or not. That 
 was not the question before me in the Inaugural. I was con- 
 sidering the question of religious certainty, the fountains of 
 divine authority. I did not say that Martineau rejected the 
 way of salvation revealed in the Bible, but I said Martineau 
 could not find certainty of divine authority in the Church or 
 the Bible. He says he did not and could not. We have no 
 right to doubt him or dispute him in this statement of his expe- 
 rience. The only question which was raised by me was, 
 whether he did find God "enthroned in his own soul." That is 
 a question of fact. I did not raise the question whether a man 
 who rejects the way of salvation revealed in the Scripture may 
 find God enthroned in his own soul. I did not consider that 
 question in the Inaugural. I decline to consider it now. I 
 insist that this court shall confine itself to the questions 
 raised in my Inaugural and not rove over the field of theology 
 generally, under the guidance of this erratic committee. I have 
 shown that Scripture, history, Confession, and experience prove 
 that there are those who find God enthroned within their own 
 souls. The question is whether Martineau was such a person. 
 I have said that he was such a person. It is possible I may be 
 mistaken in this question of fact. But such a mistake is no 
 heresy unless I am a heretic under the general charge that " the 
 Reason is a great fountain of divine authority." If lam in 
 error about Martineau, the example used by me was a bad one. 
 A bad example may discredit a proposition, but it does not dis- 
 prove it. If my opinion of Martineau errs at all, it is on the 
 side of Christian love which covers over a multitude of sins. 
 The prosecution run great risks of trenching on Christian love, 
 if they venture to assert that Martineau is mistaken when he 
 claims to have found God enthroned in his own soul. Listen 
 to his words : 
 
THE CHURCH 67 
 
 "Divine guidance has never and nowhere failed to men ; nor has it 
 ever, in the most essential things, largely differed amongst them, but it 
 has not always been recognized as divine, much less as the living contact 
 of Spirit with spirit — the communion of affection between God and man. 
 While conscience remained an impersonal law, stern and silent, with 
 only a jealous Nemesis behind, man had to stand up alone, and work 
 out for himself his independent magnanimity ; and he could only be tlu 
 pagan hero. When conscience was found to be inseparably blended with 
 the Holy Spirit, and to speak in tones immediately divine, it became 
 the very shrine of worship — its strife, its repentance, its aspirations, 
 passed into the incidents of a living drama, with its crises of alienation 
 and reconcilement ; and the cold obedience to a mysterious necessity was 
 exchanged for the allegiance of personal affection. And this is the true 
 emergence from the darkness of ethical law to the tender light of the life 
 divine. The veil falls from the shadowed face of moral authority, and 
 the directing love of the all-holy God shines forth" (Martineau's "'Seat 
 of Authority in Religion, " p. 75) . 
 
 Some of you may stand on the lower legal stage of the Chris- 
 tian religion and so deny the religious experience of a man who 
 can say such things. I cannot do so and I refuse to do so. It 
 is plain to me that Martineau has gained a higher stage of 
 Christian freedom and direct communion with God, and it 
 is immaterial hoiv he gained it. 
 
 IV 
 
 THE CHUECH 
 
 I DECLARED in the Inaugural that " The Church is a great 
 fountain of divine authority." I make the same declaration 
 in your presence at this time. I shall show you that this 
 declaration is not contrary to Holy Scripture and the Westmin- 
 ster Standards, but on the other hand that it is so important a 
 doctrine of the Holy Scripture and the Standards that to deny 
 it would be heresy. 
 
 I have already tested under the first charge the nine pas- 
 sages of Scripture cited by the prosecution under both the first 
 and the second charges, and I have shown that there is no 
 relevancy in them to either charge. 
 
 I have also considered the several passages of the Westmin- 
 ster Standard which are also the same under both cliarges, and 
 
68 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 have shown that they do not teach that Holy Scripture is the 
 sole fountain of divine authority ; and that they leave room for 
 the Reason as a fountain of divine authority. It seems unneces- 
 sary for me to review them again and show that they also leave 
 ' room for the Church as a fountain of divine authority. I shall 
 use my time therefore in the positive argument from Confession 
 and Holy Scripture in support of my thesis. The prosecution 
 claim that the doctrine that the Church is a fountain of divine 
 authority is contrary to the doctrines that the Holy Scripture is 
 most necessary, and the rule of faith and practice. It is diffi- 
 cult to understand how any intelligent man can leap the gulf 
 hehveen these tivo propositions; or how any Churchman, 
 Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presby- 
 terian, or Congregationalist can deny that divine authority 
 speaks and acts through the Church. If an ancient Puritan 
 or a Westminster divine could descend from Paradise into this 
 Presbytery to-day, he would be filled with astonishment that a 
 Presbytery of a Church that calls itself Presbyterian could 
 have so far abandoned the faith of the Puritan fathers, as to 
 permit the prosecution to charge a minister with heresy for main- 
 taining that there is divine authority in the Church. I am well 
 aware, as was stated in the book " Whither?" that modern Pres- 
 byterians have departed far away from the Westminster doc- 
 trine of the Church and the sacraments ; but who could have 
 imagined that a man v/ould be charged with heresy for hold- 
 ing to the Westminster doctrine and maintaining it against the 
 errors of modern dogmaticians? It is significant that the 
 Westminster Confession gives seven chapters (XXV. -XXI.) 
 upon the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments, doctrines 
 as essential and necessary to the system of doctrine taught in 
 the Westminster Confession as the doctrine of Holy Scripture 
 contained in the first chapter. The prosecution do not cite 
 against me a single sentence from these seven chapters when 
 they charge me with error in teaching that the Church is a 
 fountain of divine authority. If this be an error, it touches 
 the doctrine of the Church as well as the doctrine of Holy 
 Scripture, and one would expect to find something in these 
 seven chapters that would give the Westminster decision of this 
 most important question. To these chapters I sincerely sub- 
 
THE CHURCH 69 
 
 scribe, and I challenge the sincerity of the subscription to these 
 chapters of any man who denies that the Church is a fountain 
 of divine authority. I shall take the liberty of citing these 
 chapters to give their testimony in the case, and it will be 
 found that their testimony is in unmistakable terms against the 
 prosecutors. 
 
 The Westminster Confession teaches clearly that the Church 
 is a great fountain of divine authority («) : 
 
 "The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his church, hath therein ap- 
 pointed a government in the hand of church-officers, distinct from the 
 civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven 
 are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain 
 and remit sins, to shut the kingdoin against the impenitent, both by the 
 word and censures ; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of 
 the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require " 
 (C. F., Chap. XXX. 1, 2). 
 
 I know that there is an overture from the General Assembly 
 proposing to weaken the force of this chapter by inserting a 
 qualifjdng clause, but this clause will not do away with the 
 doctrine — it simply shows that the Revision Committee of our 
 branch of the Presbyterian Church has in a measure receded 
 from the high ground maintained in the seventeenth century. 
 But in any case this section teaches that church officers have 
 the divine authoritj^ of Jesus Christ in their government of the 
 Church and in their use of the power of the keys. This au- 
 thority does not make them infallible, but it does make them 
 ministers of Jesus Christ with authority to rule as His agents. 
 
 Unless the members of this court have been called to their 
 office by the authority of Jesus Christ, speaking to them first in 
 their own reasons in the internal call and then through the 
 authority of ijie Church in the external call of ordination, this 
 court is no court of Jesus Christ, no church organization, what- 
 ever else it may be. Unless Jesus Christ has committed to you 
 the ke^'s of the kingdom of heaven, you have no authority 
 whatever to exercise ecclesiastical discipline. You are usurp- 
 ing the crown rights of Jesus Christ, which He has given only 
 to His church, if j'^ou with one voice assert the authority of the 
 Church and with the other prosecute me for heresy for assert- 
 ing the divine authority of the Church. There is no need of d 
 
70 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 heresy trial on this question. If this Presbytery is ready to 
 declare that the Presbyterian Church has no divine authority, 
 I will at once renounce your jurisdiction. I would refuse to 
 fellowship as an ordained minister with a body of ministers 
 claiming to be ordained and yet denying that they had any 
 divine authority to exercise their ministry. I would seek the 
 fellowship of a Church that is conscious of a divine authority 
 in its ministry, in its sacraments, and in its ordinances. 
 (b) The Westminster Confession further teaches that 
 
 "The visible church, Avhich is also catholic or t:niversal under the 
 Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law) , consists of 
 all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together 
 with their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility 
 of salvation. Unto the catholic, visible church, Christ hath given the 
 ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfect- 
 ing of the saints in this life, to the end of the world : and doth by his own 
 presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual there- 
 unto " (C. R, Chap. XXV. 2, 3). 
 
 This passage clearly shows that the visible Church is the 
 kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; that He hath given the 
 ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God unto it ; and " doth by 
 His own presence and Spirit make them effectual." If the 
 Presbytery is not a court of the Kingdom of Christ erected by 
 divine authority ; if you have not been given the ordinances by 
 Jesus Christ to administer in His name ; if Jesus Christ and 
 His Spirit are not present in the midst of you — then you are no 
 part of the Church of Jesus Christ at all. I do not think that 
 any considerable number of you hold such heretical views. 
 But whatever this court may conclude, I declare that the state- 
 ment of the Confession is a true statement. There is divine 
 authority in the Church ; it is Christ's kingdom. He reigns over 
 it, He inhabits it by His Spirit, He makes its institutions effi- 
 cacious, B[e grants access to Himself through His Church. Our 
 Presbyterian fathers rejoiced in such access. Their descend- 
 ants enjoy this unspeakable privilege. Are we to be robbed of 
 our birthright? Are you ready to banish from the official 
 doctrine of the Presbyterian Church the witnessing Spirit, 
 the indwelling Christ, the living God, in order to incase the 
 
THE CHURCH 71 
 
 Holy Trinity in the covers of a book? Shall we destroy the 
 Church in order to exalt the Bible? 
 
 (c) The Larger Catechism defines a sacrament as follows : 
 
 "A saci-ament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, 
 to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are witliin the covenant of 
 grace, the beueiits of his mediation ; to strengthen and increase their 
 faitli and all other graces ; to oblige them to obedience ; to testify and 
 cherish their love and communion one with another, and to distinguish 
 them from those that are without " (Question 162) . 
 
 The sacraments which we are constantly enjoying in our 
 churches, being instituted by Christ, must have divine author- 
 ity. Whenever we use them, the authority of God is impressed 
 upon us by the words of institution and the prayer of consecra- 
 tion. They are not mere ceremonies established by divine 
 authority. They are means of grace, they give something of 
 immense value to us. They signify, seal, and exhibit the bene- 
 fits of Christ's mediation. There is divine authority in this 
 signifying, sealing, and exhibiting. There is no less authority 
 in what the sacraments set forth than in what Holy Scripture 
 sets forth. They " strengthen and increase faith and all other 
 graces." How can they do this unless divine authority imparts 
 that strength and increase? 
 
 The Shorter Catechism thus describes the efficacy of a sacra- 
 ment : 
 
 "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any 
 virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them ; but only by the 
 blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith 
 receive them " (Question 91) . 
 
 If the efficacy of a sacrament depends upon the working of 
 the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit must be in touch with the 
 believer in the sacrament, and if He is in touch with the be- 
 liever, God is in touch with him, and there is divine authority 
 imparted in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The Larger Catechism tells us how we feed upon the body 
 and blood of Christ : 
 
 "Ar the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present 
 in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord's supper: and yet are 
 spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really 
 
72 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 than the elements themselves are to their outward senses ; so they that 
 worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord's supper do therein 
 feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal or carnal, 
 but in a spiritual manner ; yet truly and really, while by faith they re- 
 ceive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of 
 his death " (Question 170). 
 
 This passage teaches the real presence of Christ to the soul 
 of the believer, and that the believer may have and often does 
 have a consciousness of the sacred presence while the spirit of 
 Christ communes with his spirit. If our Lord is really present 
 to us in the Lord's Supper, is not divine authority present with 
 us in Him? and if divine authority is present in Him are not 
 all of the spiritual benefits thus received of divine authority, 
 and do they not come with certainty to our souls? The Holy 
 Supper is often more potent than Holy Scripture in the impar- 
 tation of divine authority and certainty. It is thus rightly 
 named a sealing ordinance. You cannot deny that there is 
 divine authority in the Church without denying the presence of 
 Christ in the Holy Eucharist, without robbing the sacraments of 
 their historic value to the Christian world. I appeal to your 
 religious experience in the communion hour. Have we not 
 enjoyed fellowship with our divine Master at the Lord's table? 
 Have not our religious emotions been quickened by a power 
 divine? Have we not felt in our inmost being the divine touch? 
 Have we not seen the Lord with eyes of faith and holy love? 
 Listen to the testimony of prophet and sage, of evangelist and 
 apostle, of martj-r and saint, of theologian and reformer, of holy 
 men and women in all ages, an innumerable company, whose 
 voices flow down the ages, from all churches, from all lands, 
 and in every language and tongue, through every variety of 
 liturgy and ceremony and rite : 
 
 O Christ, Saviour divine ! we testify to Thy gracious pres- 
 ence. Thy sweet authority, Thy heavenly gifts of comfort and 
 of joy, in the sacrament of Thy love. 
 
 (d) I ask your attention to the first section of the Book of 
 Discipline : 
 
 "Discipline is the exercise of that authority, and the application of 
 that system of laws, which the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed in his 
 Church : embracing the care and control, maintained by the Church, over 
 its members, ofiicers, and judicatories. " 
 
THE CHURCH 73 
 
 This section distinctly says that Jesus Christ has appointed 
 in His Church authority to exercise discipline, and makes the 
 statement that discipline is the exercise of that authority. The 
 Directory of Discipline is the authority under which you are 
 now acting at the present time. If you renounce the doctrine 
 of the first section of the Discipline of our Church, you vitiate 
 any process, even if it be conducted in strict accordance with 
 every other section. If you adhere to the doctrine of this sec- 
 tion, you must bring the case to a close so far as this charge is 
 concerned. 
 
 The Book of Discipline claims that there is divine authority 
 in the Presbyterian Church to exercise discipline. It does not 
 tolerate a specification of heresy which contravenes its funda- 
 mental principle. It rules the prosecutors out of court for using 
 the powers of the Book of Discipline to overthrow the funda- 
 mental principle of the Book of Discipline. These prosecutors 
 deny the authority of the Church to do the very thing they 
 request the Church to do. 
 
 The Church is a great fountain of divine authority accord- 
 ing to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church. There is no 
 inconsistency between the first chapter of our Confession which 
 teaches that the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of 
 faith and practice, and the seven chapters of the Confession 
 which set forth the divine authority which there is in the 
 Church. Holy Church, like Holy Scripture, is an ordinance of 
 God, a means of grace, a channel of divine influence, an instru- 
 ment of salvation, a fountain of holy authority. As divine 
 authority speaks to us in holy psalmist and holy prophet, in 
 holy sage and holy historian, in holy evangelist and holy 
 apostle and holy seer in manifold ways and divers manners, 
 yet blending in holy harmony ; so divine authority speaks to us 
 through Holy Church in all the forms of divine worship, in 
 sacred praise, in public prayer, in the solemn reading of the 
 divine Word and in the preaching of the Gospel. 
 
 Have you not felt the thrill of the divine touch, the ecstasy 
 of the divine presence, and the rest of submission to and acqui- 
 escence in the divine authority impressing itself with irresist- 
 ible weight and conviction of certainty when assembled with 
 God's people in public worship? Why do Christians resort to 
 
74 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 Holy Church if it be not for the regenerating, cleansing, sanc- 
 tifying, and comforting influences of the divine Spirit which 
 pervade a living Church and an assembly of living Christians? 
 It is because the enthroned Christ is really present with His 
 assembled people. The Holy Spirit broods over them with 
 divine energy, and divine authority flows forth from the foun- 
 tain of the Church in a thousand quickening rills. 
 
 The Church is not an infallible rule of faith. I do not 
 recognize an infallible pope. I do not recognize an infallible 
 episcopacy; still less do I recognize an infallible General 
 Assembly. It became clear when the presbyters overthrew 
 the bishops in the 17th century that presbyter might be only 
 "priest writ large," and the history of Presbyterianism has 
 shown that presbyter bishops may be guilty of more extensive 
 despotism than diocesan bishops. Our Confession truly says : 
 
 "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or 
 particular, may err, and many have erred ; therefore they are not to be 
 made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both " 
 (XXXI. 3). 
 
 The Church has no divine authority in itself — apart from 
 God. Its divine authority is in that its chief institutions 
 v/ere divinely appointed, and that these divinely appointed 
 institutions are the ordinary channels of the divine grace. 
 The Church is a fountain of divine authoritj^. The divine 
 authority flows forth from God Himself, as the sole original 
 fountain-head and ultimate source, through the fountain of the 
 Church, and distributes its healing and life-giving streams 
 through all its ministries. 
 
 Possibly I may engage in a work of supererogation by citing 
 passages from Holy Scripture in evidence of the divine authority 
 that Christ imparts to His Church, and yet there are some 
 minds that are so blinded by prejudice that I might be charged 
 with disregarding Holy Scripture if I failed to use it. The 
 divine authority of the sacraments and the ministry may be 
 proved from the words of our Saviour : 
 
 "And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my church ; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 
 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever 
 
THE CHURCH 75 
 
 thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose ou earth shall be loosed in heaven " (Matthew xvi. 18, 19) . 
 
 "And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying. All authority 
 hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and 
 make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
 Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I commanded j-ou : and, lo, I am with you alway, 
 even unto the end of the world " (Matthew xxviii. 18-20). 
 
 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; 
 and he gave to the disciples, and said. Take, eat ; this is my bod3^ And 
 he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying. Drink ye all 
 of it ; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto 
 i-emission of sins " (^Matthew xxvi. 26-28) . 
 
 No one can interpret these words in any legitimate way 
 without finding in them the divine institution of the Christian 
 ministry, and the two sacraments. 
 
 Paul teaches the same doctrine : 
 
 "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how 
 that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread ; 
 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said. This is my body, 
 which is for you : this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also 
 the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood : 
 this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye 
 eat this bread and drink the cup, ye i^roclaim the Lord's death till he 
 come" (I. Cor. xi. 23-26). 
 
 " And he gave some to be apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, 
 evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the 
 saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body 
 of Christ : till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the 
 knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure 
 of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. iv. 11-13). 
 
 "For even as we have many members in one body, and all the mem- 
 bers have not the same office : so we, who are many, are one body in 
 Christ, and severally members one of another. And having gifts differ- 
 ing according to the grace that was given to us, whether pro^jhecy, let 
 us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith ; or ministry, let us 
 give oui'selves to our ministry ; or he that teacheth, to his teaching ; or 
 lie that exhorteth, to his exhorting : he that giveth, let him do it with 
 liberality; he that ruleth, with diligence ; he that sheweth mercy, with 
 clieerfulness " (Romans xii. 4-8.) 
 
 These passages are only specimens of a large number which 
 show conclusively that according to Holy Scripture the Church 
 is a divine institution, pervaded by divine grace, and flowing 
 
76 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 with divine authority in a myriad rills to quicken and enrich 
 the people of God. If this court could go so far astray from the 
 Bible and the Confession as to convict me of heresy for assert- 
 ing that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, you 
 would do me a very great honor. But that honor would be 
 embittered by the disgrace of a Church tuhich I love. 
 
 The Case of Newman 
 
 I have sho^vn you who the true heretics are, as regards the 
 main item of the charge. It is now necessary for me to test 
 the invalid inference attributed to me. The charge is that I 
 teach that "the Church is a fountain of divine authority, 
 ivhich apa7^t from the Holy Scripture, may and does savingly 
 enlighten men." 
 
 It is difficult for me to understand what the prosecution 
 mean by " apart from Holy Scripture may and does savingly 
 enlighten men." I turn to Specification II. of the original 
 Charge, for light. It reads as follows : 
 
 " Dr. Briggs affirms that, in the case of some, the Holy Scrip- 
 tures are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His 
 wiU, 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." 
 
 I understand, therefore, that " apart from" is a milder form of 
 "setting aside the supreme authority of the Word of God." 
 Three passages from my Inaugural Address are cited as proof. 
 But they do not prove it. The charge imputes to me what I 
 have never taught either directly or indirectly. This explana- 
 tion is sufficient according to law to compel you to vote me 
 guiltless, and I might simply rest my case upon it. But I pre- 
 fer to explain my statement and show you how the prosecution 
 pervert it. The citation from the Inaugural and the use made 
 of it in their argument show that the prosecution have the late 
 Cardinal Newman in mind. He was my sole illustration under 
 the head. If they fail in this illustration, they have no other. 
 
 (a) I said that Newman could not reach certainty through 
 the Bible or the Reason. I did not say that he did not obtain 
 
THE CHURCH 77 
 
 the saving knowledge of God through the Bible, or that the 
 Church savingly enlightened him apart from the Bible. I used 
 him as a modern example of one who found the Church a great 
 fountain of divine authority. Nothing whatever was said of 
 the sufficiency or insufficiency of Holy Scripture, or of saving 
 enlightenment from any source whatever. Newman never de- 
 nied the sufficiency of Holy Scripture to give that knowledge 
 of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation, or to 
 savingly enlighten men; and I never have denied it. The 
 prosecution make no difference between saving enlightenment 
 and certainty. There is a great difference between them. If 
 they had known the 18th chapter of our Confession, they could 
 never have made such a blunder. Religious certainty is not 
 necessary to salvation. Saving enlightenment, the knowledge 
 sufficient unto salvation, according to Calvinistic principles does 
 not bear certainty with it. As the Confession says : 
 
 "This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, 
 but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difBcul- 
 ties before he be partaker of it : yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know 
 the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extra- 
 ordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. 
 And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make 
 his calling and election sure ; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in 
 peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and 
 in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits 
 of this assurance : so far is it from inclining men to looseness " 
 (XVIII. 3). 
 
 "True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways 
 shaken, diminished, and intermitted : as, by negligence in preserving of 
 it ; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, 
 and grieveth the Spirit ; by some sudden or vehement temptation ; by 
 God's withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such 
 as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light : yet are they never 
 utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith ; that love of Christ 
 and the brethren ; that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty ; out of 
 which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be 
 revived, and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from 
 utter despair " (XVIII. 4). 
 
 Simple faith contains knowledge sufficient unto salvation, but 
 only a faith which is grown to be strong, clear-eyed, and fruit- 
 ful has infallible assurance or certainty of salvation. I said 
 
'7^ THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 that Newman did not get this certainty through the Bible and 
 the Reason, but that he did get it through the Church. The 
 prosecution seem to ignore this certainty. They say nothing 
 about it. It seems incredible that they should ignore the dif- 
 ference between saving enlightenment and certainty. They 
 could not say that "certainty of salvation can come only 
 through Holy Scripture " ? The Confession so clearly teaches 
 the reverse of it and Christian experience confirms the Confes- 
 sion, It is sufficient to refer to the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper. The Confession says that Christ is " as really, but 
 spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, 
 as the elements themselves are to their outward senses" 
 (XXIX. 7). 
 
 If this be a true statement, religious certainty is communi- 
 cated to the faith of believers by the really present Christ. The 
 Lord's Supper is a confirming and sealing ordinance. 
 
 But if any one should say Newman did not find certainty in 
 the sacrament, let him consider the further statement of the 
 Confession : 
 
 "Unto this catholic visible church, Christ hath given the ministn', 
 oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the 
 saints, in this life, to the end of the world : and doth by his own pres- 
 ence and Spirit according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto " 
 (XXV. 3). 
 
 If Christ " doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to 
 His promise, make the ministry and the ordinances of God 
 committed to the Church effectual for the gathering and per- 
 fecting of the saints," does He not give religious certainty 
 through the Church? He might gather the saints by simply 
 giving them a saving enlightenment, or a knowledge of God 
 sufficient unto salvation ; but He could not perfect the saints 
 unless He gave them also certainty, the assurance of grace and 
 salvation. What I said about Newman is therefore strictly in 
 accordance with the Confession. 
 
 The Case of Spurgeon 
 
 The prosecution use the passage from the Inaugural re- 
 ferring to Spurgeon, under both charges. They harp upon it 
 
THE CHURCH 79 
 
 in their argument to excite prejudice against me. What I 
 said about Spurgeon may not be pleasing to the prosecution. 
 It may be very distasteful to many members of the Presbytery. 
 But is it not strictly true? Is it not a fact that Spurgeon is an 
 example of the modern evangelical? Did he not assail the 
 Church and the Reason in the interest of the authority of H0I3' 
 Scripture? These are well-known weaknesses of the great 
 preacher. But he had so many excellent Christian qualities 
 that the world pardons his weakness in the matters referred to 
 and honors him as the noblest evangelical of them all. It may 
 seem strange to some of you that " the average opinion of the 
 Christian world would not assign him a higher place in the 
 kingdom of God than Martineau or Newman." But a little 
 reflection ought to convince you that it is so. Spurgeon is the 
 hero of the Evangelical party in the Church. He was gen- 
 erally esteemed to be the greatest preacher of the gospel in our 
 generation. His sermons have been of incalculable benefit to 
 multitudes. I yield to none in admiration of Spurgeon as a 
 master of sacred eloquence. But any one who understands the 
 state of religious opinion in England knows that Spurgeon onl}' 
 represented a party among the Non-conformists, and that a 
 considerable proportion of them would not assign him a higher 
 place than Martineau or Newman. He lived to find himself 
 in a hopeless minority in his own denomination and to separate 
 from the mass of the Non-conformists, whom he accused of 
 being on the " down grade. " He was not a master of Christian 
 theology, and, therefore, so soon as he went out of his sphere to 
 teach men v»nser than himself he made a sad failure among 
 those who were nearest to him in denominational affinities. In 
 the average opinion of the Church of England, Spurgeon would 
 certainly assume the lowest place of the three. Among Roman 
 Catholics, the world over, Newman would have the pre-emi- 
 nence. Among German Protestants, Martineau would hold 
 the highest rank. In North America, without doubt, Spurgeon 
 is in greatest estimation. I did not assign Spurgeon a lower 
 place than Newman or Martineau. I did not say that in the 
 opinion of the Christian world he would take the lowest plact' 
 of the three. I did not give the average opinion of the United 
 States, or of Non-conforming England, or of Presbyterian Scot- 
 
80 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 land, or of Ulster, or of the Evangelical party ; but I said cor- 
 rectly : " The average opinion of the Christian world would not 
 assign him a higher place in the kingdom of God than Marti- 
 neau or Newman." But suppose I made a mistake in statistics, 
 and my opinion is wide of the facts, is such a mistake heresy? 
 Am I responsible for the facts? Am I to blame if Spurgeon in 
 public estimation shares the throne with Martineau and New- 
 man? Is it any merit of mine if he be exalted above them? 
 Can I change the facts by my statements about them? Where 
 do they find in Holy Scripture the authority for exalting Spur- 
 geon above Martineau and Newman? Where do they find in 
 the Westminster Confession that the modern Evangelical is the 
 most favored of the children of God? Possibly the prosecution 
 by some cabalistic art or jugglery of exegesis may surprise us 
 by such evidence ; but they were bound to present such extra- 
 ordinary facts in order that we might give them due consider- 
 ation and deliberate answer. Their proofs do not exclude New- 
 man from the kingdom of God. They do not put him beneath 
 the feet of Spurgeon. 
 
 As Christian ministers I ask you, ought we not to estimate 
 these three representative Christians of our time with Chris- 
 tian love? And is it not Christian love to say, we refuse to 
 determine which of them has the highest place in the kingdom 
 of God? We recognize each as a prophet to our generation. 
 We see in each a man who has enjoyed the light of the divine 
 countenance and who has reflected in his life and character the 
 graces of a child of God. 
 
 I asked the question in the Inaugural, and I ask it again of 
 this court, whether in view of all the facts adduced, " may we 
 not conclude, on the whole, that these three representative Chris- 
 tians of our time have, each in his own way, found God and 
 rested on divine authority?" Let each juror answer this ques- 
 tion for himself. You must answer it in your verdict. You 
 must either say with me, " Yes, we may conclude that Spurgeon, 
 Newman, and Martineau have rested on divine authority;" or 
 you must say with the prosecution, " No ! Spurgeon found God 
 in the Bible, but Newman did not find God in the Church, and 
 Martineau did not find God in the Reason. They were mis- 
 taken in their religious experience. They were without God 
 
THE CHURCH 81 
 
 and without divine authority for their faith and life. '' You can- 
 not evade the issue. Your verdict will be interpreted by the 
 Christian world as a yes or no to the question. 1 rejoice in 
 this issue. Again I say, Yes; and I would deliberately choose 
 the company for time and for eternity of Martineau and New- 
 man rather than of such loveless persons as would cast them 
 out of the congregation of the faithful. 
 
 Co-ordinating the Fountains 
 
 I said in the Inaugural that " Men are influenced by their tem- 
 peraments and environments which of the three ways of access 
 to God they may pursue. " This was made the ground of a dis- 
 tinct specification under the original 1st Charge. The sentence 
 is cited among the extracts in the specification, and may therefore 
 be regarded as one of my declarations which is offered as contrary 
 to essential doctrine. It will explain my meaning over against 
 misrepresentations of it which were made in specification of the 
 original first charge and in the argument of the prosecution, 
 
 I did not say that men were determined by their environ- 
 ments, but influenced by their environments. No man ever 
 came to God without the prevenient call of God's Spirit. No 
 one ever found God in the Eeason until God Himself entered 
 into the Reason to make Himself known there. No one ever 
 found God in the Bible until the Holy Spirit pointed the way. 
 No one ever found God in the Church, until Christ's touch 
 opened his eyes. Men are indeed influenced by their tempera- 
 ments and environments. That is a matter of common experi- 
 ence. All are not Churchmen ; all are not Evangelicals ; all are 
 not Rationalists. But all may be Christians, using each one the 
 avenue of religion most familiar to him and most suited to him. 
 But in any case it is the divine Spirit who determines when, 
 and where, and how the effectual call shall be made; and 
 when, and where, and how the transforming grace shall be 
 imparted and the infallible assurance of faith bestowed. 
 
 It is said that I am co-ordinating the Bible, the Church, and 
 the Reason. The prosecution did not put this in their charge. 
 But they have put it into the minds of some of this court in 
 their argument and it ma}' infl,uence your decision. 
 6 
 
S3 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 I call attention to the fact that I have denied more than once 
 that I co-ordinated the three fountains of divine authority. I 
 denied it in the Appendix to the second edition of my Inaugural 
 as follows : " 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" (p. 85). 
 
 I denied it again in my lectures on " The Bible, the Church, 
 and the Reason," where I said: "The Churchmen have exalted 
 the Church above the Bible and the Reason. The Rationalists 
 have exalted the Reason above the Bible and the Church. 
 The Evangelical party have exalted the Bible above the Church 
 and the Reason ; but no party, so far as we know, has made 
 Bible, Church, and Reason co-ordinate, that is, on the same 
 level, in the same order, of equal, independent authority " (p. 63) . 
 
 And again : " The only persons so far as I know, who have 
 ever thought of co-ordinating the Bible, the Church, and the 
 Reason as fountains of divine authority, are some recent con- 
 troversialists who impute to others their own misconceptions, 
 or who, after the manner of scholastic logicians, invent imag- 
 inary opponents in order to show their dialectic skill in destroy- 
 ing them" (p. 210). 
 
 You cannot constrain me to accept the inferences of others. 
 You must in law accept my explanations. When I say, " The 
 Bible, the Church, and the Reason are historically three great 
 fountains of divine authority, " can you rightly infer that I co- 
 ordinate the three? How about the apostle John in the 1st 
 epistle, V. 8, 9, when he says : 
 
 "For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and 
 the blood : and the three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, 
 the witness of God is greater : for the witness of God is this, that he 
 hath borne witness concerning his Son. " 
 
 Are the Spirit, the water, and the blood co-ordinate wit- 
 nesses? Lfsten to Bishop Westcott. 
 
 Westcott argues that the water and the blood refer not only 
 to the baptism of Christ and the atoning blood of Christ on the 
 cross, but to the two sacraments : " Just as the Spirit is found 
 to be personal in His work with men, so also the water and 
 the blood speak personally through those in whom their efficacy 
 
THE CHURCH 83 
 
 is realized. The participle expresses the actual delivery of the 
 witness, and this as a present, continuous action. The witness 
 here is considered manifestly as the living witness of the Church 
 and not as the historic witness of the gospels. Through believers 
 these three, 'the Spirit, and the water, and the blood,' perform a 
 work not for believers only, but for the world (John xvii. 20 f)." 
 " The threefold witness of which St. John has spoken, simply 
 as being threefold, satisfies the conditions of human testimony. 
 Much more then, he argues, does a threefold divine witness 
 meet all claims ; and such a witness it is implied we have in 
 the witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This wit- 
 ness therefore is 'greater' than the witness of men in regard to 
 its authority." 
 
 Here we have three witnesses giving divine testimony to our 
 Saviour, without any reference to Holy Scripture : two of them 
 the sacraments, and therefore necessarily the Church, one of 
 them the divine Spirit. This passage not only shows that 
 there can be three witnesses speaking with divine authority 
 and yet not co-ordinate ; but it also shows that the two sacra- 
 ments of the Church bear in them and with them divine au- 
 thority. This Presbytery w-ill hardly undertake to declare 
 Bishop Westcott a heretic, especially when Luther and so many 
 of the Fathers are at his back. 
 
 I have now gone over the four specifications of the two charges, 
 which represent that the doctrine that there are three great 
 fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the Church, and the 
 Reason, is irreconcilable with essential and necessary doctrines 
 of the Confession and of Holy Scripture. If they are incon- 
 sistent doctrines, then I am indeed excluded from orthodoxy 
 in the Presbyterian Church. If they are not inconsistent, I am 
 not heterodox in this particular. I have given you my expla- 
 nations and my evidence. It is for you to give the verdict in 
 the fear of God and subject to the review of the superior courts 
 of the Church. Above them all stands the supreme court of 
 heaven, the tribunal of Jesus Christ, the only King and Head 
 
 of His Church. 
 
 High over high is watching. 
 And the Highest over them. 
 
 In the divine presence I challenge you to make a righteous 
 verdict. 
 
84 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 V 
 
 THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 
 
 Charge III. is as follows: 
 
 " The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 charges the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of 
 the said Church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, 
 with teaching that errors may have existed in the original text 
 of the Holy Scripture, as it came from its authors, which is con- 
 trary to the essential doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures 
 and in the Standards of the said Church, that the Holy Scrip- 
 ture is the Word of God written, immediately inspired, and the 
 rule of faith and practice." 
 
 I shall analyze this Charge as I did the previous two. (1) 
 The Charge alleges three offences. It alleges that the doctrine 
 taught by me is contrary to these three essential doctrines — (o) 
 that Holy Scripture is the Word of God written; (b) that Holy 
 Scripture is immediately inspired; and (c) that Holy Scripture 
 is the rule of faith and practice. 
 
 (2) It is alleged that I teach " that errors may ha.ve existed 
 in the original text of the Holy Scripture, as it came from its 
 authors." This statement of my doctrine I can admit as fairly 
 accurate. But when we look at the specification, notice that it 
 consists of a long extract from the Inaugural Address. You 
 should bear in mind that the only proper use of this extract is 
 to prove the doctrine attributed to me in the Charge, which 
 doctrine I admit. You have no right to use it to impute to me 
 any other objectionable doctrine. You have no right to vote 
 me guilty on the ground of any other objection to my words than 
 that stated in the Charge. This is all the more important in 
 view of the irrelevant passages of Scripture cited to sustain the 
 Charge, which may be interpreted by you in a sense different 
 from the true sense. You have no right to vote me guilty on the 
 basis of these passages. You can consider nothing but my 
 doctrine as stated in the Charge and determine whether that is 
 contrary or not contrary to the essential doctrines named in the 
 Charge. 
 
 (3) The only question which need concern us, therefore, is 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 85 
 
 whether my doctrine is contrary to any one, or any two, or all 
 three of the essential doctrines of the Confession stated in the 
 Charge. Doubtless the prosecution think that there is contra- 
 diction here ; and it may be that a majority of this Presbytery 
 think so. You may agree with a recent opinion that " a proved 
 error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but the 
 Scripture^s claims, and therefore its insjjiration in makiyuj 
 those claims." 
 
 But those who uttered these words had no authority to make 
 dogma for the Presbyterian Church. Their opinion is worth no 
 more than that of other theologians of equal rank. It is worth 
 much less than the authority of the much greater and more 
 widely honored divines whose names are given in my volume 
 on " The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, " as holding to 
 errors in Holy Scripture (pp. 215-235). 
 
 You may cite the deliverance of the last General Assembly 
 against me: 
 
 "The General Assembly would remind all nnder its care that it is a 
 fundamental doctrine that the Old and New Testaments ai-e the inspired 
 and infallible Word of God. Our Church holds that the inspired Word, 
 as it came from God, is without error. The assertion of the contrary can- 
 not but shake the confidence of the peojile in the sacred Books. All who 
 enter office in our Church solemnly profess to receive them as the only 
 infallible rule of faith and practice. If they change their belief on this 
 point Christian honor demands that they should withdraw from our 
 ministry. They have no right to use the pulpit or the chair of the pro- 
 fessor for the dissemination of their errors until they are dealt with by 
 the slow process of disciisline. But if any do so act. their Presbyteries 
 should speedily interpose, and deal with them for violation of ordination 
 vows. The vow taken at the beginning is obligatory until the party 
 taking it is honorably and properly released. The Genei'al Assembly en- 
 joins upon all ministers, elders, and Presbyteries, to be faithful to the 
 duty here imposed " (Minutes, pp. 179, 180). 
 
 In response to this deliverance of the last General Assembly, 
 I beg leave to say : (a) The General Assembly when it makes a 
 deliverance gives the opinion of all those who may be present and 
 who may consent to it. Such deliverance has no more weight 
 than the names of such persons can give it. It does not bind the 
 minority, still less those who were absent when the vote was 
 taken. (6) The General Assembly has no authority under the 
 constitution to make dogma by deliverance, (c) The General 
 
86 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOE BRIGGS 
 
 Assembly has no authority under the constitution to give an in- 
 terpretation of the doctrine of the Church by dehverance, and im- 
 pose such interpretation upon the Presbyteries and the ministry, 
 (d) It was a gross breach of propriety and a flagrant violation 
 of right for the General Assembly to attempt to decide a case 
 by deliverance which it had a few hours previous directed to 
 be approached by judicial process, (e) The ordination vow is 
 just as binding on the General Assembly w^hich imj^oses it as 
 it is upon the minister who takes it. The General Assembly 
 ought not to take the initiative in such a violation of obligation. 
 (/) If the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 should ever decide in a judicial case in accordance with said 
 deliverance, no self-respecting Biblical scholar could for a 
 moment remain in that branch of the Presbyterian Church. 
 He would need no reminder, still less a process of discipline, to 
 induce him to withdraw and connect himself with a Church 
 that was true to its constitution and its history. 
 
 I have put in evidence, and have asked you, in order to save 
 valti»ble time, to read instead of reading them myself, all those 
 extracts given in " The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, " on 
 pages 215-235; from Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, among 
 the Fathers ; from Luther and Calvin, among the Reformers ; 
 from Baxter and Rutherford among the Presbyterians of the 
 17th century; from Van Oosterzee of the Reformed Church of 
 Holland; from Marcus Dods, A. B. Bruce, James Iverach, pro- 
 fessors of the Free Church of Scotland ; from A. H. Charteris, 
 moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland ; 
 from the Anglicans, Sanda}^ and Gore of Oxford and Plummer of 
 Durham; from Prof. Beet of the English Wesle3'ans; from 
 Alfred Cave of the English Independents ; from our American 
 scholars, Thaj'er, W. R. Huntington, Apple, Fisher, Vincent, 
 and Fairchild. 
 
 These citations might be increased to an enormous extent. It 
 would not take a scholar long to decide between the authority of 
 the members of the General Assembly at Portland and the au- 
 thority of these Fathers, Reformers, Puritans, and modern di- 
 vines, who have given such emphatic statements of their opinion. 
 
 The court will see the great difficult}^ of the task now imposed 
 upon me in view of this deliverance of the General Assembly. 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 87 
 
 And yet I>do not hesitate to undertake it in the fear of God and 
 with a firm conviction that I can show you that the General 
 Assembly a't Portland by this deliverance violated the constitu- 
 tion of our Church and promulgated doctrine which is not 
 authorized by Scripture or our Standards. Your attention is 
 again called to the principle established in the introduction to 
 my defence. I showed you that it was not sufficient that a 
 doctrine should be essential and necessary in your opinion. It 
 must be essential and necessary to the Westminster system. It is 
 not enough that you, or certain dogmatic teachers, or the General 
 Assemblj^ by a majority vote, should declare a certain doctrine to 
 be inconsistent with an essential doctrine of the Westminster 
 Confession. It must be shown that it is really inconsistent with 
 the Westminster system itself. You cannot insist that your 
 deductions and reasonings should be accepted by me, if I hold 
 the opinion that your reasonings and deductions are -false. If 
 I can hold the two doctrines without regarding them as incon- 
 sistent, you cannot make them inconsistent to me. You may 
 exact of me that I shall be faithful to the doctrine of tlte true 
 and full inspiration of the Word of God written. But you can- 
 not exact of me that I shall say there are no errors in Holy 
 Scripture, for the reason that the Confession ""does not assert 
 this and I am not bound to your views of consistency or incon- 
 sistency — but only to the Confession and to my own judgment. 
 If the prosecution had claimed and had tried to prove that the 
 Confession teaches as an essential doctrine attested by Holy 
 Scripture that there are no errors in Holy Scripture, then it 
 would have been easy to test every such citation and show that no 
 such teaching can be found. In that they propose this doctrine 
 as a consequence of the statements of the Confession as to the 
 " Word of God written" and that the " Holy Scriptures are the 
 only infallible rule of faith and practice," they rest their case 
 upon the logical consequences of Confessional statements, in- 
 stead of the Confessional statements themselves. But we are 
 bound as Presbyterians only to the essential and necessary 
 articles of the Westhiinster Confession. We are not bound to 
 unnecessary'" and unessential statements of the Confession. 
 Still less are we bound to statements which are not in the Con- 
 fession at all, but which are regarded as logical deductions 
 
88 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 from the Confession by a party in the Church. If we are to be 
 held to all the supposed logical consequences of the Westminster 
 Confession, do you not see that you will be held by the dom- 
 inant party to the whole system of scholastic dogma taught in 
 certain schools of theology? By supposed logical deductions, 
 the Scriptures and the Confession will be overlaid by a crust of 
 traditional opinion which may go on developing into thicker 
 and more comprehensive forms until Confession and Bible are 
 buried under a mountain of scholasticism. 
 
 If the prosecution should succeed in establishing this dogma 
 of the inerrancy of Scripture as the official doctrine of the 
 Church, and all those who cannot subscribe to it should retire, 
 how long would it be before they would impose the dogma of 
 reprobation upon a weakened and crippled Church and make 
 revision of the Confession an impossibility? There are some 
 who think this is the real purpose of the prosecuting committee 
 and of those who are at their back in this trial. 
 
 Inasmuch as there is such a misapprehension of the facts of 
 the case, I must go into this question to some length and with 
 much care. I shall first take up the question of the consistency 
 of the two doctrines, then consider the Confessional statements, 
 and finally give the Biblical evidence. 
 
 I. — What is Plenary Inspiration? 
 
 I agree to the doctrines (1) that " Holy Scripture is the Word 
 of God written;" (2) "immediately inspired;" and (3) "the 
 rule of faith and practice." 
 
 Do these statements necessarily involve the doctrine that 
 there are no errors in Holy Scripture? {a) The doctrine that 
 "the Holy Scriptures are the rule of faith and practice" clearly 
 does not involve that " the Holy Scriptures are the rule in mat- 
 ters other than faith and practice." If I find fallibility in Holy 
 Scripture in matters of faith and practice, I am inconsistent 
 with the Confession. But, in the Inaugural, I expressly dis- 
 claimed such fallibility. This disclaimer is recognized in the 
 citations from my Inaugural given by the prosecution : 
 
 " The Bible has maintained its authority with the best scholars of our 
 time, who with open minds have been willing to recognize any error 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 89 
 
 that might be pointed out by historical criticism ; for these errors are all 
 iu the circumstantials and not in tlie essentials ; 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 i>rovidential 
 superintendence of the mind of the Author as distinguished from divine 
 revelation itself. It may be that this ])rovidential 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 w^e should aban- 
 don the whole field of providential 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, faitli, 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 
 devotions, our thinking, and our conduct " (p. 22) . 
 
 The only errors I have found or ever recognized in Holy 
 Scripture have been beyond the range of faith and practice, and 
 therefore they do not impair the infallibility of Holy Scripture 
 as a rule of faith and practice. 
 
 But it is claimed that if I recognize errors in matters beyond 
 the range of faith and practice, I excite suspicion as to the in- 
 fallibility of Holy Scripture within the range of faith and prac- 
 tice. You are entitled to that opinion for yourselves, but you 
 have no right to force your opinion upon me. The Confession 
 does not say " rule of all things, " but " the rule of faith and 
 practice. " You must judge by the Confession, not by your fears, 
 or your impressions, or by the conclusions you have made. But 
 is it true that fallibility in the Bible in matters beyond the 
 scope of the divine revelation impairs the infallibility in mat- 
 ters within the scope of divine revelation? We claim that it 
 does not. The sacred writings were not composed in heaven 
 by the Holy Spirit, they were not sent down from heaven bv 
 angel hands, they were not committed to the care of perfect 
 men, they were not kept by a succession of perfect priests from 
 that moment until the present time. If these had been the facts 
 in the case, we might have had a Bible infallible in every par- 
 ticular. But none of these things are true. God gave His 
 Holy Word to men in an entirely different way. He used the 
 human reason and all the faculties of imperfect human nature. 
 He used the voice and hands of imperfect men. He allowed 
 
90 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the sacred writings to be edited and re-edited, arranged and 
 rearranged and rearranged again by imperfect scribes. It is 
 improbable that such imperfect instrumentalities should attain 
 perfect results. It was improbable that fallible men should 
 produce a series of writings infallible in every respect. It was 
 sufficient that divine inspiration and the guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit should make their writings an infallible rule of faith and 
 practice, and that the divine energy should jDush the human and 
 the fallible into the external forms, into the unessential and 
 unnecessary matters, into the human setting of the divine ideals. 
 As the river of life flowing forth from the throne of God, ac- 
 cording to Ezekiel's Vision, entering into the Dead Sea quick- 
 ens its waters and fills them with new life, so that " everything 
 shall live whithersoever the river cometh " . . . " But the miry 
 places thereof and the marshes thereof shall not be healed" 
 (Ez. xlvii. 9-11) ; so may it be with that divine influence which 
 we call inspiration, when it flows into a man. It quickens and 
 enriches his whole nature, his experience, his utterance, his ex- 
 pressions, with truth and life divine, and yet leaves some hu- 
 man infirmities unhealed in order that the revelation may be 
 essentially divine and infallible and yet bear traces of the 
 human and fallible into the midst of which it came. 
 
 You will sometimes hear the proverb cited : " Falsus in uno, 
 falsus in omnibus." But this ancient proverb has no manner 
 of application to the matter in hand. It does not refer to errors 
 of ignorance or inadvertence, but to errors of deceit and false- 
 hood. If it could be shown that the w^ritings of the Old Testa- 
 ment, any of them, were written with the intent of deceiving 
 and misleading men, then we could not trust them as infallible 
 in matters of faith and practice. But the errors that have been 
 found in the Bible are not errors of deceit but of inadvertence, 
 not of falsehood but of lack of knowledge. A witness in a court 
 of justice is not rejected because he betrays ignorance and slips 
 into errors of detail, which may have resulted from carelessness 
 and inattention. His evidence is all the stronger for these 
 marks of simplicity and the faults of common people. A wit- 
 ness who makes no mistake is open to suspicion, lest his testi- 
 mony may have been prepared for the occasion hj his advocate 
 or himself. Historical documents are not cast aside as worth- 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 91 
 
 less because they contain errors. No historic document can be 
 found that is altogether infallible. Even the Pope of Rome 
 does not claim infallibility in all things, in his utterances at the 
 table and on the street, in his conversation with his friends 
 about literature, art, science, or philosophy, war, or finance, 
 but only when sitting in the chair of St. Peter he speaks, ex 
 cathedra, as the vicar of Christ, in his official position as the 
 supreme head of the Church in matters of faith and morals. I 
 refer you to the testimony presented to the court and read from 
 "Bibhcal Study," pp. 240-243, and "The Bible, the Church, 
 and the Reason," pp. 115-117, as setting forth the views which 
 I have held for many years on this subject, and I ask you to 
 consider whether they are in conflict with the Biblical or 
 Confessional doctrine of the rule of faith. 
 
 It is evident that I and others can hold that Holy Scripture 
 is "the only infallible rule of faith and practice," and yet hold 
 that there are errors in Hol}^ Scripture in matters that do not 
 in any way impair its infallibility in matters of faith and 
 practice. 
 
 (6) The charge of the prosecution is, that errors in Holj- 
 Scripture conflict with the essential doctrine that " Holy Scrip- 
 ture is the Word of God written." The prosecution may think 
 that there is conflict here, but they are mistaken. The reason 
 why they see conflict is because they interpret " Word of God 
 written " differently from what I do. They put into this doc- 
 trine in their original Specification, "true and full inspiration," 
 meaning so far as we can determine — (1) Plenary inspiration; 
 (2) Verbal inspiration; (3) Inerrancy. Let me remark at the 
 outset that although I admit the phrase "true and full inspira- 
 tion," it is not a phrase of the Confession or of Holy Scripture. 
 The only phrase of the Confession used by them in this state- 
 ment is "the Word of God written." I hold to the "true in- 
 spiration of the Word of God written, " but I also hold that 
 there are errors in H0I3' Scripture, and that there is no incon- 
 sistency between these statements. The inconsistency is in the 
 mind of the prosecutors because the}^ already include in the 
 term full inspiration, verbal inspiration and inerrancy ; whereas 
 I use plenary, or full, in the grammatical and historical sense as 
 referring to the contents of the words. When we say that a 
 
92 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 lamp is full of oil, we do not mean that the lamp is oil, but that 
 it contains oil in the receptacle which it incloses. When I say 
 the Scriptures are full of divine inspiration, I mean that the 
 Scriptures as writings are filled full with an inspired rule of 
 faith and practice, which rule fills and pervades Scripture in all 
 its parts. I have the authority of John Wallis, a clerk of the 
 Westminster Assembly, for this view, when he says : 
 
 " The Scriptures in tliemselves are a Lanthorn rather than a Light ; 
 they shine, indeed, but it is alieno lumine ; it is not their own, but a 
 borrowed light. It is God which is the true light that shines to us in the 
 Scriptures ; and they have no other light in them, but as they represent 
 to us somewhat of God, and as they exhibit and hold forth God to us, 
 who is the true light that 'enlighteneth every man that comes into the 
 world. ' It is a light, then, as it represents God unto us, who is the orig- 
 inal light. It transmits some rays ; some beams of the divine nature ; 
 but they are refracted, or else we should not be able to behold them. 
 They lose much of their original lustre by passing through this medium, 
 and appear not so glorious to us as they are in themselves. They repre- 
 sent God's simplicity obliquated and refracted, by reason of many inad- 
 equate conceptions ; God condescending to the weakness of our capacity 
 to speak to us in our own dialect " (John Wallis, "Sermon," Lond., 1791, 
 pp. 127, 128). 
 
 I apprehend that Wallis is a greater authority for interpret- 
 ing the Westminster Confession than any American theologian 
 or than the last General Assembly at Portland. It is evident, 
 therefore, that there is no logical inconsistency between these 
 statements unless you put into the phrase " plenary or full " all 
 that you wish to find there in the way of verbal inspiration and 
 inerrancy. If you do this I challenge your proofs from Holy 
 Scripture and Confession. 
 
 The Will of God Committed to Writing 
 
 {a) The Confession represents that — 
 
 " 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 church against the 
 corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to 
 commit the same wholly unto writing " (I. 1) . 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 93 
 
 This teaches that God "committed wholly unto writing" 
 •'that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary 
 unto salvation." This statement I sincerely adopt. But note 
 what was committed " wholly unto writing : " " the knowledge 
 of God and of his will which is necessarj^ unto salvation " — 
 nothing more ; not the knowledge of geography, not the knowl- 
 edge of chronology, not the knowledge of correct citations, not 
 exactness in names of persons and things, unless you can prove 
 that these are necessary to salvation. This statement of the 
 Confession amounts to nothing more than " rule of faith and 
 practice ; " it is hardly as much, because there are some matters 
 of faith and practice which may not be necessary to salvation. 
 This statement does not touch upon knowledge not necessary to 
 salvation. If there are errors in such matters as are not neces- 
 sary to salvation, what has that to do with this passage? When 
 it is said that God committed that wholl}" unto writing, does it 
 teach that God Himself committed to writing, or does it imply 
 the use of holy penmen? Manifestly the latter. If then God 
 used holy penmen to commit this knowledge to writing, j^ou 
 cannot conclude that these penmen did not commit to writing, 
 together with this knowledge of God necessary to salvation, 
 other knowledge which was not necessary to salvation ; and if 
 so, you cannot conclude that there were no errors in that matter 
 which these men wrote, unless you can also prove that God 
 commissioned them to commit this also to writing. You can- 
 not prove any such thing from this passage of the Confession 
 which limits itself to "knowledge necessary to salvation." 
 Further, " commit to writing " does not imply any more than 
 that this knowledge of God necessary to salvation is wholly in 
 these writings. It does not imply that the words which contain 
 this knowledge are inspired, or that they maj^ not be connected 
 with human and fallible material, 
 
 " Tlie Word of God Written " 
 
 (6) The phrase, " the Word of God written," in the first clause 
 of Section 2d of Chapter I., seems to have great importance 
 in the minds of the prosecution. I fail to see what use they 
 can make of it in proof of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. 
 
94 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 This section gives a list of the canonical books of Holy Scrip- 
 ture and prefaces the list with the statement, " Under the name 
 of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now con- 
 tained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are 
 these," etc. 
 
 This is a comprehensive statement which simply amounts to 
 this: that Genesis, Exodus, and so forth, are books of Holy 
 Scripture, that is, " the Word of God written." " Word of God 
 Written" is only an explanation of the term-" Holy Scripture." 
 It may be that the prosecution have in mind some hidden sense 
 of this passage which they have not yet brought out to the light 
 of day, but, with the best study that I can give it, it amounts 
 to nothing more than that Genesis is the written Word of God, 
 Exodus is the written Word of God, that is, is Holy Scripture, 
 etc., etc. I certainly hold to this. Genesis, Exodus, and the 
 entire list of writings given in this section are the Word of 
 God, constituent parts of Holy Scripture. I do not know why 
 the prosecution cite this phrase unless they think that it is con- 
 trary to my statement when I say : " The Bible, as a book, is 
 paper, print, and binding — nothing more. It is entitled to rev- 
 erent handling for the sake of its holy contents because it con- 
 tains the divine word of redemption for man, and not for any 
 other reason v/hatever" (p. 30). This extract was used in the 
 original Specification. It is left out of- the present Charge. But 
 was the Bible, as written by the sacred penmen, a book with 
 paper, print, and binding? We think not. All these are quite 
 modern. What printer was ever inspired, what paper-maker 
 ever communicated divine authority to the paper, what binder 
 ever imparted salvation through his tools to the binding? I 
 gave the true reason for reverent handling of the Bible. My 
 language indeed is only a paraphrase of the first section of the 
 Confession. The Confession says : " It pleased God to commit 
 the knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary unto 
 salvation wholly unto writing." I said: "for the sake of its 
 hoi}'- contents because it contains the word of redemption for 
 man." I do not see how my language could be any nearer to 
 the Confessional language unless I cited the Confession word 
 for word. 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 95 
 
 Holy Scripture is the Word of God 
 
 (c) The prosecution cite Section 4tli in order to prove that the 
 Confession teaches that Holy Scripture is "the Word of God." 
 There can be no doubt of this. The prosecution seem to inter- 
 pret it as if it meant that Holy Scripture is so the Word of God 
 that every sentence and word in it is divine and infallible. But 
 the Confession certainly does not say this, and it evidently does 
 n«t mean this. 
 
 I have shown that we cannot take the statement of one of the 
 three doctrinal standards as of essential importance unless it 
 correspond with the statements of the»other documents, and that 
 we must so interpret the varj'ing phrases of the three standards 
 as to get a doctrine which will be consistent with the phrasing 
 of them all. The Larger Catechism teaches that " the Holy 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of 
 God, the only rule of faith and obedience." But the Shorter 
 Catechism, the last of the three documents to be composed, and 
 which presupposes the other two, teaches that " 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." It is evident, therefore, that the Westminster 
 •doctrine of Holy Scripture must be so constructed as to enable 
 us to say, "the Bible contains the Word of God," as well as 
 to say, "is the Word." There are two extremes of statement 
 which are both inconsistent with the Westminster statement. 
 If, on the one hand, jow take the statement of the Shorter 
 Catechism and say, Holy Scripture contains the Word, of God 
 in its chief doctrines, but there are some doctrines of faith and 
 rules of life which are not the Word of God ; then you cannot 
 subscribe to the statement, "is the Word of God." So, on the 
 other hand, if you take the statement of the Larger Catechism 
 in such a sense as to say, Holy Scripture is the Word of God 
 in all its parts, thoughts and words, sentences and linguistic 
 expression, then j'ou cannot subscribe to the statement, " contains 
 the Word of God." The true Westminster doctrine is the same 
 that we have already seen, that the Bible contains the Word of 
 God in that it contains the rule of faith and practice, and it is 
 the Word of God because this rule of faith and practice so fills 
 
06 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 and pervades and controls Holy Scripture as to make it to all 
 intents and purposes the Word of God. As a Westminster 
 divine well says : 
 
 "For the Scripture stands not in cortice verhorum, but in medulla 
 sensus, it's the same wine in this vessel which was drawn out of that." 
 
 I can sincerely subscribe to both statements, "is the Word of 
 God," and "contains the Word of God," but I challenge the 
 subscription to the words " contains the Word of God " on the 
 part of those who insist that " is the Word of God" means 
 verbal inspiration and inerrancy in every particular. I chal- 
 lenge the subscription to*^ the clause "contains the Word of 
 God" by the prosecution, when they say : 
 
 ■'God is the arranger of its clauses, the chooser of its terms, and the 
 speller of its words so that the text in its letters, words, or clauses is just 
 as divine as the thought " (Stenographer's Report, p. 558) . 
 
 The blind zeal with which some have recently insisted upon " is 
 the Word of God" reminds us of Luther's uncharitable conduct 
 at the conference at Marburg. To use the words of Dr. Schaff : 
 
 " Luther first rose, and declared emphatically that he would not change 
 his opinion on the real presence in the least, but stand fast on it to the 
 end of life. He called upon the Swiss to prove the absence of Christ, 
 l)ut protested at the outset against arguments derived from reason and 
 geometry. To give pictorial emphasis to his declaration, he wrote with 
 a piece of chalk on the table in large characters the words of institution, 
 with which he was determined to stand or fall : Hoc est corpus Meuni " 
 ("History of the Christian Church," VI., p. 640). 
 
 We well know the evil consequences of a divided and dis- 
 tracted Protestantism which resulted from this intolerant and 
 opinionated conduct of the great reformer. Shall we allow 
 men who are pigmies alongside of Luther to plunge our Pres- 
 byterian Church into distraction and division by the entering 
 edge of the copula " is" ? In the usage of language, this little 
 word " is" is capable of a variety of interpretations. " This is 
 my body" in the words of Jesus is of infinitely more consequence 
 than " Holy Scripture is the Word of God" in our Confession of 
 Faith. Give heed to the warning of history. 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 9? 
 
 Immediately Inspired 
 
 (d) The prosecution cite Section 8th in order to prove the infal- 
 libility of the original text of Scripture. The Confession teaches 
 that — 
 
 " The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being 
 immediately 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" (I. 8) . 
 
 There are three affirmations here : (1) that the original text 
 was immediately inspired by God ; (2) that they have been kept 
 pure in all ages and are therefore authentical; (3) they are the 
 final appeal in all controversies of religion. The third state- 
 ment gives the scope of the others. The Scriptures are the final 
 appeal in religious controversies ; matters of faith and practice, 
 not for questions of science. Those who have resorted to the 
 Bible to prove that the sun moved round the earth, that the earth 
 could not be circumnavigated, that the universe was created in 
 six days of twenty-four hours, and the like, have surely gone 
 beyond the range of the Westminster Confession, which specifies 
 controversies of religion. Those zealous defenders of the infalli- 
 bility of the Scriptures in other like matters of detail outside of 
 the range of religious controversies, apart from matters of faith 
 and practice, will ere long be convicted of similar error. (See 
 further the evidence presented in " The Bible, the Church, and 
 the Reason," pp. 95 seq.) 
 
 (1) The prosecution emphasizes the phrase "being imme- 
 diately inspired by God," which indeed they include in the 
 Cliarge itself in the clause " inmiediately inspired." The Con- 
 fession states that "the Old Testament in Hebrew and the 
 New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God." 
 
 It is evident that the prosecution rest their case upon the 
 adverb "immediately." What does it mean in this passage? 
 '■ Immediately" does not refer to the time when the Holy Scrip- 
 tures were composed, and therefore it has nothing whatever to 
 do with the original autographs. The Confession does not saj-, 
 "having been immediately inspired bj" God," referring to their \ \ 
 origin in the past, but "being immediately inspired by God," ' • 
 7 
 
98 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 alluding to their present condition. The doctrine is that the 
 Hebrew and Greek copies, as we now have them in our hands, 
 are immediately inspired by God; they have within them the 
 divine grace of inspiration, and it is there immediately from 
 God as compared with the translations from the Greek and 
 Hebrew originals, where the inspiration is mediately from God, 
 namely, through the medium of these originals. That this is 
 the meaning of the Confession is clear from the controversial 
 literature of the times when the Confession was composed. 
 Let me quote from William Lyford, one of the most honored 
 divines among the English Presbyterians and one whose name 
 and authority were of the first to the authors of our Standards : 
 
 " Thus that Jesuite, with whom Doctor White has to doe, laves this for 
 his first conclusion (namely) tliat the scriptures alone, especially as 
 translated into the English Tongue, cannot he the nde of Faith : He gives 
 two Reasons for his Assertion ; The first is, because these Translations 
 are not infallible, as the Rule of Faith must be ; for neither were the 
 Scriptures immediately written by the Holy Ghost in our language, 
 neither were the Translators assisted by the Spirit infallible, as appears 
 by the often change, and correcting of the Translations, which shews 
 that some of them were defective. — How can an unlearned man be sure, 
 that this Translation, which now I have, or you have, does not erre, \va- 
 less you admit the Authority of the Church, to assure us, that such and 
 such a Translation doth not erre? 
 
 " For answer hereunto, I lay down these two Conclusions : First, that 
 Divine Truth in English, is as truly the Word of God, as the same Scrip- 
 tures delivered in the Originall Hebrew or Greek; yet with this differ- 
 ence, that the same is perfectly, immediately, and most absolutely in the 
 Originall Hebrew and Greek, in other Translations, as the vessels wherein 
 it is presented to us, and as far forth as they agree with the Originalls : 
 And every Translation agreeing with the Originalls in the matter, is the 
 same Canonicall Scripture that Hebrew or Greek is, even as it i^ the 
 same Water, which is in the Fountain, and in the Sti-eam ; We say this 
 is the Water of such or such a Well, or Spring, because it came from 
 thence ; so it is in this business, when the Apostles spake the wonderfull 
 works of God in the language of all Nations (that were at Jerusalem) 
 wherein they were born ; the Doctrine was the same to all, of the same 
 Truth and Divine Authority in the severall Languages : And this Doctrine 
 is the Rule we seek for, and the foundation upon which our Religion is 
 grounded, and it is all one thing, whether it be brought to my under- 
 standing in Welch, or English, or Greek, or Latine : all Language, or 
 Writing, is but the Vessell, the Symbole, or Declaration of the Rule,- not 
 the Rule itself : It is a certain form or means by which the Divine Trutli 
 cometh unto us, as things are contained in their words, and because the 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 99 
 
 Doctrine and matter of the Text is not made known unto me but by 
 words, and a language which I understand ; therefore I say, the Scrip- 
 ture in English is the rule and gi-oimd of my faith, whereupon I relying, 
 have not a humane, but a divine Authority for my Faith. Even as an 
 unbeliever coming to our Sermons, is convinced of all, and judged of all, 
 and he will acknowledge the Divine Truth of God, although by a humane 
 voice in preaching, it be conveyed unto him, so we enjoy the infallible 
 Doctrine of the Scripture, although by a mans Translation it be mani- 
 fested to me" ("Plain Mans Senses" — Lyford, pp. 48, 49). 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that the adverb " immediately" gives 
 the prosecution no support for their doctrine that the original 
 autographs were without error. It has nothing whatever to 
 do with such autographs. 
 
 (2) There is an important phrase in this section which the 
 prosecution do not emphasize and which they do not insert in 
 the Charge. This phrase gives irresistible witness against 
 them. It is the following : " By his singular care and provi- 
 dence, kept pure in all ages." The statement is that the Greek 
 New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament have been kept 
 pure in all ages by the singular care and providence of God, 
 and are authentical. They are authentic for their purpose 
 as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, to determine 
 controversies of religion. They have been kept pure by divine 
 providence in all ages for this purpose. Those who use this 
 passage in order to prove the inerrancy of Scripture in every 
 particular make several inferences which are not justified. 
 They have no right to infer that the adjective " pure" means 
 inerrant in every particular. Pure, yes, for its purpose of 
 grace and salvation. Pure, yes, to determine infallibly con- 
 troversies of religion. Pure, j'es, to give the infallible rule of 
 faith and practice and to determine every question of religion, 
 doctrine, and morals. Pure, yes, so that these great purposes 
 of the grace of God shall in no wise be contaminated, or colored, 
 or warped, or changed in the slightest particular; but not pure 
 in the sense that every sentence, word, and letter of our pres'ent 
 Greek and Hebrew text is absolutely errorless and inerrant. 
 The Westminster divines knew as well as we do that the accents 
 and vowel-points of the Hebrew text then in their possession 
 did not come down from the original autographs pure and un- 
 changed. The}'' were not in the original autographs at all. 
 
100 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 Levita, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, and the great array 
 of Biblical critics in the 16th and 17th centuries had set- 
 tled that. They knew, as well as we know, that there were 
 variations of reading and uncertainties and errors in the Greek 
 and Hebrew texts in their hands. The great Polyglots had 
 settled that. They knew that there were errors of citation and 
 of chronology and of geographical statement in the text of 
 Scripture. Luther and Calvin, Walton and Lightfoot, Baxter 
 and Rutherford, and a great company of Biblical scholars 
 recognized them and found no difficulty with them. 
 
 The language of the Confession does not of itself teach that 
 the Holy Scriptures are altogether without error; and it is 
 extremely improbable, from the historic situation of the West- 
 minster divines in the development of Biblical scholarship, that 
 they ever designed to make any such statement. But even if 
 they had intended to make such a statement, and did actually 
 make it, implicitly, if not explicitly, in the clause, " kept pure 
 in all ages," it is the unanimous testimony of modern Biblical 
 scholarship that there are errors in the Hebrew and Greek texts 
 now in our hands, errors that meet us in textual criticism, in 
 literary criticism, and in histgrical criticism, that no one has 
 been able to deny or to explain away. Modern Biblical scholar- 
 ship has forced the advocates of inerrancy to fall back from the 
 texts in our hands and grant that there are errors in them, in 
 order to rally about the modern dogma of the inerrancy of the 
 original autographs. 
 
 The attentive reader of the Westminster Confession will note 
 that it states with regard to the original texts that (1) "The 
 Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek 
 are immediately inspired by God," and (2) that they, "by his 
 singular care and providence, have been kept pure in all ages." 
 The first statement, that the original texts are immediately in- 
 spired by God, is not in debate in the Presbyterian Church. 
 All parties agree to that. The second statement affirms noth- 
 ing more as regards the original autographs than it affirms of 
 the Hebrew and Greek texts in our hands. " Kept pure" means 
 that the text we have is as pure as the original text was, no 
 more, no less. Those modern scholastics who have generated 
 this dogma of the inerrancy of the original autographs seem 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 101 
 
 altogether unconscious of the fact that they have transgressed 
 the Confessional statement, when they claim that the original 
 autographs were so pure as to bo inerrant, and then admit that 
 they have not been kept sufficiently pure in all ages as to be in- 
 errant at the present time. The Confessional doctrine is " kept 
 pure in all ages." This we firmly believe. The texts are as 
 pure to-day to determine religious controversies as they ever 
 were. They are as pure, as the only infallible rule of faith and 
 practice, as when they first issued bj^ immediate inspiration 
 from the hands and the brains of those who wrote them and 
 uttered them. Our opponents deny the Confessional statement 
 when they assert that the original autographs were purer than 
 the Biblical texts are now. They deny the Confession which 
 states that they have been " kept pure in all ages. " They make 
 the synagogue and the Church the scapegoats, and throw upon 
 them the blame for the errors in the present texts of Scripture. 
 Doubtless many errors have arisen in the course of transmission 
 through the- mistakes of copyists. But these ma}^ for the most 
 part, be traced out and explained according to the principles of 
 textual criticism. These errors are chiefly errors of inadvert- 
 ence, although some have arisen from dogmatic efforts to har- 
 monize variant passages and to correct supposed errors in the 
 older texts. It discredits the scientific work of textual criticism 
 to make conjectures as to an original text different from the 
 best one we can find after we have exhausted the resources of 
 criticism. Conjectures in the interests of scepticism are quite 
 as easy as conjectures in the interest of orthodoxy. Those who 
 by pure conjecture invent an inerrant original autograph, that 
 has never been in the possession of the synagogue or the Church 
 so far as we can trace the historic records, deny that God has 
 kept the Holy Scripture pure in that period of their historj^ ccn- 
 cerning which we are left in darkness. It is quite easy to 
 imagine anything in the dark. 
 
 " The Confession does not present any obstacle whatever to 
 Biblical scholarship at this point. The Confession says : ' kept 
 pure in all ages. ' This is in accord with Biblical scholarship. 
 It is well known to those who have pursued the study of Bibli- 
 cal criticism that textual criticism, while it advances steadily 
 toward the original autographs, finds the number of errors 
 
102 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 increasing as well as diminishing. As it works its arduous 
 way backward some errors are removed, but others of equal 
 difficulty are disclosed. The Higher Criticism in its quest after 
 the exact literary forms of the original Scriptures also finds an 
 increasing number of errors. Historical criticism in its com- 
 parison of Bible with monument and the parallel line of history 
 clears up many diificulties, but also adds to the number of errors 
 of names, dates, geographj^, and incident. Biblical scholarship 
 could have no objection to the statement of the Westminster 
 Confession "kept pure in all ages," for criticism shows that the 
 present text is as pure and free from errors of truth and fact as 
 any earlier text accessible to us. Indeed, the study of the errors 
 of Holy Scripture is one of the strongest evidences of the credi- 
 bility of the Scriptures. It shows clearly that the text has in 
 all ages been kept pure for its purposes of grace and salvation. 
 All the errors that have yet been discovered are but as moles 
 on a beautiful face, or those discolorations of a cathedral which 
 come in part from the wear and tear of ages and in part from 
 minor defects in the marbles themselves, but which enhance the 
 beauty and majesty of the structure, witnessing to its integ- 
 rity, strength, and grandeur." (See " The Bible, the Church, 
 and the Reason," pp. 99 seq.) 
 
 (3) Another neglected clause of the Confession reads as f oUows : 
 
 " 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 " (I. 8) . 
 
 This passage was omitted altogether from the Specification in 
 the original Charge. The prosecution doubtless saw their mis- 
 take in this omission and had a presentiment that it would be 
 used against them. 
 
 This passage teaches the efficacy of translations of the Scrip- 
 tures and maintains that the Word of God comes through 
 translations as well as through originals. The authority of 
 Holy Scripture is not confined to the original autographs or to 
 the original languages of Holy Scripture, but is conveyed by 
 the holy doctrine and facts of Scripture through every language 
 under heaven. Holy Scripture is the power of God unto salva- 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 103 
 
 t ion in whatever form it assumes or through whatever message 
 it conies to penitent men of every nation, kindred, or tongue. 
 There can be no true doctrine of the inspiration of Hoi}' Scrip- 
 ture, or of the authority of Holy Scripture, or of the infallibility 
 of Holy Scripture, which deifies original autographs, exaggerates 
 Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic words and sentences, and depre- 
 ciates the translations which alone are accessible to the people of 
 God. When it is said that " God is careful of his yodh. He does 
 not dot his i for nothing, nor cross his t merely for decoration" 
 ( Stenographical Report, pp. 5GG, 5G7), the prosecution use lan- 
 guage which is so anthropomorphic as to be irreverent. When 
 it is further said that the Bible is " the human medium which 
 tabernacles Jesus Christ, the Word made Bible must bo as per- 
 fect, as spotless, as infallible" (Stenographical Report, p. 515), 
 the prosecution teach a Christology which is contrary to the faith 
 <jf the Church of God. The Bible is not Jesus Christ in the 
 form of a book. The Bible is not God manifest in the Scrip- 
 tures in a sense parallel to God manifest in the flesh of Jesus 
 Christ. The authority of the Bible and its infallibility is of a 
 very different kind from the authority of the Incarnate Son 
 of God. Its authority is in the divine revelation of the rule of 
 faith and life for the redemption of men. The Bible is authori- 
 tative to the people of God, not merely to those who can read 
 it in Hebrew and Greek. The Bible is infallible to all the 
 ministry, not merely to those who can spell out by the help of 
 a dictionary its Greek and Hebrew words. The Bible is suffi- 
 cient for the whole Church, not merely for a few textual critics. 
 It is important that there should be the best textual criticism 
 and that the ministry should in considerable numbers be He- 
 brew and Greek scholars. But it is contrary to the principles 
 of Protestantism and especially of Puritanism that any doctrine 
 of the Bible should be taught that makes it necessary for us to 
 resort to the original texts and the original autographs in order 
 to get at the fountain of inspiration and authority. It is a 
 ludicrous feature of the present situation that Biblical scholars 
 are defending the translations of which they have no need, 
 and experts in textual criticism are acknowledging that they 
 find no inerrant manuscripts, the Higher Critics are searching 
 the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures through and through to learn 
 
104 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the exact truth and facts about the origin and character of the 
 Bible ; while men who can hardl}^ spell out their Hebrew and 
 Greek Bibles, who are as innocent of textual criticism as a 
 child unborn, and who show by their speech and writing that 
 they know not the meaning of the words Higher Criticism — 
 that such men are prating about the infallibility of original 
 autographs and the inviolability of traditional theories. We 
 may safely say that divine authority is not stereotyped in 
 original autographs so hidden from the eyes of men that they 
 can less easily be discovered than the north pole or the Garden 
 of Eden. The fountain of authority is in the great heart of the 
 gospel, the message of redemption which the Bible tells in every 
 language into which it may be translated, and which the Holy 
 Spirit ever accompanies with His quickening presence. 
 
 A study of the Confession makes it clear that it knows noth- 
 ing of the modern doctrine of the inerrancy of the original auto- 
 graphs of Holy Scripture. When the General Assembly as- 
 sumed to say by a majority vote that " Our Church holds that 
 the inspired Word as it came from God is without error, " they 
 said what is not true in fact at the present time unless their 
 own majority vote determines what our Church holds; and they 
 said what has never been true in fact in the history of the 
 Presbyterian Church, if they meant, what circumstances seem 
 to indicate that they meant, to affirm that the original auto- 
 graphs were without error. 
 
 The Witness of Holy Scripture as to Errors 
 
 All the texts cited by the prosecution against the passages 
 from my Inaugural are irrelevant. If they had aflSrmed in 
 their Charge that it is an essential and necessary article of the 
 Confession and of Holy Scripture that the original autographs 
 of Holy Scripture are inerrant and had used these passages as 
 proofs, it would have been easy to show that not one of them 
 gives the slightest support to such a theory. They show that 
 they have no confidence in the proof texts of their own selec- 
 tion. In the specification of the original Charge of which the 
 present Charge is an amplification, the prosecution cite twentj- 
 seven texts of Scripture against me. They have thrown out all 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 105 
 
 but three of them from the present Charge and have added four 
 new ones. But the new are no better than the old. Another 
 year's reflection would probably suffice to have all of them thrown 
 out. Under these circumstances it seems not worth my while 
 to pay any attention to them. I hold to all that these texts 
 teach when interpreted by sound principles of exegesis. But I 
 am sure that no Biblical scholar who is entitled to the slightest 
 consideration or resjDect would risk his reputation by citing any 
 of the texts for any such purpose as the prosecution have in 
 mind. 
 
 I shall adhere to the policy which I have thus far followed 
 with regard to errors in Holy Scripture. I have refused to accept 
 the dogma that the original autographs were inerrant. I have 
 maintained that there are errors in the texts which we have 
 and in the best texts we can get by the science of textual criti- 
 cism, and that it is improbable that the original texts, if we 
 could discover them, would be much different from those we 
 have in that regard. But I have refused to affirm that there 
 were errors in the original autographs ; because it is unscien- 
 tific and it is unscholarly and it is against the truth-loving 
 spirit of Christianity to make affirmations of dogma where we 
 have no certain evidence. I have always refrained as far as 
 possible from pointing to errors in the present text of Scripture. 
 But every Biblical scholar admits them. There are a few pro- 
 fessors in the Biblical department in American theological 
 seminaries who hold to this modern dogma of inerrancy, and 
 in the interests of this dogma try to explain away the errors of 
 Holy Scripture, but even these Procrusteans are obliged to 
 admit that they must resort, for some of the most stubborn of 
 them, to conjectures that these were bastards to the original 
 text. 
 
 I shall call your attention to some errors in Holy Scripture 
 which have been recognized by the great divines of the Church 
 and which are acknowledged by the best Biblical scholarship of 
 our age, in order that you may see how unsafe it is to risk the 
 divine authority of Holy Scripture on the soundness of such an 
 unhistoric and unstable modern dogma as inerrancy. I refer 
 you again to the long list of citations in my " Bible, Church, and 
 Reason," proving that errors in Holy Scripture were recognized 
 
106 IHE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 by Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Baxter, Ruther- 
 ford, Van Oosterzee, among the older divines ; and among those 
 now living, by Marcus Dods, Sanday, Bruce, Beet, Charteris, 
 Plummer, Gore, Cave, Iverach, Thayer, Huntington, Apple, 
 Fisher, Vincent, and Fairchild. Citations from ten times as 
 many might easily be produced. In the presence of such 
 authorities, even members of the late General Assembly might 
 well feel a sense of humiliation and shame for their deliverance, 
 which advises all who agree with these divines to retire from 
 the Church. Such divines bear the Church with them wherever 
 they go. A Church from which such divines would retire 
 would go a long distance in the direction indicated by the Con- 
 fession when it represents that some churches " have so degen- 
 erated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of 
 Satan." 
 
 (a) Calvin says with reference to Matthew xxvii. 9: 
 
 " How the name of Jeremiah crept iu, I confess I know not nor am I 
 seriously troubled about it. That the name of Jeremiah has been put 
 for Zechariah by an error, the fact itself shows, because there is no such 
 statement in Jeremiah." 
 
 St. Augustine and St. Jerome had recognized this error cen- 
 turies before. Professor Sanday, the most eminent scholar in 
 the New Testament in Great Britain, now living, regards this 
 as an erroneous citation. New Testament scholars who dififer 
 from them are hard to find. Possibly these may all be mistaken 
 in their opinion, and American dogmaticians may succeed in 
 convincing you that this is no error, or at least that it was not 
 an error in the original text. But what will you do with these 
 scholars and all whom you cannot convince? Are jou prepared 
 to say that they must retire from the Presbyterian Church? 
 
 (6) Calvin recognizes a mistake in Hebrews xi. 21. He says: 
 
 " No doubt Moses spoke of the head of his couch, when he said '^f?^ '^'^'^ ^>^ 
 but the Greek translators rendered the words, 'on the top of his staff, ' as 
 though the last word was written ^'•?.'?'^. The Apostle hesitated not to ap- 
 ply to his purpose what was commonh' received : he was indeed writing 
 to the Jews ; but they who were dispersed in various countries had 
 changed their own language for the Greek. And we know that the 
 Apostles were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate 
 themselves to the unlearned, who had as yet need of milk " (Calvin's 
 Commentary on Hebrews, xi. 21) . 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 107 
 
 You may see the difference in our English Bible : 
 
 "And he said, Swear unto me: and he sware unto him. And Israel 
 bowed himself upon the bed's head" (Gen. xlvii. 31). 
 
 "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed each of the sons of 
 Joseph ; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of liis staff " (Hebrews 
 xi. 21). 
 
 The LXX. version mistakes the points of the Hebrew word 
 and renders incorrectly. This error appears in the epistle to 
 the Hebrews. There is no doubt that it is an error. It is hard 
 to see how you can remove this error from the original text of 
 the New Testament, because the LXX. version is back of it. 
 But what matters such an error as this? What difference does 
 it make to our faith and practice whether Jacob leaned on his 
 staff or his bed's head? Why should you demand that the 
 Holy Spirit must have so overruled the mind of the writer of 
 the epistle to the Hebrews that he would correct his citation 
 from the LXX. so as to correspond with the correct Hebrew 
 text? If by any strange device jou can persuade yourselves that 
 this is not an error after all, what are you going to do with the 
 man who thinks with John Calvin and whom you cannot con- 
 vince? Will you exclude him from the Church because he 
 finds bed's head in the Old Testament inconsistent with staff 
 in the New Testament? 
 
 (c) The epistle to the Galatians contains a serious chronologi- 
 cal error, according to the opinion of most scholars : 
 
 •'Now this I say : A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, 
 which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so 
 as to make the promise of none effect" (Galatians iii. 17). 
 
 This four hundred and thirty years from the promise to 
 Abraham until the law-giving is in accordance with the four 
 hundred years of the prediction in Genesis xv. 13 and Acts vii. 
 (i ; but it is contrary to the narrative Ex. xii. 40, which gives 
 the sojourn in Egypt as four hundred and thirty years. How- 
 ever, the LXX. version by an insertion in the text overcomes 
 the difficulty ; but this text is not accepted by the best criticism. 
 This difference of chronology involves an error either on the 
 one side or the other. Dillmann shows that the genealogical 
 
108 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 tables are also widely discrepant in the number of generations 
 during the period from the descent into Egypt till the law-giv- 
 ing. The general opinion is that the number 430 is correct and 
 that Stephen and Paul are in error. 
 
 Professor Beet, of the Wesleyan Church in England, says : 
 
 "About trifling discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek texts, 
 Paul probably neither knew nor cared. And they have no bearing what- 
 ever upon the all -important matter he has here in hand. He adopted 
 the chronology of the LXX. , with which alone his readers were familiar ; 
 knowing, possibly, that if incorrect it was only an understatement of 
 the case " (Commentary on Galatians, p. 90) . 
 
 Dr. Schaff says : 
 
 " But this difference in the chronology of the Greek Bible and our pres- 
 ent Hebrew text, although very serious in a historical point of view, is 
 of no account for the argument in hand. Paul means to say, the older 
 an agreement, the stronger its authority. The Hebrew text would 
 strengthen the argument " (Commentary on Galatians, in loco). 
 
 I shall not discuss this difficult question. But I ask you to 
 consider whether you are going to make the divine authority 
 of Holy Scripture depend upon the removal of this error from 
 the text. And will you discipline all those who think that 
 you cannot make the four hundred and thirty years of the 
 sojourn in Egypt harmonize with the four hundred and 
 thirty years from Abraham to the Exodus? 
 
 (d) It is the common opinion that Stephen makes an erro- 
 neous statement in Acts vii. 16, where he says : 
 
 "And they were carried over unto Shechem, and laid in the tomb that 
 Abraham bought for a piece in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem. " 
 
 The late Professor Lechler says : 
 
 "Stephen says that the remains of Jacob and also of his sons were 
 carried to Sychem ; his language has occasioned here, too, perplexity 
 with respect to several particulars. 1. We are told in Genesis 1.13 
 that Joseph and his brethren buried the body of Jacob in the cave of the 
 field near Hebron, whereas Stephen says that Jacob was buried in Sychem. 
 2. According to Josh. xxiv. 33, the Israelites, when they took possession 
 of Canaan, buried the bones of Joseph, which they brought from Egypt, 
 in Shechem (Sychem) ; but it is not stated in this passage or elsewhere 
 in the Old Testament that the bones of Joseph's brethren, whom the terms 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 109 
 
 employed by Stephen include, were buried at the same place. 3. Stephen 
 .says that Abraham bought the piece of ground in Sychem, of the sons of 
 Emmor. Yet it was not Abraham, but Jacob, who bought this piece of 
 ground of the former owners (Gen. xxxiii. 18, 19). Consequently, Stephen 
 (confounded the latter with the spot near Hebron, which Abraham had 
 bought. Every possible attempt has been made to explain these varia- 
 tions, from the period in wliich the oldest manuscripts were written 
 down to the age of the reformers, and thence to the jjresent day. In- 
 terpreters have, without success, availed themselves of every resource 
 which the laws of Criticism or of Grammar, or the principles of Lexi- 
 cology, or of Hermeneutics seemed to offer. The theory has been pro- 
 ]»osed that two burials are described in terms which were intentionally 
 abbreviated, or that the passage before us speaks of two purchases. It is, 
 liowever, the most judicious course to admit frankly, that, with refer- 
 ence to the purchase of the ground and the burial of Jacob, it might 
 easily occur that Stephen, whose discourse treated an entirely different 
 and a loftier theme, should, in his rajiid course, confound two analogous 
 transactions. As to the burial of Josepli's brethren in Canaan, the Old 
 Testament presents no conflicting statements, but merely observes si- 
 lence ; it is very probable that such a tradition, the existence of which at a 
 later period can be proved, was alread}' current in Stephen's age, and 
 adopted by him " (Lechler, "Acts," p. 116). 
 
 Calvin also recognizes this error of Stephen : 
 
 " It is evident that he [Stephen] made a mistake in the name of Abra- 
 ham, since Abraham bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, for the 
 interment of his wife: but Joseph was buried elsewhere, viz., in the 
 field which his father Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor for an hundred 
 lambs. Whei-efore this passage is to be corrected " (p. 110). 
 
 The late Professor Evans in holy indignation exclaims : 
 
 "If Stephen transposes certain Old Testament incidents, or confuses 
 certain names, does that affect the convicting power of his terrific ar- 
 raignment of an apostate Israel? Was not the power of the Holy Ghost 
 in every word that he spoke, even when least accurate? Suppose that 
 one of his hearers had undertaken to reply to him, saying: 'You have 
 said that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father Terah ; where- 
 as, if you study the figures in Genesis, you will find that Terah must 
 liave lived fifty years or more in Haran after Abraham left. You were 
 mistaken, also, in saying that Abraham bouglit the sepulchre of the sons 
 of Hamor in Shechem. If j'ou look into the matter a little more closely 
 you will find that that was Jacob, and that Abraham bought his jiurchase 
 at Hebron of Ephron the Hittite. ' But would that have silenced Stephen? 
 Such a criticism on such a speech would have been like flinging a feather 
 in the teeth of a cyclone" ("Inspiration and Inerrancy." pp. 165-167), 
 
110 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 Possibly you may see your way through this error, but 
 scholars greater and wiser than you cannot. You may be 
 ready to follow the opinion of an American divine : 
 
 "In all such cases, it is necessaiy to consider the difficulties which at- 
 tend the supposition of mistake or contradiction, as well as that of trutli 
 and consistency, especially as sceptical critics and their Christian fol- 
 lowers are accustomed to look only at one side of the question. In this 
 case, for example, it is easy to cut the knot by assuming a mistake on 
 Stephen's part, but not so easy to account for its being made by such a 
 man, addressing such an audience, and then perpetuated in such a his- 
 tory, without correction or exposure, for a course of ages" (Alexander 
 on Acts, p. 269) . 
 
 Is this argumentation to be made a test of orthodoxy? Have 
 you no pity for Calvin and Lechler and Evans? Are all who 
 see as they do to be cast out of the Presbyterian Church and 
 given over to Satan? 
 
 (e) Let me give you the statement of another American 
 professor : 
 
 " The greatest reliance is, however, placed on the third case adduced— 
 the statement of Luke that Jesus was born at the time of a world enrol- 
 ment, which was carried out in Syria during the governorship of Cyrc- 
 nius. Weiss offers three reasons why Luke is certainly incorrect here, 
 which Schiirer increases to five facts, viz. : 1. Histoiy knows nothing of 
 a general empire census in the time of Augustus. 2. A Roman census 
 would not force Joseph to go to Bethlehem nor Mary to go with him. 
 3. Nor could it have taken place in Palestine in the time of Herod. 4. 
 Josephus knows nothing of such a census, but, on the conti-ary, speaks 
 of that of Acts V. 87 as something new and unheard of; and, 5, Quiri- 
 nius was not governor of Syria during Herod's life. This has a formid- 
 able look ; but each detail has been more than fully met" ("Presbyterian 
 Review, " p. 248) . 
 
 Professor Weiss and Professor Schiirer are of the highest 
 rank in the study of the New Testament. There is no Ameri- 
 can scholar now living, unless it be Professor Thayer, who 
 could claim equal recognition by the Christian world. You 
 may be convinced b}- the reasoning given above, but what 
 are you going to say with regard to the multitudes of Chris- 
 tian scholars who are not convinced? The greatest New Testa- 
 ment scholars in the world, seeking only what is true and right, 
 and without prejudice, find error here, and they are entitled to 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 111 
 
 our respect and confidence. But the author of this reasoning 
 does not win our confidence in his fairness, for he bandages his 
 eyes at the very beginning of such an investigation by winding 
 about them a rag with the inscription, " A proved error in 
 Scripture contradicts not only our doctrines, but the Scripture's 
 claims and therefore its inspiration in making those claims.'* 
 
 (/) This same anti -revisionist makes the following statement, 
 which possibly may convince some of you : 
 
 "Dr. Fisher most wisely rests his charge against the complete harmony 
 of the four evangelists, viz. : the alleged disharmony in the accounts of 
 the place and phraseology of the sermon on the mount, the healing of the 
 centurion's son, the denials of Peter, the healing of the blind man, at 
 Jericho, and the time of the institution of the Lord's supper. But that 
 in each of these, most natural means of harmonizing exist, are even i)i 
 some instances recognized as possible by Dr. Fisher himself. President 
 Bartlett has lately so fully shown in detail that we cannot bring ourselves 
 to repeat the oft-told tale here" ("Presbyterian Review," II., p. 252). 
 
 Prof. George P. Fisher is an authority than whom there is no 
 greater in America in questions of New Testament history. 
 If he finds lack of harmony in these four instances in the gos- 
 pels, most persons will conclude that there must be valid reasons 
 for his opinion. But Prof. Fisher does not stand alone. He 
 is sustained by New Testament scholars the world over. It is 
 possible that this advocate of inerrancy may have the right of 
 it, and that all these scholars may be wrong. You may think 
 that you may safely follow him and rely on his authority rather 
 than on the others. But can 3"ou do this as jurors? Can you 
 in the divine presence, in view of the facts adduced, undertake 
 to affirm it as the truth of God, as an essential and necessary 
 article of faith, that these and other like cases are not errors? 
 You may be able to persuade yourselves to it as an act of 
 allegiance to your party in the Church, but if j^ou do it as 
 jurors you forfeit your Christian integrity and honesty of soul ; 
 for it is as certain as the sun shines that the great majority of 
 this Presbytery do not and cannot know the certainty of all 
 these things by their own study and knowledge. 
 
 (g) In the book of Genesis there are two stories respecting 
 the wives of the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac, which are so 
 similar that it is commonly supposed that they are two differ- 
 
113 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 eiit stories of the same thing. This opinion is strengthened by 
 the fact that the one of them (Gen. xx.) is in the Ephraimitic 
 document, the other (Gen. xxvi.) in the Judaic document. 
 There is indeed a third similar story where the scene is laid in 
 Egypt according to Gen. xii. Delitzsch calls attention to the 
 fact that Sarah, according to the context in which Gen. xx. 
 stands, must have been ninety years of age when Abimelek took 
 her from her husband to be his concubine. 
 
 The late Prof. Delitzsch, who was recognized as a man of deep 
 ] personal piety and of missionary zeal, as well as a great Old 
 Testament scholar, gives it as his opinion that the editor of the 
 Hexateuch took Genesis xx. from the Ephraimitic document 
 and put it in the narrative out of its historical position, yerj 
 much as he thinks that the synoptists put the account of the 
 purification of the temple by Jesus at the end of His ministry in 
 connection with His third passover, whereas it belongs accord- 
 ing to the gospel of John at His first passover. Delitzsch ex- 
 plains these three stories as three different traditions which the 
 editor used, and that he is entitled to our thanks for having 
 given the three faithfully and for not suppressing any of them 
 in favor of the others. These views of Delitzsch, sustained by 
 Old Testament scholars in general, may seem to you difficult 
 to reconcile with the divine inspiration of these passages. But 
 Delitzsch and other scholars find no such difficulty. Have you 
 ever thought of it? The difficulty is in the dogma of inspira- 
 tion in which 3'ou have been trained. It is not in the Bible 
 itself. Think of it for a moment. Here is a man inspired 
 by God to gather the ancient traditions of his nation into an 
 historical writing that will trace the unfolding of redemption 
 among the patriarchs. He does not receive these stories by 
 divine revelation. No scholar thinks of such a thing. He 
 finds these stories in earlier documents and uses them. He 
 was doubtless guided by the divine Spirit in their use, he was 
 guided in his purpose of selecting such stories as would set 
 forth the divine grace and the progress of redemption; but 
 was it necessarj^ that the divine Spirit should enable him to 
 decide between two or three ancient stories of similar character? 
 Was it essential to the purpose of an holy writing that he should 
 decide whether these were three events, or variant traditions 
 
THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE llo 
 
 of two events, or of one event? Would the Holy Spirit guide 
 liim so as to decide as to the locality, whether it happened in 
 Philistia or in Egypt ; as to whether it was the wife of Abra- 
 ham or the wife of Isaac ; and as to what exact time in the life 
 of either of them the event occurred? None of these things 
 were at all necessary to the purposes of grace. The lesson of 
 the story is just as good with Abraham as with Isaac, with 
 Pharaoh as with Abimelek. It is all the better if it can be 
 shown that we have three stories of the same event, as we have 
 three stories in the gospels of the purification of the temple. 
 
 Prof. Henry P. Smith calls attention to an inconsistency 
 between the books of Kings and Chronicles : 
 
 (/i)" But the high places were not taken away: nevertheless the heart of 
 Asa was perfect with the Lord all his days " (I. Kings xv. 14) . 
 
 "And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the Lord 
 his God : for he took away the strange altars, and the high places, and 
 lirake down the pillars and hewed down the Asherim ; and commanded 
 Judah to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, and to do the law and 
 the commandment. Also he took away out of all the cities of Judah the 
 high places and the sun images : and the kingdom was quiet before 
 them" (II. Chron. xiv. 2-5). 
 
 A similar conflict is found between I. Kings xxii. 43 and 
 II. Chron. xvii. IG: 
 
 " And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father ; he turned not 
 fuside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord : how- 
 heit the high places were not taken away ; the people still sacrificed and 
 burnt incense in the high places." 
 
 ■'And his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord : and furthermore 
 lie took away the high places and the Asherim out of Judah." 
 
 This conflict might be removed by conjectural textual criti- 
 cism as I have elsewhere suggested ; but such criticism was not 
 proposed by the Revised Version of the Old Testament; and it 
 is opposed by the fact that these differences are in accord with 
 many others and they seem to reflect different points of view 
 of the compilers and writers. As they stand in the translations 
 and in the original texts, they are flat contradictions, and either 
 the one writer or the other must be in error. If any of you 
 can avoid the opinion that these are errors, you are entitled to 
 your opinion. We have no desire to compel you to say that 
 
114 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 these or any others are errors. But have you any right to force 
 your opinions upon us? We cannot shut our eyes to contradic- 
 tions. We cannot throw aside the laws of thought. We pre- 
 fer rather to see the truth than by majority votes be counted 
 among the orthodox. We shall be true to the divine laws of 
 reasoning even if that reasoning convicts the last General As- 
 sembly of error. 
 
 The number of such instances as I have given above might 
 be increased to an indefinite extent, extending over a large part 
 of the Old Testament and the New Testament. We are all 
 reluctant to acknowledge errors in Holy Scripture. We 
 acknowledge them only when we are compelled so to do by 
 evidence that cannot honestly be gainsaid. But we refuse to 
 accept the modern dogma of inerrancy. In no creed of Christen- 
 dom is it taught. It has never received the official stamp of 
 any Church unless you suppose that the last General Assembly 
 used such a stamp in its deliverance last May. If the Presby- 
 terian Church should be induced, either by a revision of the 
 Confession or by a decision in a judicial case, to make such a 
 dogma the official doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, our 
 Church would be cut off from historic Christendom, and become 
 a mere sect, bearing no longer the historical name of Calvinism, 
 for they would thereby declare Calvin a heretic ; no more the 
 historical name of Presbyterian, because they would thereby 
 separate from Westminster Presbyterianism and the Presby- 
 terian Churches of the rest of the world. They might take the 
 name of an old sect and call themselves Scripturalists — but they 
 would insensibly become by a necessary process of degradation 
 mere Bibliolaters. 
 
 You are now to determine in the fear of God whether I am 
 guilty of this Charge or not. I have shown you that I sub- 
 scribe to all the statements of the Confession and of Holy Scrip- 
 ture in the passages cited to sustain the Charge. I have shown 
 you that there is no inconsistency between the doctrine that 
 there are errors in the Scriptures as I explain them and the 
 statements of Confession and Scripture. You cannot convict 
 me on the ground of Confession or Scripture. You can only 
 convict me on the ground of a deliverance of the Assembl}' at 
 Portland, or of some dogmatic theory in your minds. If you 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 115 
 
 should do this you will violate the constitution of the Preshy- 
 terian Church, break faith with me, and sear your own con- 
 sciences before God. 
 
 VI 
 
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTUEE 
 
 Charge IV. reads as follows : 
 
 " The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 charges the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of 
 the said Church and a member of the Presbj'tery of New York, 
 with teaching that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, 
 which is contrary to direct statements of Holy Scripture and to 
 the essential doctrines of the Standards of the said Church, 
 that the Holy Scripture CAadences itself to be the word of God 
 by the consent of all the parts, and that the infallible rule of 
 interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself." 
 
 It is evident to any one who takes the pains to compare the 
 Charge with Specification 6th of the first Charge in the original 
 Charges and Specifications, that the prosecution have changed 
 their base. The prosecution originally proposed to prove that 
 Dr. Briggs' assertion, "that Moses is not the author of the 
 Pentateuch," was a fact which sustained the Charge that he 
 taught " doctrines which conflict irreconcilablj^ with and are 
 contrary to the cardinal 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 
 infallible rule of faith and practice." This charge they have 
 abandoned and propose to prove that the " teaching that Moses 
 is not the author of the Pentateuch" is " contrary to direct state- 
 ments of Holy Scripture and to the essential doctrines of the 
 Standards of the Presbyterian Church. (1) 'That the Holy 
 Scriptvire evidences itself ' to be ' the word of God ' ' by the 
 consent of all the parts,' and (2) that ' the infallible rule of in- 
 terpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. ' " Here are two 
 charges which 5"ou have decided to try together, but to vote 
 upon separatel}". 
 
116 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 Let me call attention to two principles established at an 
 earlier stage in my argument. 
 
 (1) It is not sufficient to point to direct statements of Holy- 
 Scripture, unless the Church has already defined that these 
 statements are direct, or it is agreed by the parties that they 
 are direct. I shall show you later on that there are no such 
 direct statements of Holy Scripture. But even if I should fail 
 in such proof, it is plain that the Church has not defined these 
 so-called direct statements of Holy Scripture in the Westminster 
 Standards, and therefore it is not lawful to use them as evi- 
 dence of an essential and necessary article of the Confession of 
 Faith. 
 
 (2) It is not sufficient for the prosecution to claim that a doc- 
 trine is an essential doctrine of the Westminster Standards. 
 They may claim anything and everything. It is necessary 
 for them to j^rove their claim. The court have doubtless no- 
 ticed that the prosecution have made no attempt in their argu- 
 ment to present such proof. They have made no use of these 
 passages of our Confession whatever. On this account I ask 
 that you rule Charges IV. and V. out of court as entirely desti- 
 tute of proof. But I shall find it convenient to use these pas- 
 sages of the Confession myself and turn them against the prose- 
 cutors. I admit that two doctrines of our Standards are " that 
 the Holy Scripture evidences itself to be the word of God by the 
 consent of all the parts " and " the infallible rule of interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture is the Scripture itself." But I deny that the 
 clause " consent of all the parts " is an essential doctrine. I am 
 glad, however, that the question has been raised at this very 
 point, because upon its solution will depend a question of con- 
 science which is likely to emerge ere long for many Presbyterian 
 ministers. 
 
 The internal evidences given in Section V., Chapter I., to 
 prove that Holy Scripture is the word of God are: (1) heavenli- 
 ness of the matter; (2) efficacy of the doctrine; (3) majesty of 
 the style; (4) consent of all the parts; (5) the scope of the 
 whole (which is to give all glory to God) ; (G) the full discovery 
 it makes of the only way of man's salvation; (7) the many 
 other incomparable excellences; (8) and the entire perfection 
 thereof. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 117 
 
 The questions which arise are : (1) Are all of these eight evi- 
 dences essential doctrines of the Westminster Confession? (2) 
 If not, is there any especial reason why " consent of all the parts" 
 should be deemed essential rather than other evidences? (3) 
 If any or all of the evidences are essential doctrines of our 
 Standards, will the new evidences which are proposed by over- 
 ture from the General Assembly as additions to these evidences 
 and indeed as the first and second in the order, namely, (1) "the 
 truthfulness of the history and (2) the faithful witness of proph- 
 ecy and miracle, " be essential doctrines of our Standards? 
 Let us consider the latter question first. 
 
 If this revision should be adopted by a vote of two-thirds of 
 the Presbyteries, such a vote would determine that these evi- 
 dences are regarded by the Church as of sufficient importance 
 to assert them at the beginning of the catalogue. If then any 
 of the eight evidences are regarded as essential, these two new 
 evidences could claim to be essential on the ground that the 
 Presbyterian Church by a decisive vote had added them to the 
 eight. If this should be so, those of us who cannot agree to 
 these two new evidences would be compelled to retire from the 
 Presbyterian Church, because we cannot subscribe to them. 
 This is probably the underlying motive in those who have ad- 
 vocated this revision. They desire to use them as a purge to 
 the Presbyterian Church. If therefore you recognize that the 
 clause " consent of all the parts " is an essential article of the 
 Confession, we shall be obliged to conclude that the proposed 
 additions to the first chapter will also become essential articles, 
 if adopted. In that case I suggest that the simplest way in 
 which the Higher Critics can be purged from the Church is 
 by the adoption of this revision, and by the decision of the 
 supreme court of the Church of this simple question, whether 
 " consent of all the parts " is an essential article of our Confes- 
 sion. Let no one misunderstand me. I agree to the proposi- 
 tion that " the consent of all the parts " of Holy Scripture is a 
 fact attested by a scientific study of the Bible. I also agree 
 that this fact and the other facts adduced in the Confession are 
 evidences that Scripture is the word of God. I also agree to 
 the fact of " the truthfulness of the history " and " the faithful 
 witness of prophecy and miracle; " but I do not and I cannot 
 
118 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 agree that these latter are internal evidences that the Scripture 
 is the word of God. It is not the facts that are in question. 
 It is whether these facts are valid evidences for Holy Scripture. 
 I maintain that if the " consent of all the parts " be an essential 
 article of faith as an evidence that the Scripture is the word of 
 God, then it will be claimed, if the revision succeed, that " the 
 truthfulness of the history and the faithful witness of prophecy 
 and miracle '' are essential articles as evidences that the Scrip- 
 ture is the word of God ; and all who cannot subscribe to these 
 evidences will be obliged to retire from the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 The second question is easily answered according to the 
 principles already laid down, (a) There is no special reason 
 why " consent of all the parts" should be regarded as more 
 essential than any of the other evidences, e.g. " heavenliness of 
 the matter, efficacy of the doctrine, the scope of the whole, the 
 full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and 
 the entire perfection thereof." (6) There is no passage of Holy 
 Scripture given in the Westminster Confession or cited by the 
 prosecution in support of this phrase, "consent of all the parts," 
 and therefore it cannot be regarded as essential, (c) It might 
 be removed from the Confession without destroying the argu- 
 ment from internal evidence. It is not essential to the argu- 
 ment. It is not used in all of the Puritan arguments from the 
 internal evidence. It is one of many evidences which may or 
 may not be stated as occasion requires, {d) This evidence is 
 not in the Shorter Catechism and therefore not essential. 
 
 We have finally to answer the question whether all of these 
 eight evidences are essential articles of faith as evidences. 
 
 (a) We might easily show that the eight are not of equal 
 validity as evidences. They must be ranged in order of weight 
 of evidence. They are not an exhaustive list. They constitute 
 a useful list in a chain of probable evidence. (6) Five of them 
 are given in the Larger Catechism, but three are omitted. 
 None of them are given in the Shorter Catechism, (c) We 
 claim that none of them are essential because the Confession 
 expressly gives them as probable evidence, sufficient "abun- 
 dantly to evidence," yet "notwithstanding our full persuasion 
 and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority 
 thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 113 
 
 witness by and with the word in our hearts." This divine 
 evidence is essential, this alone is essential, this alone is an 
 essential article of faith in evidence of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Therefore, the claim of the prosecution in their Charge, that 
 it is an essential doctrine of the Standards of our Church, " that 
 the Holy Scripture evidences itself to be the word of God by 
 the consent of all the parts," cannot be maintained. You can- 
 not recognize this claim wthout putting the Presbyterian 
 Church in grave peril, especially in view of the proposed revis- 
 ion of the first chapter of our Confession. 
 
 If this court should still resist my arguments and hold that 
 " consent of all the parts" is an essential article of our creed, 
 then let me say that although I deny that it is an essential doc- 
 trine, I yet agree to the doctrine itself. But I fail to see in 
 what respect the doctrine that Moses did not write the Penta- 
 teuch contravenes the doctrine of the " consent of all the parts" 
 of Holy Scripture, or the doctrine that " the infallible rule of 
 interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself." I am sure 
 that I hold these three doctrines. It may be that the prosecu- 
 tion can convince you that I am inconsistent in holding these 
 doctrines. But they have not thus far ventured to make such an 
 argument, and if they had done so they could not do away with 
 the fact that I do hold these doctrines. You will then have 
 to apply the law of the supreme court in the Craighead case 
 that— 
 
 "No man can rightly be convicted of heresy by inference or implica- 
 tion ; that is, wo must not chai'ge an accused person with holding those 
 consequences which inay 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 connec- 
 tions and consequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opin- 
 ion which he disavows " (Craighead Case, Minutes of the General As- 
 sembly, 1824, p. 122). 
 
 You cannot convict me in the face of this decision of the 
 General Assembly. 
 
 But let us rise above these legal aspects of the case to the 
 merits of the question. The Confession teaches that " the infalli- 
 ble rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself." 
 Accordingly we must resort to Holy Scripture for the infallible 
 
120 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 interpretation of the question whether Moses wrote the Pen- 
 tateuch or not. To that we agree, and to that rule we shall re- 
 sort so soon as preliminary questions can be settled. 
 
 Granting that there is "consent of all the parts" of Holy 
 Scripture, it is our duty to determine what that consent is. 
 This we shall use every effort to determine. But it is evident 
 to the court at the outset that there is an irreconcilable differ- 
 ence of opinion between the parties who propose to resort to the 
 same tribunal and to seek the same guidance. They try to 
 prove to you that Holy Scripture tells us that Moses wrote the 
 Pentateuch. I, on the other hand, will present to you indubita- 
 ble evidence that " the consent of all the parts" of Holy Scripture, 
 and the interpretation of Scripture which is given by Scripture 
 itself, force the conclusion that Moses did not write the Penta- 
 teuch. The argument is therefore reduced to the Scriptural 
 argument. But we are confronted at the outset by the principle 
 already established, that the Church has not officially deter- 
 mined the interpretation of these passages of Holy Scripture, and 
 that you cannot by a majority vote in the Presbytery decide 
 which is the correct interpretation. The constitution of the 
 Church forces you to decide by the interpretation of Scripture 
 given in the Confession and to limit your decisions within the 
 strict lines of its decisions. To depart from them and judge 
 me by the interpretation of these passages of Scripture by a 
 majority vote of the Presbytery will violate the constitution of 
 the Church and all the precedents of ecclesiastical process. 
 
 Before proceeding to the evidence from Holy Scripture, let 
 me confront a preliminary dogmatic objection which is current 
 in our Church. It seemed to me that it was the underlying 
 motive in the mind of the prosecution in the original form of 
 the Charge and its Specification, when they rei^resented that the 
 doctrine that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch " con- 
 flicts irreconcilably with and is contrary to the cardinal doc- 
 trine 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 infallible inile of 
 faith and practice." 
 
 I grant that there is a bridge by which it has been proposed 
 to cross the chasm between these two statements, " Moses is not 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 121 
 
 the author of the Pentateuch " and " The Holy Scriptures are 
 the only infallible rule of faith and practice ;" and that this is 
 probably the bridge in the mind of a few members of this court, 
 namely, that an infallible rule of faith and practice can only 
 come from well-known prophets and apostles. But this bridge 
 is an airy structure which will not bear the strain that it is pro- 
 posed to put upon it. It yields to the slightest touch of the 
 breath of criticism and lets its users fall into a gulf of absurd- 
 ities. And even if it were a sound logical bridge, it is not a 
 Westminster bridge, or a Biblical bridge, and therefore no 
 Presbyterian minister is bound to cross it. Let us test it be- 
 fore we cross it. 
 
 It is first necessary to show that no one but a well-known 
 prophet can write a divine rule of faith and practice. It is 
 next necessary to show that Moses is the only well-known 
 prophet who could have written the Pentateuch. 
 
 Ireuceus says : " God inspired Esdras the priest to recast all the 
 words of the former prophets and to re-establish with the people 
 the Mosaic legislation." If Ezra can be shown to be resjionsible 
 for our present Pentateuch, is he not as truly a well-known 
 Biblical and inspired man and as capable of producing a rule of 
 faith and practice as Moses? It is evident that even if the 
 author of the Pentateuch must have been some well-known 
 prophet, it does not follow that the divine authority of the Pen- 
 tateuch stands or falls with the name of Moses. 
 
 But is it true that an infallible rule of faith and practice 
 can only come from these holy penmen whose names history 
 has preserved for usV That is the view of an eminent divine 
 and possibly the prosecution share it. This divine says : " If, 
 as one asserts, 'the great mass of the Old Testament was written 
 by authors whose names are lost in oblivion,' it was written by 
 uninspired men." . . . "This would be the inspiration of 
 indefinite persons like Tom, Dick, and Harry, whom nobody 
 knows, and not of definite historical persons like Moses and 
 David, Matthew and John, chosen by God by name and known 
 to men" ("Observer," April 16, 1891). The author of these 
 words may be able to convince you that his theory is the true 
 theory. But what right have you under our constitution to 
 impose this dogma upon me? It is not stated in the Confession 
 
122 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 of Faith. It is not given in Holy Scripture. No Christian 
 Church has ever taught it. It is a doctrine of recent times. 
 Modern dogmaticians invented it to use it in the establishment 
 of their theory of the canon of Holy Scripture. They had 
 abandoned the doctrine of the canon taught by the reformers 
 and in the Westminster Confession, and they devised this 
 erroneous doctrine in its place. As I stated some time ago : 
 
 "The Reformers found the essence of the autliority of the Scriptures 
 in the Scriptures themselves and not in traditional theories about them. 
 Hence they were not anxious about human authorship. Luther denied the 
 Apocalypse to John and Ecclesiastes to Solomon. He regarded Jude as an 
 extract from Second Peter. He said : ' What matters it if Moses should not 
 himself have written the Pentateuch?' He thought that the epistle to the 
 Hebrews was written by a disciple of the apostle Paul, who was a learned 
 man, and made the epistle as a sort of composite piece in which there are 
 some things hard to be reconciled with the gospel. Calvin denied the 
 Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews, and doubted the Petrine 
 authorship of Second Peter. He held that Ezra or some one else edited 
 the Psalter. He regarded Malachi as a pseudonym for Ezra. The great 
 Reformers found no ditficulty in recognizing anonymous and pseudony- 
 mous writings in the canon of Scripture" ("Whither?" pp. 87, 88). 
 
 Will you follow Calvin or Dr. Shedd, the Reformers or the 
 Hodges, Westminster theology or Princeton theology? Look 
 at the gulf into which these dogmaticians are leading the Pres- 
 byterian Church ere you cross their bridge. 
 
 Modern Biblical criticism has shattered the traditional theo- 
 ries of the authorship of the Biblical books. Is it a safe posi- 
 tion to risk the canonicity and divine authority of every one of 
 these books upon your ability to convince yourselves and 
 others that they were written by well-known apostles and 
 prophets? Look at the facts of the case. (1) Who wrote the 
 book of Job? What Biblical scholar at the present time would 
 hazard his reputation on the statement that Moses wrote it? 
 The school of Delitzsch put its composition in the age of Solo- 
 mon, but the earliest date thought of in the present state of 
 critical opinion is in the reign of Josiah. B}" common consent 
 the writing is anonymous. Are we obliged to cast it out of the 
 canon on that account? Listen to the wise words of Dr. A. B. 
 Davidson, the prince of Old Testament scholars in Scotland, 
 professor in a Presbyterian College in Edinburgh : 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 123 
 
 " As to the author of the book we are in complete ignorance. He has 
 been supposed to be Job himself, Elihu, Moses, Solomon, Heman the 
 Ezrahite, author of Ps. Ixxxviii., Isaiah, Hezekiah, author of the hymn 
 Is. xxxviii., Baruch, the friend of Jeremiah, and who not? There are 
 some minds that cannot put up with uncertainty, and are under the ne- 
 cessity of deluding themselves into quietude by fixing on some known 
 name. There are others to whom it is a comfort to think that in this 
 omniscient age a few things still remain mysterious. Uncertainty is to 
 them more suggestive than exact knowledge. No literature has so many 
 great anonymous works as that of Israel. The religious life of this peo- 
 ple was at certain periods very intense, and at these periods the spiritual 
 energy of the nation expressed itself almost impersonally, through men 
 who forgot themselves and were speedily forgotten in name by others" 
 (Davidson's "Job," p. Ixviii). 
 
 Will you vote a dogma which makes Professor Davidson a 
 heretic? 
 
 (2) Take the book of Ecclesiastes. No Hebrew scholar 
 can possibly suppose that it was written by Solomon, be- 
 cause the Hebrew in which this book is composed is the 
 latest in the old Testament. As Delitzsch says : There could 
 be no history of the Hebrew language if Ecclesiastes could be 
 Solomonic. Will you vote all the great Hebrew scholars of 
 the world heretics because they tell you that Koheleth is a 
 pseudonym, and that we do not know its author? 
 
 (3) Take the book of >S'amMe/. Professor Kirkpatrick, Regins 
 professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, says : 
 
 "It is generally agreed that the book is a compilation from different 
 sources, but who was the compiler, there is no evidence to show. " 
 
 Will you rule Professor Kirkpatrick out from among the 
 orthodox because he cannot accept the old Jewish tradition that 
 Samuel was the author of books the most part of which relate 
 to events which transpired long after his death? 
 
 (4) Consider the books of Chronicles^ Ezra, and Nehemiali. 
 Modern scholars regard them as one connected work. Canon 
 Driver, Regius professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, 
 says : 
 
 "A date shortly after B.C. 333 is thus the earliest to whicli the com- 
 position of the Chronicles can be plausibly assigned ; and it is that wliicli 
 is adopted by most modern critics. From the character of his narrative 
 
124 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 it is a probable inference that the author was a Levite, perhaps even a 
 member of the temple choir" (p. 487). 
 
 Will you adopt a dogma that will exclude Canon Driver from 
 orthodoxy because he cannot accept the discredited tradition 
 that Ezra was the author of all these books? 
 
 (5) Consider the Psalter. What scholar at the present day 
 could possibly hold to the old tradition that it was written 
 by David, or that the titles are inspired? Listen to Bishop 
 Perowne : 
 
 ''The conclusion, then, at which we aiTive here, is the same as in the 
 case of the alleged authorship of certain Psalms. The Inscriptions can- 
 not always be relied on. They are sometimes genuine, and really rep- 
 resent the most ancient tradition. At other times they are due to the 
 caprice of later editors and collectors, the fruits of conjecture, or of dim- 
 mer and more imcertain traditions. In short, the Inscriptions of the 
 Psalms are like the Subscriptions to the Epistles of the New Testament. 
 They are not of any necessary authority, and their value must be weighed 
 and tested by the usual critical processes" (Perowne's "Psalms," p. 103). 
 
 Doubtless some of you cannot reconcile this statement with 
 your dogmatic theory of the Bible. But Biblical scholars have 
 no difficulty because they construct their doctrine of the Bible 
 from the Bible itself. They do not accept it from dogmaticians. 
 Those of you who have been accustomed to associate the 22d 
 Psalm with the name of David may stumble at the words of 
 the Bishop of Worcester, when he saj'-s " that the Psalm was 
 composed by one of the exiles during the Babylonian captivity " 
 (p. 44) ; but if the Bishop is correct in his opinion, it is better 
 for you to stumble and fall into truth, than to go right on in 
 the smooth and easy road of error. 
 
 (6) Dr. Wright, of the University of London, says with ref- 
 erence to Proverbs : " The Avhole book was in ancient times 
 regarded as the work of Solomon. The phenomena of the book, 
 however, prove it to be of various authorship " (" Introduction 
 to the Old Testament," p. 162) ; and with reference to the Song of 
 Songs : " The opinion of the older critics, that the Song of Songs 
 describes dialogues between Solomon and an espoused bride, is 
 untenable. " You may be troubled by these various authors of 
 Proverbs and the dramatic poet, whose name has not been pre- 
 served to us, who M^rote that wonderful drama of love; but 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 125 
 
 these unknown authors trouble 5'ou because of your false theory. 
 They do not trouble Dr. Wright, nor do they trouble me. Use 
 the theory we are opposing as a bridge and you will find that 
 it will not bear your weight. If you try to study the literary 
 phenomena of Holy Scripture on this bridge, you will be 
 obliged to throw over one book after another of your Bible, 
 and you will probably lose your own balance in the agony of 
 unloading and go over yourself into the gulf of unbelief. 
 Many a man has had this experience. I doubt whether any fresh 
 and honest mind can escape it, if he attempt to cross the bridge 
 of the dogmaticians. 
 
 I might go over the entire Old Testament and show that, 
 according to the consensus of the Old Testament scholars of the 
 world, the exact truth was stated in my Inaugural, Avhen it 
 was said : 
 
 " It may be regarded as the certain result of the science of the Higher 
 Criticism that Moses did not write the Pentateuch or Job ; Ezra did not 
 write the Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemiah ; Jeremiah did not write the 
 Kings or Tjamentations. David did not write the Psalter, but only a few 
 of the Psalms ; Solomon did not write the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes, 
 and only a portion of the Proverbs ; Isaiah did not write half of the book 
 that bears his name. The great mass of the Old Testament was written 
 b}' authors whose names or connection with their writings are lost in 
 oblivion. If this is destroying the Bible, the Bible is destroyed already. 
 But who tells us that these traditional names were the authors of the 
 Bible? The Bible itself? Tlie creeds of the Church? Any reliable his- 
 torical testimony? None of these! Pure, conjectural tradition ! Nothing 
 more ! We are not prepared to build our faith for time and eternity upon 
 such uncertainties as these. We desire to know whether the Bible came 
 from God, and it is not of any great importance that we should know 
 the names of those worthies chosen by God to mediate His revelation" 
 (p. 33). 
 
 The specimens given from the Old Testament have their 
 parallels in the New Testament. As I have already said : 
 
 " (a) It is probable that the gospel of Mark was written under the in- 
 fluence of Peter, and the gospel of Luke under the influence of Paul, but 
 there is no evideuce that the apostles superintended the writing and pub- 
 lication of these gospels, and it is not certain that they had very nnich 
 to do with them. Are we to reject these gospels because tlierc is uncer- 
 tainty as to apostolic superintendence and influence? 
 
 " (6) The consensus of criticism is against the Pauline authorship of 
 
.136 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the epistle to the Hebrews. There is no probability that Paul or any other 
 apostle had anything to do with it. Does this destroy its canonicity? 
 
 " (c) It is not certain that Matthew wrote the present gospel of Matthew. 
 A large number of the best evangelical critics hold that the real Matthew 
 was the Aramaic Logia at the basis of the gospel, and that our present 
 Matthew is made up chiefly bj' the use of the original Matthew and the 
 gospel of Mark by a later evangelist. Does the canonicity of Matthew 
 depend on this question? 
 
 " (d) The gospel of John, after a long and severe contest, is generally 
 acknowledged by critics to be from the hand of the apostle. It is most 
 probable that the apostle John wrote it, but this is not certain. Is a 
 Christian scholar to be compelled to deny its canonicity if he doubts 
 whether John really wrote it? 
 
 "It is evident, if the elder and younger Hodge are correct in their the- 
 ory of inspiration, that a very large portion of the Bible is in peril from 
 the Higher Criticism, and that the only way to save the Bible is to de- 
 sti"oy the 'higher critics.' Doubtless many excellent scholars and pious 
 men in the Protestant churches really liave this opinion ; and that is 
 one of the gravest perils of the jiresent situation. These dogmaticiaus 
 are responsible for this state of things by the error they have made in 
 making inspiration and canonicity dependent upon authenticity " 
 ("Whither?" pp. 84-86). 
 
 It is possible that a majority of this court may agree with 
 this modern dogma about the Bible which I am opposing. But 
 would you make it an essential and necessary article of faith 
 in our Church ? Are you prepared to array our Church against 
 the Biblical scholars of the world? Are you resolved at all 
 hazards to stem the onrushing, tide of Biblical criticism? If 
 this is your determination, then your legal course is plain. 
 Prepare a memorial to the General Assembly requesting them 
 to send down overtures to the Presbyteries for an amendment 
 of the Confession so as to state this dogma as an essential and 
 necessary article. Let us, as honorable men, meet the issue and 
 decide it — as we decide other questions of revision. But do not 
 try to decide such a momentous question by indirection. Do 
 not read into the Confession a dogma which the Westminster 
 divines never dreamed of. As honorable Christian gentlemen 
 try me by the Confession. You cannot honorably try me by a 
 new dogma, forged in a modern school of theology and used as 
 a substitute for the Westminster doctrine. If you should do 
 such a thing, think you that the counterfeit will not be exposed 
 to the Christian world? You would dash our Church to pieces 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 127 
 
 against the roaring waves of an outraged scholarship and an 
 affronted Christianity. 
 
 The whole case of the prosecution, therefore, rests upon the 
 passages from Holy Scripture. But they have no right to use 
 any passages of Holy Scripture which the Church has not used 
 in formulating an essential and necessary article of the West- 
 minster Confession. Therefore they have no right to use these 
 passages at all in their prosecution. They have no proof of any 
 proposition in the Charge. They have no legal case against 
 me. You are obliged in law to dismiss it. 
 
 But inasmuch as these questions of the Higher Criticism are 
 burning questions of our times, and it may be difficult to hold 
 the judges to a strict! 3" legal view of this case, I shall test all the 
 texts of Holy Scripture offered by the prosecution and show 
 you that they do not i^rove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ; 
 and then I shall show you by indubitable evidence that Holy 
 Scripture teaches that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. 
 
 I submit in printed form, that it may be read by the court, 
 "Who Wrote the Pentateuch? or. The Higher Criticism of 
 the Hexateuch." Taking it as read I say: 
 
 We have gone over all the proofs from Holy Scripture pre- 
 sented by the prosecution to establish the traditional theory of 
 the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. We have found 
 them insufficient and invalid. We have indeed considered 
 more than thrice as many passages as they have presented. If 
 anything capable of being used as a proof has been omitted we 
 do not know it. 
 
 I might have asked you to close the case with this refutation. 
 But I was not content, in the present state of opinion in the 
 Presbyterian Church, to leave the case in this form. The work 
 of the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch has reached such 
 substantial results as to appeal to every honest mind to accept 
 them. It is not negative in its results, it is positive. It is not 
 destructive, it is constructive. It gives vastly more precious 
 doctrine and vastly better history than it takes away. It no 
 longer occupies a defensive attitude. It is aggressive and is 
 sure of erelong convincing evangelical America, as it has 
 
128 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 already couvinced the rest of the world. Therefore I have 
 given you a sketch of the history of opinion on the authorship 
 of the Pentateuch, and I have presented the argument upon 
 which we rely to prove that Moses did not write the Penta- 
 teuch. These you have before you in printed form, in the 
 volume entitled "Who Wrote the Pentateuch? or. The Higher 
 Criticism of the Hexateuch. " Taking this part of my argument 
 as read, let me say that it is necessary that you should weigh 
 the evidence well which is adduced in this argument ere you 
 make a decision upon this important question. It may be that 
 many of you will be unable to make a decision on the merits of 
 the case. If you cannot, you must give me the benefit of the 
 doubt. You cannot vote me guilty of teaching error when I 
 sa}" that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, unless you are 
 convinced that it is an error. Furthermore, if in your opinion 
 it be an error, is it an essential error? Does it contravene any 
 essential and necessary article of the Westminster Confession? 
 Is it an error that impairs the Westminster system of doctrine? 
 If it does not, you cannot condemn me even if you should think 
 the error a serious one from your point of view. You must 
 judge me by the Westminster Confession, not by your private 
 opinion, not by the opinion of any other person in whose judg- 
 ment you may have more confidence than you have in me. 
 
 VII 
 
 WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 
 
 Charge V. : 
 
 " The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 charges the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister 
 of the said Church and a member of the Presbytery of New 
 York, with teaching that Isaiah is not the author of half of the 
 book that bears his name, which is contrary to direct statements 
 of Holy Scripture and to the essential doctrines of the Standards 
 of the said Church that the Holy Scripture evidences itself to 
 be the word of God by the consent of all the parts, and that the 
 infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture 
 itself." 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 129 
 
 We have already discussed under the previous Charge all the 
 preliminary questions which arise with reference to this Charge. 
 For the Charges do not differ in their statement of the doctrines 
 of the Confession which it is claimed are in conflict with my 
 teachings, but only in the statement of that special part of my 
 teachings which is in conflict with the Confession. There it 
 was the doctrine that Moses did not write the Pentateuch ; here 
 it is the doctrine that Isaiah did not write half of the book that 
 bears his name. "We have shown that the Westminster Stand- 
 ards do not directly or indirectly determine the question of the 
 authorship of the Pentateuch. It is equally clear that they do 
 not directly or indirectly determine the authorship of the book 
 of Isaiah. We may therefore go at once to the evidence of the 
 " consent of all the parts" and " the infallible interpretation of 
 Scripture given by Scripture itself." 
 
 It is noteworthy at the outset that no evidence whatever is 
 presented from the Old Testament. If, as the prosecution claim, 
 Isaiah wrote all of the book that bears his name, and Isaiah 
 lived and wrote in the age of Hezekiah in the midst of the liter- 
 ary and historical development of Israel, is it not very remark- 
 able that they should find no evidence from the literature and 
 history of the Old Testament in support of their thesis? I 
 shall endeavor to supply this lack and to show you that there 
 is a great mass of evidence in the Old Testament to show that 
 ■' Isaiah did not write half the book that bears his name." 
 
 But first let me call your attention to the fact that the earliest 
 rabbinical authority to which we have access does not attribute 
 the book of Isaiah to Isaiah as its exclusive author. In the 
 Baba Bathra, it is said : " Hezekiah and his company wrote 
 li^aiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. " This 
 ])robably implies editorshij) rather than authorship. But the 
 association of Isaiah with Proverbs in connection with the so- 
 called college of Hezekiah implies at least editorial work on 
 tbe part of that college in connection with Isaiah as well as 
 \vith Proverbs, and so far impairs the integrity of the book and 
 raises the question what share Isaiah had in the book and what 
 share this college had in it. 
 
 This theory of the composition of Isaiah was probably due 
 to the circumstance which the most superficial student can 
 9 
 
130 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 hardly fail to notice, that there are four historical chapters in 
 the middle of the book (xxxvi.-xxxix.) which were doubtless 
 taken from the book of Kings, with which they agree, except 
 for minor editorial changes and the insertion of the song of 
 Hezekiah. These chapters, depending on the book of Kings, 
 must have been given their present position some time after 
 the composition of the book of Kings. It was easy for the 
 ancient rabbins to think that the college of Hezekiah wrote 
 this section of the book of Kings on the theory of a succession 
 of prophets each contributing a part of the histories until they 
 were all completed ; but no modern scholar could entertain such 
 a theory. These chapters imply, to any one who understands 
 the composition of the book of Kings, an exilic or post-exilic 
 editor who gave them their present place. 
 
 It is also of some consequence to notice the order of the 
 prophets in the most ancient list of the sacred books, namely, 
 Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve. The later Gemara 
 or commentary upon this early Beraitha shows that later rab- 
 bins were troubled by this arrangement. The question is raised : 
 " How is it? Isaiah was before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Ought 
 Isaiah to be placed before at the head?" It is answered: "Since 
 the book of Kings ends in ruin, and Jeremiah is all of it ruin, 
 and Ezekiel has its beginning ruin and its end comfort, we join 
 ruin to ruin and comfort to comfort." It is possible that some 
 of 5^ou may be satisfied with this explanation. And yet you 
 should not blame me if I conclude that their order was due to 
 an early traditional consciousness that Isaiah was a collection 
 of writings rather than, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the work of 
 a single author, and that therefore it was more appropriately 
 placed after Ezekiel and before the collection of the twelve 
 minor prophets. At least there was a consciousness that Isaiah 
 had to do with the restoration from exile, and therefore that 
 it more naturally followed Ezekiel than preceded Jeremiah. 
 In later times when this primitive tradition was lost and the 
 explanation of the Gemara was followed, the Massorites adopted 
 the order, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which we now follow. 
 When now we look at the book of Isaiah, we see that the ancient 
 rabbins were entirely correct in their arrangement; for the 
 longest and most magnificent prophecy in the Old Testament is 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 131 
 
 given in the last twenty-seven chapters of the book. This 
 great prophecy and several lesser anonymous prophecies have 
 for their theme the destruction of Babylon and the restoration 
 of the Jews. Accordingly one feels that the logical order is 
 certainly Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, and the question springs 
 into the mind, and it cannot be restrained. Was not that the 
 chronological order likewise? 
 
 It does not seem reasonable to suppose that an exilic or post- 
 exilic editor would insert the four historical chapters in the 
 midst of the prophecies of Isaiah. He would append the his- 
 torical chapters to the prophecies if those prophecies had indeed 
 come down to him in a book bearing the name of Isaiah. He 
 would not tamper with its structure. If, however, we suppose 
 that this editor did not have before him a book of Isaiah's 
 prophecies containing all these prophecies, and that the editor 
 collected all these prophecies and issued them in the form in 
 which we now find them, how do we know that he edited them 
 as Isaiah's prophecies? How do we know that he did not edit 
 them as a collection of prophecies, giving those of Isaiah first 
 and afterward others of other unknown prophets? 
 
 The title at the beginning of the book of Isaiah is as follows : 
 
 " The vision of Isaiah the son of Amos, which he saw con- 
 cerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, 
 Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." 
 
 ^ This is appropriate to the first collection I. -XI., but certainly 
 has no propriety of reference to the second collection of mes- 
 sages to the nations or to the other and later parts of the book ; 
 and then again we have no clew to the historical value of this 
 title. It has been shown, many times, that the titles of the 
 Psalms and of other portions of the Old Testament writings are 
 often mere conjectures of late scribes, and that these are not to 
 be considered as a part of the inspired Scriptures. But what- 
 ever we may think of this matter, this title does not cover the 
 whole of the present book, as its contents show. 
 
 The great prophecy in the last twenty-seven chapters bears 
 no title: it is anonymous. There is nothing about it, therefore, 
 to indicate that its editor or original author designed that it 
 should be regarded as by Isaiah. Is it not the more natural 
 supposition that this great prophecy was at first apart by itself 
 
132 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 and that the collection originally closed with the four historical 
 chapters; and that in the first arrangement of the second divi- 
 sion of the canon into the four prophetic histories and the four 
 prophetic writings, as the twelve were grouped into one book, 
 so the prophecy of the Great Unknown was joined to the col- 
 lection of prophecies embracing the first thirty-nine chapters of 
 Isaiah so as to make the four books as nearly as possible equal 
 in size? Let me give you a general statement of this wonder- 
 ful prophecy. 
 
 I. — The Prophecy, Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 
 
 Isaiah xl.-lxvi. is a book of comfort, cheering the exiles of 
 Israel with the promise of the advent of Yahweh to redeem them 
 from bondage and restore them to their holy land. It is a 
 further unfolding of Jeremiah's book of comfort. The apoca- 
 lypse of Isaiah xxxiv., xxxv. is its prelude, but it differs from 
 that apocalypse in that the order of judgment and redemption 
 is inverted. The judgment of the nations is separated- from the 
 judgment of Babylon, and is associated with the new Jerusa- 
 lem in a final conflict there after the model of Ezekiel, This is 
 given in the appendix to the prophecy, and does not enter into 
 the unfolding of its great theme. The prophecy itself is rather 
 a presentation of the glories of redemption. The author stands 
 on the loftiest peak of prophecy. He masses more Messianic 
 predictions in his book than any of the prophets that preceded 
 him. He carries the Messianic idea to a much higher stage of 
 development, so that he becomes the evangelical prophet, who 
 seems to be the nearest to the Messiah and the theology of the 
 new Covenant. The circumstances of the exile were favorable 
 to this. It is doubtful whether it was possible for a projDhet 
 living in the land of Israel, in the use of the ceremonial of the 
 temple of Solomon, or the temple of Zerubbabel, to attain those 
 profound spiritual conceptions of God and divine things that 
 pervade the whole of this sublime poem. Even Ezekiel was too 
 near the old temple to escape altogether from the influence of 
 its institutions. But the prophecy of the Great Unknown re- 
 flects the experience of a prophet who had lived long in exile. 
 To him the worship of Yahweh consists in prayer and fasting, in 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 133 
 
 observance of the Sabbath, and keeping pure from the abomina- 
 tions of the heathen.* By these more spiritual religious exer- 
 cises the faithful people of God could testify their attachment 
 to the religion of their fathers, without any sacred places or 
 sacred institutions. They were thereby brought into closer 
 communion with their God, when priestly mediation and cere- 
 monial access were out of the question. 
 
 This marvellous prophecy is certainly in its present form a 
 single composition, and yet it is difficult to show any close con- 
 nection between its parts. Many of them can be removed with- 
 out disturbing the flow of its thought and emotion. There is 
 indeed a lack of connection in several places that has attracted 
 the attention of critics, and has led to the conjecture that the 
 prophet uses several more ancient prophecies. This should not 
 surprise us, for it is characteristic of the writers of the period 
 to use older prophets. There are not a few citations from earlier 
 writings that are evident, f These examples suggest that there 
 are others that are not so evident, but that may be detected by 
 the methods of literary criticism. 
 
 The prophecy is divided into three sections of nine chapters 
 each by the refrains, J xlviii. 33, Ivii. 30, 31, Ixvi. 34. 
 
 But these refrains are more suited to the last chapter than to 
 the body of the prophecy. We should expect that the refrains 
 of the prophecy would emphasize rather its great theme. A 
 closer examination of the piece discloses just such refrains as 
 we should expect in xlii. 14-17, xlviii. 30-33, Hi. 11, 13, Ivii. 
 14-31, Ixii, 10-13. These all involve the divine advent and the 
 deliverance from Babylon. 
 
 The last of these refrains corresponds so closely with the 
 introduction to the prophecy xl. 1-13 that we may regard it as 
 the original conclusion. This is in accord with other pecul- 
 iarities of the closing section. The little piece, Ixiii. 1-6, is 
 of earlier date. It has no sort of connection with its present 
 context. And the section Ixiii. 7-lxvi. betrays a later period 
 of composition and a different train of thought from that which 
 pervades the bodv of the prophecy. The division of the 
 
 * See especially Isa. lii. 11, Ivi. 1-8, Iviii., Ixvi. 17. 
 
 fSee Isa. li. 11, Ixv. 25. 
 
 t See Delitzsch, "Isaiah," ii. p. 129. 
 
134 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 prophecy into three parts seems to have come from the final 
 arrangement wlien tlie appendix was added. 
 
 A careful examination of the body of the prophecy discloses 
 other features that show earlier and later sections. There are 
 differences in rhythm — trimeters, pentameters, and hexa- 
 meters.* These differences might have been designed to give 
 variety of movement to a poem of such great length. But there 
 are certain facts that seem to imply that the trimeters were 
 originally a prophecy by itself. The introduction, the conclu- 
 sion, and the intervening refrains have the longer movement. 
 If there be a difference in date, the trimeters must be earlier 
 than the framework of the prophecy that incloses them. There 
 are also several long pieces of the pentameter movement and 
 lyrics in the hexameter movement. But there are several other 
 important differences, among which we may mention — (1) 
 That the great theme of the trimeters is the divine advent for 
 the deliverance of the servant of Yahweh, and that in the penta- 
 meters and hexameters the wife and mother, Zion, takes the place 
 of the servant in a parallel representation ; (2) that the great con- 
 queror who is to be the divine instrument in the deliverance of 
 Israel is referred to in the trimeters in general terms, but in 
 the other part of the poem is named by his name, Cyrus; f (3) 
 that tlie pentameters use quite frequently the divine name 
 'Adonay Yahweh. It seems to me, therefore, that there was 
 an earlier prophecy with the trimeter movement, whose great 
 theme was the divine deliverance of the servant of Yahweh, 
 and that this was taken up into a larger prophecy in a second 
 edition and associated with a parallel theme, the divine deliver- 
 ance of Zion, the wife of Yahweh. 
 
 The trimeter poem that constitutes the original basis of the 
 prophecy of the Great Unknown seems to have had its own divi- 
 
 * " It is not always easy to distinguish hexameters from trimeters, for 
 he caesura of the hexameter usually falls in the middle of the line divid- 
 ng it into two trimeters. But they may be distinguished in part by the 
 occurrence of the caesura sometimes after the second accent and sometimes 
 after the fourth accent ; and in part by the fact that the second half of 
 the hexameter line is complementary to the first" ("Biblical Study," p. 
 283). 
 
 flsa. xliv. 38, xlv. 1; comp. xlvi. 11. 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 135 
 
 sions. We may distinguish five parts: (1) xl. 12-xli. 10, xli. 
 13-xlii. 13; (2) xlii. 18-xliv. 23; (3) xlviii. 1-11, xlix. 1-13; 
 (4) lii. 13, liii., Iv. ; (5) Iviii.-lix., Ixi. These parts close with 
 little hymns or pieces of similar character. The theme of these 
 trimeters is the deliverance of the servant of Yahweh. 
 
 The second edition of the prophecy is a book of comfort to 
 Zion, who is personified and represented as the wife of Yahweh 
 and the mother of its inhabitants. The introduction, the conclu- 
 sion, and the four intermediate refrains, together with the 
 several pieces with which they are connected, all set forth the 
 same theme. The advent of Yahweh is at hand. He comes to 
 comfort Zion and restore her wastes. His people are to go 
 forth from Babylon and pass through the wilderness to the Holy 
 Land. The scenes of the exodus from Egypt are to be tran- 
 scended in marvellous transformations of nature and by the 
 wonders of the divine guidance. Zion is the central figure of 
 this second edition of the prophecy, as the servant of Yahweh is 
 the chief feature of the first edition. 
 
 The prophecy of the Great Unknown was finally issued with 
 an appendix embracing chaps. Ixiii.-lxvi. This is composed 
 of one little piece of trimeter poetry of an early date, alread}' 
 considered in an appropriate place, and two larger pieces of 
 longer rhythm. The earlier of these, chaps. Ixiii. 7, Ixiv., 
 is a lamentation and supplication. The latter, chaps. Ixv., 
 Ixvi., is apocalyptic in character, resembling those apocal3'pses 
 that we have considered at the opening of this chapter. The 
 judgment is here a discrimination between the righteous and 
 the wicked without regard to nationality. 
 
 The internal evidences for the exilic composition of this great 
 j)rophecy are overwhehning. 
 
 (1) The argument from la7iguage. 
 
 This is so well presented by Canon Driver in his " Isaiah, 
 His Life and Times," that I beg leave to call your attention to his 
 word lists. He gives thirty-seven items of words and phrases of 
 the Isaiah of the age of Hezekiah and thirt3^-one items of words 
 and phrases of the Great Unknown, which show unmistakably 
 that these are not only different writers, but writers far apart 
 in time. 
 
 I shall mention a few of the more striking examples. 
 
136 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOK BRIGGS 
 
 As Driver says, the figure of '' Yaliweh's hand 'stretched 
 out' or 'swung' over the earth, and bearing consternation with 
 it, " is applied by Isaiah with singular picturesquencss and force : 
 V. 25; ix. 11, 16, 20; x. 4; xiv. 26, 27; xxiii. 11; xxxi. 3; xi. 
 15; xix. 10. It is used so often as to be characteristic. 
 
 The Great Unknown uses often the " Arm of Yahweh : " xl. 
 11; xxviii. 14; li. 5, a and b, 9; lii. 10; liii. 1; lix. 16 b (cf. xl. 
 10) ; Ixii. 8; Ixiii. 5, 12. It is one of his characteristics. This 
 last is used in Isaiah only in xxx. 30; xxxiii. 2. 
 
 (2) ''Ji*< as a divine name is used in Isaiah nineteen times, but 
 in the Great Unknown only in xlix. 14, and here apparently 
 not as a divine name, but as an address — my lord, "injs mn^ ^j7n 
 is used eight times in Isaiah, but is not in the Great Unknown. 
 Pis3i mn^ appears thirty-three times in Isaiah, but only six times 
 in the Great Unknown, nixas mm ^nxn is characteristic of Isaiah : 
 i. 24; iii. 1 ; x. 33; xix. 4 (t?*= x. 16 in common M. T. ; not Mas- 
 sora, doubtless scrib. error), but is not used by the Great 
 Unknown, ^i^' 'i"^^ is used in the Great Unknown fourteen 
 times, but in Isaiah only in vii. 7; xxviii. 16; xxx. .15. The 
 usage of Isaiah agrees with Amos, whereas the Great Unknown 
 agrees in usage with Ezekiel. Eloliim alone is used but once 
 in Isaiah and Eloliim with suffixes four times. But in the 
 Great Unknown Eloliim is used nine times alone and twenty- 
 nine times with suffixes, showing a tending to the later post- 
 exilic usage. 
 
 (3) Several Aramaic words are to be noticed in the Great 
 Unknown, e.g. "^na to test, try for pa xlviii. 10; and in«s? Ara- 
 maic ^1"-?- Ixv. 25 for 1T71 of Is. xi. 6, 7. 
 
 (4) The Great Unknown shows a fondness for the particles 
 n^^ (fourteen times), "^2 (ten times), i;'^"' (fifteen times), as is 
 noted by Dillmann. 
 
 (5) Driver calles attention to the fact that in relative clauses 
 the relative is omitted by Isaiah only six times, whereas in the 
 Great Unknown it is omitted nearl}'- sixty times. 
 
 (6) I have noticed a syntactical usage which, so far as I 
 know, others have not mentioned. Quite frequently in the 
 Great Unknown there is a departure from classic usage in that 
 the weak waw with the imperfect is used for the waw con- 
 secutive of the perfect of the classic style. This corresponds 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 137 
 
 with the usage of Ezekiel, who gives the weak waw with the 
 perfect for the waw consecutive of the imperfect. 
 
 II. — Argument from Style 
 
 The argument from st3^1e is so well stated by Driver in his 
 comparison of Isaiah with the Great Unknown that it is suffi- 
 cient to quote him : 
 
 " There are also literary features of a more general character, 
 which differentiate the author of c. 40-66 from Isaiah. Isaiah's 
 style is terse and compact: the movement of his periods is 
 stately and measured; his rhetoric is grave and restrained. 
 In these chapters a subject is often developed at considerable 
 length ; the style is much more flowing ; the rhetoric is warm 
 and impassioned, and the prophet often bursts out into a lyric 
 strain (42, 10 f. 44, 23. 45, 8. 49, 13), in a manner to which even 
 Isa. 12 affords no parallel. Force is the predominant feature 
 of Isaiah's oratory; persuasion sits upon the lips of the prophet 
 who here speaks ; the music of his eloquence, as it rolls mag- 
 nificently along, thrills and captivates the soul of its hearer. 
 So, again, if the most conspicuous characteristic of Isaiah's 
 imagination be grandeur, that of the prophet to whom we are 
 here listening is pathos. The storms, the inundations, the 
 sudden catastrophes which If3aiah loves to depict are scarcely 
 to be found in this prophecy. The author's imagery is drawn 
 by preference from a different region of nature altogether, viz., 
 from the animate world, in particular from the sphere of 
 human emotion. It is largely the figures drawn from the 
 latter which impart to his prophecy its peculiar pathos and 
 warmth (see 49, 15. 18. 61, 10^ 62, 5. 66, 13). His fondness 
 for such figures is, however, most evident in the numerous 
 examples of 2)ersonificatio)i which his prophecy contains. 
 Since Amos (5, 2) it became habitual with the prophets to per- 
 sonify a city or community as a maiden, especially where it 
 was desired to represent it as vividly conscious of some keen 
 emotion. This figure is applied in these chapters with remark- - 
 able independence and originality. Zion is represented as a 
 widow, a mother, a bride, i.e., under just those relations of life 
 in which the deepest feelings of humanity come into play; and 
 
138 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the personification is continued sometimes throngli a long series 
 of verses. Nor is this all. The prophet personifies nature: 
 he bids heaven and earth shout at the restoration of God's peo- 
 ple (44, 23. 49, 13; cf. 52, 9. 55, 12); he hears in imagination 
 the voice of invisible beings sounding across the desert (40, 3. 
 (i. 57, 14); he peoples Jerusalem with ideal watchmen (52, 8) 
 and guardians (62, 6). Akin to these personifications is the 
 dramatic character of the representation, wdiich also prevails 
 to a remarkable extent in the prophecy (see 40, 3 ff. 49, 1 ff. 
 50, 4-9. 53, 1 ff. 58, 3^ 61, 10 f. 63, 1-6)." 
 
 111. — The Alignment from Biblical Theology 
 
 The theology of the Great Unknown is so far above the theology 
 of Isaiah that it is difficult to see how any who compares them 
 can doubt that there has been a great theological development 
 in the interval between them. I shall present a few specimens. 
 
 (1) The doctrine of God in the Great Unknown is even more 
 exalted than in the book of Job. Any one who can believe 
 that Job was written by Moses might also believe that the 
 great prophecy we are considering was written by Isaiah, but 
 it is impossible for a man who knows that Job was not written 
 earlier than the age of Josiah to suppose that the Great 
 Unknown was written earlier than the age of Josiah. (a) 
 The Great Unknown emphasizes the doctrine that Yahweh is 
 the only God in a heaping up of expressions of great variety : 
 
 "Thus saith Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his redeemer Yahweh 
 Sabaoth : I am the first, and I am the last ; and beside me there is no 
 God. ... Is there a God beside me ? yea, there is no Rock ; I know 
 not any" (xliv. 6, 8 b). 
 
 "lam Yahweh, and there is none else ; beside me there is no God: 
 I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me : that they may know 
 from the rising of tlie sun, and from the west, that there is none beside 
 me : I am Yahweh, and there is none else" (xlv. 5, 6). 
 
 " Surely God is in thee ; and there is none else ; there is no God. Verily 
 thou art a God thathidesttliyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. . . . And 
 there is no God else beside me : a just God and a Saviour ; there is none 
 beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : 
 for I am God, and there is none else " (xlv. 14 b, 15, 21 b, 23). 
 
 " Neither hath the eye seen a God beside thee " (Ixiv. 4 b) . 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 139 
 
 This doctrine was appropriate for an exilic prophet brought 
 face to face with the religions of the great nations of the 
 Euphrates. But Isaiah has no such statements. They were 
 not needed in his time. He had to emphasize the majesty and 
 sanctity of God. 
 
 (6) The Great Unknown emphasizes the doctrine that Yali- 
 weh was "the first" and Yahweh was "the last," and that He 
 was " the same : " "I Yahweh the first, and with the last, I am 
 the same" (xli. 4 b). "I am the first, and I am the last; and 
 beside me there is no God " (xliv. 6 b). "I am the same ; I 
 am the first, I also am the last " (xlviii. 13b). 
 
 These expressions have nothing to correspond with them in 
 Isaiah. 
 
 (c) The doctrine of the divine Spirit in Isaiah is still the 
 ancient doctrine. It was to be poured on the Messianic King to 
 endow Him with the sevenfold endowment for His reign of 
 peace (Is. xi. 2). It was to be poured on the land to trans- 
 form it from a wilderness to a garden (Is. xxxii. 15), and with- 
 out guidance by the divine Spirit apostate children add sin 
 to sin (Is. XXX. 1) ; but in the Great Unknown the doctrine 
 reaches a height which has no parallel except in the late 139th 
 Psahn. The divine Spirit endows the Messianic Servant in 
 xlii. 1 ; Ixi. 1 ; and will revive the nation, xliv. 3 ; it accom- 
 panies the ministry of the prophets, xlviii. 10. But in chapter 
 Ixiii. 10, the Spirit is named the Holy Spirit, an epithet used 
 elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Psalm li. 13. It is per- 
 sonified beyond any other passage in the Old Testament. It 
 is represented that He was grieved by the rebellion of the 
 Israelites in the wilderness, that He led them in their journeys 
 to the Holy Land, and that He was in the midst of them. 
 Thus the Holy Spirit is assigned the work of the theophanic 
 angel of the historical narrative of JE, and especiaUy as 
 bearing with Him the divine face or presence as in the docu- 
 ment J. The Holy Spirit is associated with the theophanic 
 angel here, just as in the book of wisdom. Proverbs, 1st chapter, 
 the divine Spirit and the divine Wisdom are associated. This 
 conception of the divine Spirit shows a marked advance not 
 only beyond Isaiah, but also beyond Ezekiel. 
 
 (d) The doctrine of creation in Isaiah is confined to a use of 
 
140 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGG9 
 
 the verb ^^y in Isaiah XA'ii. 7, where God is represented as the 
 Maker of man; xi^ is used in Isaiah iv. 5 with reference to the 
 cloud and fire which are to protect redeemed Jerusalem. Bat 
 the doctrine of creation is one of the most characteristic doc- 
 trines of the Great Unknown. He heaps up terms and de- 
 scriptive epithets to set it forth in xl. 12 f, 26-28; xlii. 5; xliii. 
 7, 21; xliv. 2, 31, 24; xlv. 7, 9-11, 12, 18; xlviii. 13; xlix. 
 5; li. 13; liv. IG; Ivii. 16, 19. In his doctrine he tran- 
 scends every pre-exilic writer. The late word »<ia is used by the 
 Great Unknown twenty times. No other writer can compare 
 with this. 
 
 (2) In the doctrine of redemption, a more spiritual conception 
 pervades the Great Unknown than any pre-exilic writer. Yah- 
 weh of ten names himself or is called " Saviour " (xliii. 3, 11; 
 xlv. 15, 21; xlix. 26; Ix. 16; Ixiii. 8) and "Redeemer" (xli. 
 14; xliii. 14; xliv. 6, 24; xlvii. 4; xlviii. 17; xlix. 7, 26; liv. 
 5, 8; lix. 20; Ix. IG; Ixiii. 16) — phrases unknown to Isaiah. 
 
 The verb Sxj is not in Isaiah at all, but is found in the Great 
 Unknown. God's people are d^Sinj "redeemed," Is. li. 10; 
 Ixii. 12; Ixiii. 4; an expression found elsewhere only in Is. 
 xxxv. 9, which also is exilic as we shall see, and Ps. cvii. 2. 
 The doctrine of salvation is sung with every variety of the 
 sweetest expressions that the poet can conceive of, to such an 
 extent that this prophecy is recognized as the gospel in the 
 Old Testament. The conception of redemption in Is. Ivii. 15 
 and Ixvi. 1, 2 is unspeakably sublime: 
 
 "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose 
 name is Holy : I dwell in the high and holy place, witli hina also that is 
 of a contrite and humble spirit to revive the spirit of the humble, and 
 to revive the heart of the contrite ones. " 
 
 " Thus saith Yahweh, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my 
 footstool : what manner of house will ye build unto me? and what place 
 shaU be my rest? For all these things hath mine hand made, and so all 
 these things came to be, saith Yahweh : but to this man will I look, even 
 to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my 
 word. " • 
 
 This doctrine is divine and not human. It could hardly have 
 been conceived prior to the experience of Israel in exile when 
 they were excluded from sacred places and ceremonial religion. 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 141 
 
 and were compelled to a spiritual religion. These passages are 
 re-echoed in the 51st Psalm. 
 
 (3) In the Messianic idea the Great Unknown advances far 
 beyond Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even Ezekiel. These are all pre- 
 supposed in his great prophecy, as I have shown in the chapters 
 devoted to the subject in my "Messianic Prophecy." 
 
 (a) The most characteristic feature of this Messianic proph- 
 ecy is the servant of Jahveh and especially of the suffering 
 Servant. Let me repeat from my " Messianic Prophecy," The 
 exile was a bitter experience for the pious Israelite. It tran- 
 scended the woes of the Egyptian bondage. Por then the Holy 
 Land was a bright prospect that had not yet been attained ; but 
 now the Holy Land had been lost through the sin and folly of 
 the people of God. The pious keenl}'- felt that they were 
 deprived of blessings which they ought to have inherited. They 
 needed redemption of sin even more than deliverance from 
 oppressors. The pious were indeed the greatest sufferers, for 
 they shared in the persecution to which Jeremiah and others 
 like-minded had been subjected by the wicked princes and 
 their followers among the people. Piety was now synonj^mous 
 with affliction and sorrow. The ideal of the suffering Messiah 
 had its genesis in these circumstances, and yet it was not with- 
 out connection with earlier Messianic prophecies. The ideal 
 man of the poem of the creation and of the codes of the Penta- 
 teuch had not been realized in the experience of Israel or man- 
 kind. The curses were earned and the blessings were forfeited. 
 The problem of redemption was no longer simply the education 
 of the race for its attainment of the divine ideal, or the training 
 ( if Israel in the sacred institutions of redemption ; but first of 
 all they must be delivered from the curse of sin and the penal- 
 ties of broken covenants and vows. The problem of redemption 
 ])ecame complicated owing to the fact that not only did the sinner 
 suffer for his evil deeds, but the righteous man who strove to 
 serve God, to attain the divine ideal, and to gain the promised 
 blessings, increased his sufferings and sorrows thereby. He 
 separated himself from his evil surroundings onl}' to incur 
 enmity and persecution. He suffered no longer for sin, but for 
 righteousness' sake. Ideal manhood is to be gained only 
 through the real manhood of fortitude, perseverance, and the 
 
142 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 patient endurance of i^ersecutions even unto death. This con- 
 ception is found in germ in the protevangelium . The conflict 
 with Satan and the forces of evil was accompanied with peril, 
 and the victory was to be gained only through suffering. It is 
 also contained in the covenants with Abraham and David. 
 What Egypt was to the seed of Abraham, that the exile 
 became to the seed of Abraham, David, and the children of Israel. 
 The wilderness was the way to the Holy Land of redemption, 
 and the entrance was through the vale of tribulation. But the 
 circumstances of the exile, and especially the experience of the 
 persecuted Jeremiah and his associates, taught the people of 
 God lessons they had never learned before. The sufferings of 
 the nation in exile were to discharge the penalties of its trans- 
 gressions, but were not to result in ultimate ruin. The nation 
 had indeed died, but it was to rise again in a great resurrection. 
 The faithful prophets, the teachers of the nation, are not to 
 suffer persecution and death in vain; they are to earn and 
 receive the rewards of their faithfulness. There are several 
 psalms of the exile that present to our view a great sufferer who 
 can hardly be any other than the Messiah. It seems probable 
 that Jeremiah was the type of the great sufferer, for he w^s 
 the hero of the exiles, the great historical sufferer for God. But 
 even this prince of sufferers does not attain the heights of the 
 ideal of these psalms. He is the basis of the representation, 
 but the divine Spirit guided the psalmists to discern and describe 
 a sufferer whose experience was vastly more bitter than that of 
 Jeremiah, and whose sufferings were revv^arded with a redemp- 
 tion which Jeremiah did not gain (pp. 320-322). 
 
 On the basis of this suffering the great prophet of the exile 
 constructs his image of the servant of Yahweh. 
 
 In Is. 01 the idea of the servant of Yahweh reaches its cli- 
 max. It was not without reason that the Messiah recognized 
 Himself more distinctly in this picture, and employed it in His 
 discourse in the sj^iagogue of Nazareth to explain His mission 
 to His unbelieving kindred and townsmen, for here we see the 
 Messiah preaching the gospel of redemption that he has already 
 achieved, enjoying the fruits of his ministry, and rejoicing in 
 the accomplishment of his work. He is anointed with the di- 
 vine Spirit, as in the first passage, Is. xlii., and becomes a gentle 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 14 .'J 
 
 preacher. There he was unostentatious and meek in his entire 
 work, not breaking off the broken reed or putting out the faint 
 wick, but yet releasing the captives. Here he has the same 
 work, but as he describes his own mission and work ho 
 enlarges upon this feature of it, and we see him. binding up the 
 broken-hearted, comforting mourners, giving them festal robes 
 instead of the ashes and sackcloth of humiliation and mourn- 
 ing. There he was the light of the nations, as well as the cove- 
 nant of Israel. This feature was enlarged in the second repre- 
 sentation (xlix. 1-7). He raises up the tribes of Jacob, re- 
 stores them to their own land, and becomes salvation to the 
 ends of the earth. Here this is still further enlarged. The re- 
 deemed become like terebinths of righteousness, thej^ build the 
 wastes of Judah and Jerusalem, they become the priests of the 
 nations, and the nations become their servants. Thus they real- 
 ize their original ideal as set forth in the covenant of Horeb. 
 They are recognized by the nations as the seed that enjoy the 
 blessing of Yahweh, and thus attain the Abrahamic covenant. 
 They enjoy the new covenant with its everlasting joy and pros- 
 perity, which is now familiar to us from the representations of 
 Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Great Unknown himself. This 
 ■prophecy thus sums up in itself, and enlarges upon all the previ- 
 ous descriptions of the servant, with the exception of those relat- 
 ing to the suffering substitute. That picture presented fully the 
 servant's condition of humiliation. It mentioned the servant's 
 exaltation only at the beginning and at the conclusion. 
 That which was left undeveloped there is here the subject of 
 the picture. The servant is here not engaged in the work of 
 svibstitution and interposition, but he is emploj^ed in proclaim- 
 ing the results of it, and in applying the fruits of it, in the 
 preaching of the gospel of redemption to the poor and miserable. 
 The sin-bearing servant needs as his counterpart the joyful 
 preacher of the glad tidings of a redemption that has been 
 accomplished. The servant no longer bears the name of ser- 
 vant, he is preparing the poor and sorrowful for the festival of 
 redemption of the year of grace. It is most fitting, therefore, 
 that the prophecy should conchide with a song of joy in the 
 mouth of the great preacher. He has accomplished his mis- 
 sion, and is entitled to its rewards, and the saddest of all sor- 
 
14:4 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 rows has been transformed into the purest and loftiest joy (pp. 
 371-373). 
 
 The prediction of the suffering Messiah stands out most 
 naturally upon the background of the exile. The royal Messiah, 
 the prince of peace, appears in the frame of the age of Isaiah. 
 The Messianic servant is as appropriate to the exile as the 
 Messianic king to the reign of Hezekiah. We cannot trans- 
 l)Ose them or put them side by side in the same author and the 
 same period without impairing their historic value and their 
 predictive verisimilitude. 
 
 (b) The second most prominent feature in this great prophecy 
 is the comfort given to Zion, who is personified and represented 
 as the wife and mother of its inhabitants. It is easy to show 
 that this representation presupposes the book of comfort of 
 Jeremiah 30, 31 and the predictions of Zephaniah and Ezekiel as 
 well as of Hosea, and that it transcends them all in its exhibi- 
 tions of the tenderness of the marital relation between Zion and 
 Yahweh and of the beauty and glory of the new Jerusalem. 
 Take for example : 
 
 " And the foreigners who join themselves unto Yahweh to minister to him, 
 And to love the name of Yahweh, to become servants unto him. 
 Every one keeping tlie Sabbath from polluting it, and those who are 
 
 firm in my covenant, 
 I will bring them unto my holy mountain, and I will make them rejoice 
 
 in my house of prayer ; 
 Their burnt-ofTeriugs and their peace-offerings will be for acceptance 
 
 upon mine altar. 
 For my house will be proclaimed a house of prayer for all peoples. " 
 
 — Isa. Ivi. 6, 7. 
 
 This passage is the most advanced of all those that we have 
 met, relating to the share of the nations in the redemption of 
 Israel. Isaiah predicts that Egypt will serve Yahweh with 
 peace-offerings, vegetable-offerings and votive-offerings (xix. 
 21) ; and in Zephaniah the Cushites bring incense-offerings and 
 the Libyans vegetable-offerings (iii. 10). So here foreigners in 
 general will bring burnt-offerings and peace-offerings to the di- 
 vine altar and find acceptance. The temple is no longer a merely 
 Jewish temple, it has become a universal temple. As such it 
 is more than a place of sacrifice, it is a place of prayer. The 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 145 
 
 prophet rises above the conception of Ezekiel to the idea of a uni- 
 versal religion. The sacrifices are still here, for the Old Testa- 
 ment point of view cannot yet be abandoned ; but the sacrifices 
 are in the background. As the qualifications for participation 
 in the blessings of redemption are no longer national, but coven- 
 ant-keeping and Sabbath observance, conditions that all nations 
 might fulfil, so the most significant feature of the new worship 
 is prayer, and the world-wide name of the temple of Yahweh 
 will be house of prayer for all peoples (" Mess. Proph.," p. 392). 
 
 IV. — The Historical Situation 
 
 The argument from the historical situation is so well stated 
 by Canon Driver that I shall again venture to quote him : 
 
 " Three independent lines of argument converge to show that 
 this prophecy is not the work of Isaiah, but, like 13, 2-14, 23, 
 has for its author a prophet writing toward the close of the 
 Babylonian captivity. (1) The internal evidence supplied by 
 the prophecy itself points to this period as that at which it was 
 written. It alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as ruined and 
 deserted {e.g. 44, 26\ 58, 12. 61, 4. 03, 18. 64, 10 f.); to the 
 sufferings which the Jews have experienced, or are experiencing, 
 at the hands of the Chalda^ans (42, 22. 25. 43, 28. [R. V. marg.] 
 47, 6. 52, 5); to the prospect of return, which, as the prophet 
 speaks, is imminent (40, 2. 46, 13. 48, 20, etc.). Those whom 
 the prophet addresses, and, moreover, addresses in person — 
 arguing with them, appealing to them striving to win their 
 assent by his warm and impassioned rhetoric (40, 21. 26. 28. 
 43, 10. 48, 8. 50, 10 f. 51, 0. 12 f. 58, 3 ff., etc.)— are not the 
 men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz and Hekeziah, or 
 even of Manasseh ; they are the exiles in Babjdonia. Judged 
 by the analog i/ of prophecy, this constitutes the strongest 
 possible presumption that the author actually lived in the 
 period which he thus describes, and is not merely (as has been 
 supposed) Isaiah immersed in spirit in the future, and holding 
 converse, as it were, with the generations j'et unborn. Such 
 an immersion in the future would be not only without paral- 
 lel in the O.T., it would be contrary to the nature of proph- 
 ecy. The prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his 
 10 
 
146 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 own contemporaries ; the message which he brings is intimately 
 related with the circnmstances of his time : his promises and 
 predictions, however far they reach into the future, never- 
 theless rest upon the basis of the history of his own age, and 
 correspond to the needs which are then felt. The prophet never 
 abandons his own historical position, but speaks from it. So 
 Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for instance, predict first the exile, 
 then the restoration; both are contemplated by them as still 
 future ; both are viewed from the period in which they them- 
 selves live. In the present prophecy there is no prediction of 
 exile ; the exile is not announced as something still future : it 
 \ii presupposed, and only the release from it \% predicted. By 
 analogy, therefore, the author will have lived in the situation 
 which he thus presupposes, and to which he continually alludes " 
 ("Lit. of O. T.," pp. 223, 224). 
 To these words of Driver let me add the following : 
 This wondrous prophecy, as it has expanded in three suc- 
 cessive editions, finds its only appropriate historical situation 
 in the exile. Looking forward from thence it builds on all the 
 previous prophets, and transcends them all in the bulk and 
 grandeur of its representations. It is related to the book of 
 Ezekiel as the inner to the outer; as the essential spirit and 
 substance to its formal envelope. It seems to me that Ezekiel 
 could never have written his apocalypse if he had seen or heard 
 of the doctrines of Isa. xl.-lxvi. It is indeed not at all strange 
 that some Jewish rabbins and some modern scholars have 
 doubted the inspiration of Ezekiel, who differs so greatly from 
 the Mosaic codes on the one side and from Isa. xl.-lxvi. on the 
 other. The difficulty is resolved only when we see that Ezekiel 
 stands on a lower stage in the development of the Messianic 
 idea than the Great Unknown, who had Ezekiel and Jeremiah, 
 the exile and the body of ancient prophecy behind him; and 
 thus could grasp the whole doctrine of his predecessors, and 
 rise from it to greater heights of prediction ("Mess. Proph.," 
 pp. 408, 409). 
 
 We have now gone over the argument from the book of Isaiah 
 itself and have seen that the great prophecy in the last twenty- 
 seven chapters is from a great unknown prophet writing during 
 the exile. 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 147 
 
 V. — The Testimony of the New Testament 
 
 We are confronted by testimony from the New Testament 
 presented by the prosecution. We have already considered 
 under the previous Charge the principles which should deter- 
 mine the evidence to be derived from the use of the Old Testa- 
 ment in the New Testament. We have only to consider the 
 passages themselves. There are six of thom. None of them 
 give the words of Jesus. Two are the words of the evangelist 
 Matthew, two give the words of Luke, one the testimony of 
 John, and one of Paul. The passages referred to in the book 
 of Isaiah are chapters vi. 9, 10; ix. 1, 2 of the earlier collec- 
 tion, and five well-known passages of the great prophecy of the 
 exile, namely, xl. 3-5; xlii. 1-3; liii. 1; Ixi. 1, 2; Ixv. 1, 2. The 
 two passages from the earlier collection are not in question, 
 because I do not deny that Isaiah wrote them ; but only those 
 from chapters xl.-lxvi. If these New Testament writers testify 
 that Isaiah wrote these passages, then the testimony of the New 
 Testament is against the opinion that I have expressed that 
 Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name; but 
 these writers testify no such thing. Their language is pre- 
 cisely the same in form as that we have considered in connec- 
 tion with similar passages relating to the Pentateuch. In the 
 original specification we find a reference to " the roU of the 
 prophet Isaiah" of Luke iv. 17, 18, which Jesus took when He 
 expounded the Gist chapter from it. This has been omitted 
 from the Amended Specification. It certainly does not imply 
 any more than that it was the roll which bore the name of the 
 prophet Isaiah. We may interpret in several ways : either that 
 Isaiah wrote it all, as the prosecution hold, or that he wrote the 
 earlier portions of it, and so the prophecies appended by later 
 editors to the book did not change its name ; or that it came 
 down by tradition associated with the name of Isaiah, having 
 been edited under his name when the second canon was estab- 
 lished. It no more implies authorship than the book of Ruth 
 or the book of Esther imply authorship by Ruth or Esther. 
 
 "The book of the words of Isaiah the prophet" (Luke iii. 4) 
 is onl}' an enlargement of the previous phrase by the insertion 
 of the term " words ; " but it does not prove authorship any 
 
148 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 more than the previous phrase. It may be explained in the 
 same way. 
 
 "Spoken through Isaiah the prophet," of Matthew xii. 17; 
 "word of Isaiah the prophet," of John xii, 38; "Isaiah said," 
 John xii. 41 ; " Isaiah saith," Rom. x. IG, 20, do not imply any 
 more than "the book of Isaiah saith," " spoken through the book 
 of Isaiah," " word of the book of Isaiah," and they have as their 
 exact parallels, " All the prophets from Samuel and them that 
 followed after, as many as have sj)oken they also told of these 
 days," Acts iii. 24. 
 
 It is quite possible that I may not be able to convince this 
 court that my interpretation of these references to the book of 
 Isaiah in the New Testament is the true one, and that you may 
 prefer the interpretation which the prosecution put upon these 
 words. But have you any right to force your interpretation 
 upon me? No Church in Christendom has decided the inter- 
 pretation of these passages. There is no interpretation given 
 of them in the Westminster Standards. You have your right 
 of free interpretation under our Constitution. I also have my 
 right which you cannot legally take from me, unless you can 
 put your interpretation into our Constitution by the lawful 
 process of revision. I am within my rights in giving you the 
 interpretation I have given. But this is not all I have given. 
 I have shown you that you cannot take the interpretation of the 
 prosecution without bringing these five passages of the New 
 Testament into conflict with the weight of the testimony of the 
 Old Testament itself. The testimony of the Old Testament 
 makes it altogether probable that my interpretation of these 
 passages is the true one. Our Confession gives us a safe rule 
 to follow in such cases of apparent difference : 
 
 "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture it- 
 self; 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 " (I. 9) . 
 
 The prosecution put this rule in their Charge, but they made 
 no use of it in their argument. I insist upon its application to 
 the matter in hand. 
 
 You must follow this rule recognized by the prosecution in 
 this Charge, or else go against the express requirements of the 
 
WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 149 
 
 Confession. This rule sustains me in my doctrine. The places 
 that speak more clearl}'' are those I have given you from the 
 Old Testament. The passages where there is a question about 
 " the true and full sense" are these five passages from the New 
 Testament quoted by the prosecution. You must interpret 
 them by the clear passages of the Old Testament. Therefore 
 you should acquit me and pronounce the prosecution in error. 
 
 Other Anonymous Prophecies in Isaiah 
 
 I might rest my case here, were it not that I said that Isaiah 
 did not write half the book that bears his name. 
 
 I have thus far shown that Isaiah did not write thirty-one 
 chapters of the sixty-six in the book of Isaiah. It is necessary, 
 therefore, that I should consider the remaining thirty-five chap- 
 ters in order to establish m.j position. I am here confronted 
 with no evidence presented by the prosecution. I have only 
 to present the positive arguments. 
 
 (1) Is. xxiv.-xxvii. is one of the finest pieces of poetry in the 
 Old Testament. It is composed of twelve strophes in the 
 hexameter movement, and is remarkable for its alliteration, 
 rhyme, and play upon words ; in all these respects transcending 
 every other piece of Hebrew poetry. Its doctrines of the divine 
 judgment, of the evil angel princes and their imprisonment in 
 Sheol, and of the heavenly elders, its prediction o^ the abolition 
 of death and sorrow, and of the resurrection of Israel, the 
 corpse of Yahweh, and the wide extent of the divine judgment, 
 have nothing to correspond with them in Isaiah; they pre- 
 suppose Ezekiel and are in some respects nearer to the Apoca- 
 lypse of Daniel than to any other writing in the Old Testament. 
 
 (2) Is. xxxiv., XXXV. : resembles Is. xl.-lxvi. It seems to be 
 an earlier piece of the same author, the prelude and outline of 
 that great composition. 
 
 (3) Is. xiii., xiv. 23, is a beautiful pentameter poem, predict- 
 ing the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and the judgment 
 of the world. It is the prelude to the judgment upon Babylon 
 by Cyrus, chaps, xl.-xlviii., and is possibly one of the earlier 
 predictions referred to therein. It is true that it bears the title, 
 " The message to Babylon which Isaiah, the son of Amoz, did 
 
150 THE DEFENCE OP PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 see," but the very form of expression shows that this title does 
 not come from Isaiah, but from the compiler of this collection, 
 who wrongly attributes it to Isaiah, as internal evidence shows. 
 Like the titles of the Psalms it is not entitled to the attribute of 
 inspiration . 
 
 This prediction was placed at the beginning of Isaiah's col- 
 lection of messages against the surrounding nations, fourteen 
 in number, xiv. 24-xxiii., which are probably Isaiah's. There 
 is also a group of woes upon Israel and Judah, chaps, xxviii.- 
 xxxiii., which may be attributed to Isaiah also. The great col- 
 lection of Isaiah's prophecies is, however, i.-xi., relating to 
 divine judgments upon Judah and Israel. There were two 
 editings of this group by Isaiah^r his disciples. Chaps, ii.-v. 
 were first published, and then the larger collection, chaps, vi.-xi. , 
 was appended and chap. i. was made the introduction to the 
 whole. Chap. xii. is an exilic or post-exilic hymn, as Dr. Fran- 
 cis Brown has shown, resembling the little hymns in the Great 
 Unknown. It was doubtless appended to the first collection by 
 the post-exilic final editor, who thus arranged the book of Isaiah 
 in a pentateuch of Prophecy as follows : 
 
 (1) Chaps, i.-xi., Isaiah's, to which the exilic hymn, chap, 
 xii., was added. 
 
 (2) Chaps, xiii., xiv. 23, an exilic apocalypse, was prefixed to 
 a collection of fourteen messages of Isaiah xiv. 24-xxiii., and the 
 exilic apocalypse, xxiv.-xxvii., was given as the conclusion of 
 this section. 
 
 (3) Chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii., a collection of woes by Isaiah, 
 to which was joined as an appendix an exilic apocalypse in 
 chaps, xxxiv., xxxv. 
 
 (4) The exilic historic section, xxxvi.-xxxix. 
 
 (5) The prophecy of the Great Unknown, xl.-lxvi. 
 
 Thus of the sixty-six chapters we may attribute to Isaiah not 
 more than twenty-seven chapters. Thirty-nine chapters, mak- 
 ing the larger half of the book, were not written by him, as all 
 critics acknowledge. My thesis is therefore proven, that Isaiah 
 did not write half of the book that bears his name. 
 
 Let me sum up my argimients on the Charges IV. and V. 
 (1) There is no lawful bridge by which these specifications, 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 151 
 
 " that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch and that Isaiah 
 is not the author of half of the book that bears his name," can 
 be brought under the Charges. Therefore there is no relevancy 
 in the specifications — they cannot be accounted as valid. 
 
 (2) The Westminster Confession of Faith nowhere states 
 that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that Isaiah wrote the whole 
 of the book that bears his name. Therefore there can be no 
 lawful case against me in the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 (3) The testimony of Holy Scripture in the passages adduced 
 does not show that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that Isaiah 
 wrote the book that bears his name. Therefore my statements 
 are not in conflrct with Holy Scripture and there is no valid case 
 against me on the ground of Holy Scripture. 
 
 (4) Holy Scripture makes it evident that Moses did not write 
 the Pentateuch and that Isaiah did not write half of the book 
 that bears his name. Therefore my statements are true and the 
 prosecution are in conflict with Holy Scripture. 
 
 In the fear of God and in the light of the evidence you 
 should decide. You cannot decide on the basis of your opinions 
 and prejudices, without violating the laws of the Church and 
 the law of God. 
 
 VIII 
 PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 
 
 Charge VI. : 
 
 " The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 charges the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of 
 the said Church and a member of the Presbj^tery of New York, 
 with teaching that Sanctification is not complete at death, 
 which is contrary to the essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and 
 of the Standards of the said Church that the souls of believers 
 are at their death at once made perfect in holiness." 
 
 This Charge states (1) that it is an essential doctrine of Holy 
 Scripture and of the Standards " that the souls of believers are 
 at their death at once made perfect in holiness." But no proof 
 is offered for this essential doctrine under the charge. We 
 shall consider whether there is any proof for it whatever in 
 
152 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 Holy Scripture and the Standards. (2) The Charge states that 
 Dr. Briggs teaches "that Sanctification is not complete at 
 death." This I may accept as a fairly good statement of my 
 doctrine. (3) The Charge states that my doctrine is contrary 
 to the essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the Standards. 
 This statement we shall have to consider. But let me warn the 
 court again that they must confine themselves to the question 
 at issue. They have no right to condemn me on account of 
 any other doctrines taught in the citations from my Inaugural, 
 except the doctrine attributed to me in the Charge, namely, 
 "that Sanctification is not complete at death." My doctrine 
 is clearly stated in the following words of the Inaugural cited 
 by the prosecution as part of their specification : 
 
 "There is no authority in the Scriptures, or in the creeds of Christen- 
 dom, for the doctrine of immediate sanctification at death. The only 
 sanctification known to experience, to Christian orthodoxy, and to the 
 Bible, is progressive sanctification. Progressive sanctification after death 
 is the doctrine of the Bible and the Church. " 
 
 I. — The Doctrine of the Westminster Standards 
 
 It is claimed by the adversaries that this statement is against 
 the Westminster Standards, which teach " that the souls of be- 
 lievers are at their death at once made perfect in holiness." 
 They cite from the Confession, chapter xxxii, (1), from the 
 Larger Catechism, Ques. 80, and from the Shorter Catechism, 
 Ques. 37. But Dr. Birch in his argument made no use what- 
 ever of these passages from our Standards ; and Mr. McCook 
 used only one of them. Question 27 of the Shorter Catechism, 
 in order to state that it teaches a doctrine directly contrary to 
 my doctrine. But that was a mere assertion without proof, 
 and no proposal was made to show that that doctrine is an es- 
 sential doctrine of the Standards. Therefore I ask that you 
 decide in accordance with law and usage in courts of justice 
 and throw out the Charge which is so destitute of proof. But 
 inasmuch as I desire that you should know what is the precise 
 relation of my doctrine to the Westminster Standards, I shall 
 consider these passages. (1) It is true that it is taught in 
 the Shorter Catechism that "the souls of believers are at their 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 153 
 
 death made perfect in holiness" (3?); but it is not said that 
 at their death believers are immediatelj", in a moment of time, 
 " at once" by divine transformation, made perfect in holiness. 
 I can say at their death made " perfect in holiness " because I 
 believe that the souls of believers at death enter the Mid- 
 dle State, in which state they are made perfect in holiness 
 by progressive sanctification. " At their death " does not nec- 
 essarily implj'' " in the ver}' moment of the transition from life 
 to death," or in the exact second of time after the spirit has 
 departed from the body ; but " at their death " is in antithesis 
 with "in this life," and means nothing more than "in the state 
 of death." "Made perfect in holiness" does not necessarily 
 imply " that the sanctification of the soul is instantaneously, in 
 the moment of time after it leaves the body, perfected and com- 
 pleted ; " but it is consistent with the belief that the soul is made 
 perfect in holiness in the state of death. The Larger Cate- 
 chism teaches that — 
 
 " The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the in- 
 visible church enjoy immediately after death, is in that their souls are 
 then made perfect in holiness, 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 " (86) . 
 
 It is not said that their souls are made immediately perfect 
 in holiness after death any more than it is said immediately 
 received into the highest heavens. This question speaks of the 
 communion in glory with Christ which the members of the 
 invisible church enjoy immediately after death. Is that com- 
 munion limited to the moment of time at death? Does it not 
 rather continue during the whole time in that state, beginning 
 immediately after death? Immediately after death in this 
 passage means the whole state which begins immediately after 
 death, during whic!i the communion is enjoj^ed, as we might 
 infer also from the clause "waiting for the full redemption of 
 their bodies." What therefore is affirmed as happening imme- 
 diately after death is affirmed as happening during that state of 
 communion and waiting which begins immediately after death ; 
 and not in the moment of time that begins that state. The four 
 affirmations are not of successive chronological events, but of 
 
154 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 parallel events: (1) "made perfect in holiness,"(2) "received 
 into the highest heavens," (3) "behold the face of God in light 
 and glory, " (4) " waiting for the full redemption of their 
 bodies ;" all alike refer to the communion in glory with Christ, 
 which continues throughout this entire state from death to the 
 resurrection. There is nothing in the text or the context of 
 this passage, or in the proof texts of the Confession cited to 
 sustain it, to indicate that " made perfect in holiness" applies 
 only to the moment of time when the Middle State begins, or 
 that it confines the communion with Christ in the long period 
 of the state which follows the moment immediately after 
 death, to the single thing " waiting for the full redemption of 
 their bodies." 
 
 This interpretation of the phrase " immediately after death" 
 is made probable when we put Question 8G in its context in the 
 midst of the group of Questions 82-90. Question 82 asks : 
 
 " What is the communion in glory, which the members of the invisible 
 church have with Christ?" The answer is: "The communion in glory, 
 which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is in this 
 life, immediately after death, and at last perfected at the resurrection 
 and day of judgment." 
 
 Here then are three states in which this communion with 
 Christ is enjoyed: (1) this life; (2) immediately after death ; (3) 
 at the resurrection and day of judgment. The communion 
 with Christ is evidently not limited to the point of time imme- 
 diately after death, but to the state beginning immediately 
 after death and extending up to the day of judgment ; for " in 
 this life" clearly refers not to any single moment in this life, 
 but to the whole Christian state in this life from the moment in 
 which Christian life begins in regeneration until the soul departs 
 from the body at death. So " at the resurrection and day of 
 judgment" is not limited to a moment of time when the resur- 
 rection and the judgment may take place; but refers to the 
 final state of communion with Christ beginning with resurrec- 
 tion and judgment but extending through all eternity. Accord- 
 ingly, "immediately after death," which intervenes between this 
 life and "at the resurrection and day of judgment," is not 
 limited to the moment of the soul's departure into the Middle 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 155 
 
 State, but comprehends the communion with Christ which is 
 the experience of believers from the moment of death till the 
 da3^ of resurrection. The scope of the question makes this cer- 
 tain. Observe the question is : " What is the communion in 
 glory, which the members of the invisible church have with 
 Christ?" It is extremely improbable that the Westminster 
 divines would limit that communion in the future state to 
 two points of time — first, the moment of death, and second, 
 the moment of resurrection, and leave entirely out of view the 
 millenniums of the Middle State and the eternities of the 
 Ultimate State. 
 
 In accordance with this general statement of Question 82, 
 which we have thus analyzed, there follow separate questions 
 as to each one of these states : 
 
 (83) " What is the communion in glory with Christ, which 
 the members of the invisible church enjoy in this life?" 
 
 (8G) " What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the 
 members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?" 
 
 (90) "What shall be done to the righteous at the day of 
 judgment?" 
 
 The " immediately after death" of the specific question has 
 the same meaning as the " immediately after death" of the 
 general question ; and the meaning of the " immediately after 
 death" of the answer must be the same, all therefore referring 
 to the state immediately after death, and not to the point of 
 time at death. Therefore there is no proof that the clause 
 " then made perfect in holiness" is to be limited to the very 
 moment of death. 
 
 Furthermore, there are several expressions in these questions 
 and answers which do not agree with the doctrine of immediate 
 and perfect sanctification in the moment of death. The state- 
 ment " at last perfected at the resurrection and day of judg- 
 ment " indicates that the glory of the Middle State is interme- 
 diate glory and not perfected glory. The statement " waiting 
 for the full redemption of their bodies " shows that the redemp- 
 tion was not yet full nor j'et perfected at death, that it could 
 not be fvill, could not be perfected till the day of judgment. 
 And Question 90 tells us that the righteous will be openly 
 acknowledged and acquitted at "the day of judgment," not 
 
156 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 before ; that they " shall be received into heaven, where they shall 
 be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery ; filled with 
 inconceivable joys; made perfectly holy and happy both in 
 body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and angels, 
 but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the 
 Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all 
 eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which 
 the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in 
 glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment." 
 
 Such expressions as these with reference to the day of judg- 
 ment indicate that "the perfect and full communion with 
 Christ in glory " is not enjoyed until that time ; that then, first, 
 believers will "be openly acknowledged and acquitted;" that 
 not till then shall they " be fully and forever freed from all sin ;" 
 that not till then shall they "be made perfectly holy." 
 
 It is evident, therefore, froin these statements of our Standards, 
 that perfect holiness, perfect redemption, perfect communion with 
 Christ in glory, cannot be enjoyed until the decisions of the day 
 of judgment. How can any one be perfectly sanctified who has 
 not attained "perfect and full communion with Christ in glory," 
 who has not yet been "openly acknowledged and acquitted," 
 and who still has to look forward to the resurrection when for 
 the first he will be " fully and forever freed from all sin " and 
 made "perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul"? 
 Those who teach immediate sanctification at death are in 
 irresistible conflict with these statements of the Confession; 
 whereas those who teach progressive sanctification after death 
 and regard the state immediately after death as a state during 
 which men are made perfect in holiness, which progress in per- 
 fection reaches its end at the day of judgment, reconcile all 
 these statements of the Larger Catechism into a higher unity, 
 where there is complete and perfect harmony. 
 
 I am well aware that these statements are obscure and capable 
 of such interpretation as to involve them in many inconsisten- 
 cies. I do not claim that the Westminster divines were 
 altogether clear themselves as to these difiicult questions of 
 eschatology. I am also aware that many citations can be made 
 from their writings which teach immediate sanctification at 
 death. I have doubtless seen the most, if not all such extracts 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 157 
 
 as can be adduced. But whatever the opinions of any or all of 
 them were on this subject, when they constructed the careful 
 statements of our Standards, they were obliged to keep close to 
 the doctrines of Holy Scripture, and thus it is that their state- 
 ments, though indefinite and obscure, in no wise come in conflict 
 with the doctrine of progressive sanctification after death, and 
 in no wise teach the error of immediate sanctification at death. 
 The Westminster divines shared the common fault of the Prot- 
 estantism of the 16th and 17th centuries in that having 
 thrown aside the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and 
 having neglected to revive the ancient Catholic doctrine of the 
 Middle State, they left the Middle State between death and the 
 resurrection in their definitions, but did not carefully distin- 
 guish it from the Ultimate State. Accordingly in their creeds, 
 neglecting to make important distinctions and jet adhering 
 closely to Scripture, they did not fall into statements of error; 
 but in their writings failing to observe the distinction made in 
 Holy Scripture between the Abaddon of the Middle State and 
 the Gehenna of the Ultimate State, and between the heaven of 
 the Middle State and the heaven of the Final State, they said 
 many things of the one that belong proj)erly to the other. 
 When therefore, in accord with many modern Protestant theo- 
 logians, I advance into this unexplored territory of the Middle 
 State and go beyond the Westminster Confession in my state- 
 ments and definitions, follow in the lines drawn by the ancient 
 Church and gather together all the teachings of Holy Scripture, 
 and so more carefully distinguish between the Middle State and 
 the Ultimate State, I do not violate the statements of the Con- 
 fession; I go into regions of liberty and extra-confessional 
 dogma, and in those regions pursue the scientific, historical, and 
 Biblical methods of investigation and statement. 
 
 (2) If any one insists upon rejecting the proof that has been 
 given with regard to the proper interpretation of the phrase 
 "made perfect in holiness," his attention is invited to the West- 
 minster doctrine of sanctification and he is asked, if there be 
 an inconsistency between the two chapters, which is the more 
 important chapter of the Confession, the one giving the general 
 doctrine of progressive sanctification or the one giving the 
 specific doctrine of immediate sanctification at death under the 
 
158 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 head of the doctrine of the Middle State? The chapter on sanc- 
 tification knows no other sanctification than progressive sanc- 
 tification. Listen to this doctrine : 
 
 " I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart 
 and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and per- 
 sonally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his word 
 and Spirit dwelling in them : the dominion of the whole body of sin is 
 destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and 
 mortified ; and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all 
 saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man 
 shall see the Lord. 
 
 "II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect 
 in this life : there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every 
 part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting 
 against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. 
 
 "III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time 
 may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from 
 the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome : and 
 so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God " 
 (Chap. XIII.). 
 
 This chapter is one of the choicest productions of the West- 
 minster divines. It sets forth truly and accurately the doctrine 
 of Holy Scripture. If the Presbyterian Church had bound this 
 13th chapter on their heart instead of the od chapter, and had 
 made the Scriptural doctrine of sanctification their article of 
 the standing and falling Church, rather than the scholastic 
 dogma of reprobation, what a glorious history they might have 
 had in the last two centuries ! There would have been no need 
 of the agonies of the present revision movement. It seems 
 sometimes as if those who insist upon iinmediate sanctification 
 at death were using the term sanctification in a different sense 
 from the Westminster Standards. Sanctification is sometimes 
 used in the Scriptures and also in theological literature and 
 debate, for that cleansing from sin which takes place in the laver 
 of regeneration; and again for that induction into a higher 
 Christian life which is effected by the power of the Holy 
 Spirit upon the souls of men at certain crises of their history. 
 I do not question that men are sanctified in the sense that they 
 are washed in the laver of regeneration clean from every cor- 
 ruption, taint, and defilement of sin. I do not doubt that the 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH loD 
 
 fountain which flows from the Redeemer's side cleanseth from 
 all sin in the hour of death as in any hour of life, when the 
 sinner opens his heart in faith and repentance to the saving 
 love of Jesus. So again I do not question the higher life that 
 men may attain in this world, when throwing aside ever}' weight 
 of besetting sin, tearing away all the bands of evil habits and 
 associations, dissolving every other tie which might restrain 
 them from God and duty, they consecrate themselves to the 
 service of the Redeemer and with fresh courage strain every 
 nerve of holy resolution, striving for the love of Christ in the 
 passion of self-sacrificing devotion to the Master's service. 
 The divine Spirit lifts up such consecrated ones to a higher 
 plane of religious experience and fills their souls with joy and 
 holy endeavor, I firmly believe that such transforniations, 
 long prepared by the Spirit's secret workings upon the soul, 
 may take place immediately in a moment of time, in a happy 
 hour which seems like a second birth, a second resurrection. 
 It is the shooting of the plant of grace above the ground after 
 the long season of sowing and germination in the secret 
 recesses of the heart. It is the springing forth of the blossom 
 in the spring-time after a long winter's secret preparation. 
 That there will be such a transformation at death, the spring- 
 time of a new life, I do not doubt. I firmly believe that then 
 there will be a transformation greater than any that is possible 
 in this life. You may call this sanctification if you will, you 
 may say that this is " being made perfect in holiness, " if that is 
 your meaning ; but if you do you have a very meagre and inade- 
 quate conception of the sanctification taught in the Holy Scrip- 
 ture and in the Westminster Confession. Christian sanctifica- 
 tion is vasth" higher, grander, and more glorious than this. Ac- 
 cording to the Westminster Confession, it is not merely cleans- 
 ing from sin and rising to a higher grade of Christian life and ex- 
 perience, " it is being more and more strengthened in all saving 
 graces, to the practice of true holiness." How can there be the 
 practice of true holiness except in time of duration? How can 
 there be the practice of true holiness without holy conduct':' 
 How can there be hoi}' conduct without Christian activity':' 
 How can there be Christian activity without doing and work- 
 ing and serving Christ and the brethren? The practice of 
 
160 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 true holiness, therefore, must follow the transformation that 
 takes place at death — it cannot be a part of it. It is conceivable 
 that believers at their death may be immediately so strengthened 
 in all saving graces as to be perfectly endowed for the practice of 
 true holiness, but it is inconceivable that the practice itself could 
 be immediately imparted. The practice of true holiness cannot 
 be given by God ; it must be the exercise and work of man, 
 under the influence of the divine Spirit, and must follow any 
 influence of sanctification at death. But inasmuch as the 
 practice is an essential part of the sanctification and there can 
 be no completeness of sanctification, no perfection in holiness 
 without the practice of true holiness, the completion of sancti- 
 fication at the moment of death is impossible. 
 
 The Westminster Confession also teaches that " this sanctifi- 
 cation is throughout in the whole man." The text cited in 
 proof of the position is : 
 
 " And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I 
 praj^ God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved 
 blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I. Thess. 
 V. 23). It is manifest that according to this text and this 
 statement of the Confession, sanctification embraces the body 
 as well as the soul. Sanctification cannot be completed with- 
 out the body. It is clearly taught in the Confession, XXXII., 
 that believers are waiting in the Middle State " until the day 
 of judgment for the full redemption of their bodies." So the 
 Larger Catechism states that then at the daj^ of judgment " they 
 shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery, filled 
 with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both 
 in body and soul." Wherefore according to the Westminster 
 Standards, the full redemption of their bodies, the sanctification 
 of their bodies, " made perfectly holy in body and soul, " does 
 not take place until the day of judgment. Therefore sanctifi- 
 cation is not throughout in the whole man until the day of 
 judgment. Man cannot, therefore, be immediately and com- 
 pletely sanctified at death. That measure of sanctification 
 which he r3cei/3s at death is intermediate between the sancti- 
 fication in this life and the complete sanctification at the day of 
 judgment. It is furthermore evident that the apostle, in the 
 text cited, is praying, not that God would sanctify the Thessalo- 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH IGl 
 
 nians wholly at death, or present them blameless at the hour of 
 death, but "unto the coming of our Lord Jesus," that is, the 
 second advent ; and what is that but the day of the resurrection 
 of the bod}^ and the final judgment? 
 
 If therefore, by any confusion of mind, the Westminster 
 divines have taught in Chapter XXXII., and the corresponding 
 questions and answers of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, 
 the doctrine of immediate sanctification at death, they have 
 thereby through inadvertence taught a doctrine which is irrec- 
 oncilable with and contrary to and in conflict with their doc- 
 trine of sanctification and their doctrine of the resurrection of 
 the body, and their doctrine of the day of judgment. Can any 
 doubt, in such a case, which passage must giA^e way? Shall 
 we give up three doctrines of greatest importance for the sake 
 of one doctrine of lesser importance? 
 
 (3) I freely grant that the most natural interpretation of the 
 phrases of the Westminster Standards, " at their death made 
 perfect in holiness, " or " immediately after death, " is in favor 
 of the doctrine of immediate sanctification at death, though I 
 think that the contexts of the Larger Catechism and the Con- 
 fession disprove that interpretation. But granting that my in- 
 terpretation is wrong, the question arises whether the doctrine 
 of immediate sanctification at death is an essential doctrine of 
 the Westminster Confession. Can you regard the doctrine as 
 essential to the Westminster system of doctrine? It is a doc- 
 trine in the difficult field of eschatology, where there must 
 be liberty for investigation, statement, and debate, until the 
 Church has matured its Christian experience and defined more 
 closely its faith. 
 
 Is the Presbj^tery readj^ to take the position that the dogma 
 of immediate sanctification at death is an essential doctrine of 
 the Presbyterian Church, so that no man can become a Presby- 
 terian minister who does not hold it? If so, you stretch and 
 strain the line of cardinal and essential doctrines to an extent 
 that will be destructive of the peace and prosperity of the 
 Church. I doubt whether the superior courts will sustain you 
 in such a position, and if they should do this wrong to the 
 Church of God, the Christian world will regard them as 
 breaking the bonds of catholicity. 
 11 
 
162 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 II. — The Doctrine of Holy Scripture 
 
 I shall now endeavor to show you that the doctrine of imme- 
 diate sanctification at death is against the Holy Scriptures. 
 Nowhere in Scripture is death the crisis for which men are to 
 prepare themselves. It is always the day of judgment, the 
 advent day, the resurrection day, which is the goal of hope or 
 of fear, of aspiration or of dread, of harvest or of doom. 
 
 A large number of the passages which were cited in the origi- 
 nal Charge have nothing to do with the matter in hand. All 
 of these have been abandoned in the present Charge but two. 
 I would limit myself to these two were it not that under the 
 clause with which they close their Charges, they claim the 
 right and you have granted them the right to offer in evidence 
 the " whole of the Holy Scriptures," and they have brought many 
 of them in again in argument against me. I shall therefore 
 test them all. 
 
 (1) Let us first consider the passages which have nothing to 
 do with the future life as such, (a) Jesus is " the Lamb of 
 God which taketh away the sin of the world " (John i. 29) ; but 
 this fact is not inconsistent with progressive sanctification in 
 this life. How then can it be inconsistent with progressive 
 sanctification in the Middle State? (6) It may be often said of 
 us as Jesus said to Peter in Gethsemane, " The Spirit indeed is 
 willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matt. xxvi. 41). But this 
 does not imply the Manichsean heresy that the seat of sin is in 
 the flesh and that therefore the disembodied spirit will be per- 
 fect. Such a doctrine is far from the thought of these words of 
 Jesus, (c) The prayer of the apostle for the Ephesians, " that 
 he would grant you according to the riches of his glory, that 
 ye may be strengthened with power through the Spirit in the 
 inward man" (Eph. iii. 16), as the context shows implies pro- 
 gressive sanctification in this life, and therefore would imply that 
 this progressive sanctification would be continued until perfect 
 sanctification has been reached. There is nothing in text or con- 
 text to suggest that this perfect sanctification is reached in the 
 moment of death. 
 
 (2) We shall next consider the passages cited by the prosecu- 
 tion which relate to the second advent and the resurrection day 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 163 
 
 and which have nothing to do with the Middle State, (a) The 
 awards to him that overcometh (Rev. iii. 5) are the awards of 
 the judgment day. (b) The multitudes clothed in white robts 
 and with victor's palms (Rev. vii. 8-14) are the redeemed of 
 the last great day. (c) The clothing of the bride in the right- 
 eousness of the saints (Rev. xix. 8) is at the bridal of the Mes- 
 siah, (d) The mysterious change in a moment of time (I. Cor. 
 XV. 51, 52) is the resurrection change, (e) The rapture of the 
 saints to be forever with the Lord (I. Thess. iv. Hi, 17) is the 
 rapture of the second advent. None of these passages have 
 anything to do with the doctrine of the Middle State, except so 
 far as they show that as death is the entrance into the Middle 
 State, the resurrection, second advent, and the day of judgment 
 are the exit from the Middle State upon the Ultimate State. 
 
 (3) We shall now consider two passages at greater length, 
 (a) The advice of Paul to Timothy (I. Tim. iv. 8), " Exercise 
 thyself unto godliness : for bodily exercise is profitable for a lit- 
 tle ; but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of 
 the life which now is, and of that which is to come," is an 
 advice to progressive sanctification without any hint that sanc- 
 tification stops at death. If he could say, "Exercise thj-self 
 unto godliness, for it is profitable, having promise of the life 
 which now is, and also the life which is to come," does this imply 
 that the exercise unto godliness was to be limited to this life? 
 If the exercise unto godliness was not to cease during " the life 
 which now is," even after its profit and promise were realized in 
 part, why should it cease in "the life which is to come," when 
 its profit and promise were in process of realization there? The 
 exhortation is rather to go on in the exercise of godliness in 
 " the life which now is," and also in " the life which is to come," 
 and win by your exercise its profitableness and its promise in 
 both lives, (b) The rest granted to the blessed dead (Rev. xiv. 
 13) doubtless refers to the Middle State — but it teaches simply 
 rest from labor, the enjoyment of the fruits of the works which 
 follow them, and blessedness; it does not teach that these 
 blessed dead cease from the practice of true holiness, abandon 
 the exercise unto godliness, leave off Christian ministry, and no 
 longer grow in knowledge, in grace, and in sanctification. (c) 
 The Middle State is graphically presented to us by our Lord 
 
164 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 in the story of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 22-26). This is 
 the Middle State during the old dispensation before the descent 
 of Jesus into the abode of the dead and His resurrection to the 
 heights of heaven. I shall not raise the question whether Jesus 
 by His resurrection from Hades made essential changes in the 
 Middle State or not. It is sufficient for my purpose here to call 
 your attention to the fact that it is not said that the sanctifica- 
 tion of Lazarus was completed the moment when angel hands 
 placed him in Abraham's bosom. It rather favors the continu- 
 ation of the work of sanctification, because he there enjoyed 
 communion with Abraham. Was there no pious instruction 
 for him to receive, no holy example for him to follow, no holy 
 gratitude to express, no holy service to render, no holy conduct 
 for this poor beggar to practise in Abraham's bosom? Did he 
 learn no lessons of the justice of God, of the evil of sin, of the 
 delights of righteousness and of holy sanctification in the con- 
 versation with Dives? How can we conceive of such an 
 experience without growth in holiness on the part of the 
 redeemed beggar? John Wesley uses these wise words on this 
 passage : 
 
 " Can we reasonably doubt but that those who are now in Paradise in 
 Abi-aham's bosom, all those holy souls who have been discharged from 
 the body from the beginning of the world unto this day, will be contin- 
 ually ripening for heaven, will be perpetually holier and happier, till 
 they are received into the kingdom prepared for them from the founda- 
 tion of the world V" ("Works." CXXVI., Sermon on Faith). 
 
 (4) Paul expresses the desire to depart from this earthly 
 life into the presence of Christ in heaven : 
 
 " For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, 
 we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in 
 the heavens. For verily in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon 
 with our habitation which is from heaven : if so be that being clothed 
 we shall not be found naked. For indeed we that are in this tabernacle 
 do groan, being burdened ; not for that we would be unclothed, but that 
 we would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of 
 life. Now he that hath wrought us for this verj"- thing is God, who gave 
 unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Being therefore always of good courage, 
 and knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent 
 from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight) ; we are of good 
 courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 165 
 
 be at home with the Lord. Wherefore also we make it our aim, whether 
 at home or absent, to be well-pleasing unto him. For we nmst all be made 
 manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive 
 the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it 
 be good or bad" (II. Cor. v. 1-10) . 
 
 In this passage there is contrast between life in the body and 
 life apart from the bod}^, life in this world away from the Mes- 
 siah and life in the heaven of the Middle State with the Mes- 
 siah, between the earthly body and the heavenly body. The 
 apostle does not leap in thought over the Middle State to the 
 Ultimate State, because he has in mind the departure from the 
 body in order to be in the heavenly region of the Middle State. 
 He is not thinking of the advent of Christ while he remained 
 in the body, or of a resurrection of the body, but of his going 
 away from the body to the presence of Christ, just as in the 
 epistle to the Philippians he longs to depart and be with Christ, 
 which was much better for him than life in this world (i. 23). 
 He expresses the confidence that when he dies he will depart to 
 the heaven of the Middle State to be with Christ, to receive a 
 heavenly body suitable for his abode there. That this is the 
 mind of the apostle is clear from the subsequent context. He 
 aims to be well-pleasing to the Messiah whether at home with 
 Him in the heavenly state or absent from Him in this world, 
 because he sees at the end of the Middle State as well as at the 
 end of the course of this world the judgment-seat of the Mes- 
 siah, before which everything will be made manifest for final 
 decision. A similar doctrine is taught in Rom. xiv. 7-12: 
 
 "For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. For 
 whether we live, we live unto the Lord : or whether we die, we die unto 
 the Loi"d : whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to 
 this end Christ died, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the 
 dead and the living. But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or 
 thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all 
 stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written. As I live, 
 saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall con- 
 fess to God. So then each one of us shall give account of himself to 
 God." 
 
 The goal of the apostle's striving, therefore, is to be well- 
 pleasing to Christ, when he is made manifest with all his works 
 before the judgment-seat at the day of judgment; and therefore 
 
166 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 he has this one aim, whether at home with Christ after death 
 in the Middle State, or absent from Him in this world, to be 
 well-pleasing to Him, Aiming to please Christ in the Middle 
 State in order to be acce^jted in the day of judgment, what else 
 can it be but pursuing the path of Christian sanctification? 
 How else could the apostle hope to persevere in that aim 
 through all the ages of the Middle State, unless the divine Spirit 
 of Christ was carrying on and perfecting the work of sanctifica- 
 tion in him in the Middle State as well as in this life? 
 (5) The apostle John tells us : 
 
 " Beloved, now ai-e we the children of God, and it is not yet made 
 manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, 
 we shall be like him ; for we shall see him even as he is. And every one 
 that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, even as he is pure " 
 (I. John iii. 2, 3). 
 
 " Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth 
 in him : and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. In this the 
 children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil : whosoever 
 doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his 
 brother" (I. John iii. 9. 10). 
 
 The prosecution omit verse 3, a passage that is relevant to 
 verse 2; but give verses 9 and 10, which have no manner of 
 relevancy to the matter in hand ; for the doctrine that " whoso- 
 ever is begotten of God doeth no sin" is a doctrine that applies 
 no more to the Middle State after death than it does to the life 
 prior to death. The apostle evidently has in mind this life in 
 these verses and not the future state. It is perfectly evident, 
 moreover, that the manifestation of " what we shall be, " of verse 
 2, and "he shall be manifested," of verse 3, both refer to the 
 second advent of our Lord, and not to any manifestation of 
 Him to us or of us to others in the Middle State. This passage 
 looks forward to the second advent of Christ with earnest hope. 
 This hope, set on the appearing of the pure Christ, is a purify- 
 ing hope, a sanctifying hope. But the goal of the hope is 
 when Christ shall be manifested. Then first the apostle will 
 be like Him ; will be as pure as He is pure. This postpone- 
 ment of the being like Christ, pure as Christ is pure, till the 
 second advent, makes it evident that there can be no completion 
 of the work of sanctification until the second advent, or in 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 167 
 
 other words that the effort to purify one's self " even as he is 
 pure" continueth in the Middle State just as in this life until 
 the goal of every effort is reached at the manifestation of the 
 pure and perfect Christ in glory. The doctrine is plain : Paul 
 teaches that his one aim is to be well -pleasing to Christ, at the 
 day of judgment. That was to be his aim in the Middle State 
 as well as in this world. John teaches that his one hope was 
 to be pure like Christ when He should be manifested at the 
 second advent, and with this hope ho purifieth himself until 
 the appearing of Christ, when first he will see Him in his real 
 purity and become wholly like Him in purity. 
 
 (G) Paul represents that Christ so loved the Church as to give 
 Himself up for it ; " that he might sanctify it, having cleansed 
 it by the washing of water with the word, that he might 
 present the Church to himself a glorious church, not having 
 spot or wrinkle or any such thing ; but that it should be holy 
 and without blemish" (Eph. v. 2G, 27). The glorification of 
 the Church is the ideal aim of Christ. The accomplishment of 
 this glorification is first at the bridal of the Lamb. This bridal 
 takes place not at the death of the believer, but at the second 
 advent of the bridegroom. The work of Christ until the second 
 advent is summed up in the work of " sanctifying and cleansing 
 the church by the washing of water with the word. " Is the work 
 of Christ for the Church confined to the Church on earth? Has 
 Christ no work to do for the Church of the Middle State? Does 
 the work of preparation of the individual member of the 
 Church cease at death and continue only for those who are left 
 behind in this world? This passage teaches no such doctrine. 
 The presumption is all the other way, that the work of Christ 
 in perfecting His Church goes on for the whole Church, those 
 remaining in this world and those who are in the Middle 
 State, so that the whole Church, which is one organization 
 embracing the living and the dead, may advance together 
 toward its perfection. The doctrine of immediate sanctifica- 
 tion at death dishonors Jesus Christ, for it confines His 
 heavenly reign and mediation to the Church in this world. 
 
 What practice have infants and imbeciles when they enter 
 the Middle State? How far short in practice do the best of 
 men fall? Are they no longer to have an opportunity for the 
 
1G8 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOE BRIGGS 
 
 practice of true holiness? Will there be no chance to learn 
 what true holiness is? The Middle State must, from the very 
 nature of the case, be a school of sanctification. 
 
 It was a profound saying of Henry B. Smith that eschatol- 
 ogy ought to be Christologized, It is greatly to be regretted 
 that he did not turn his own attention to that theme and give 
 us the fruit of his investigations. Dr. Schaff gave his atten- 
 tion to this subject many years ago in his book on the Sin 
 against the Holy Ghost, and has added not a few valuable hints 
 in his later publications. 
 
 Christ is the mediator between God and man in the exercise 
 of His offices as prophet, priest, and king. Those who passed a 
 few years in this world, and then went into the Middle State 
 and have been there for centuries, have not passed beyond the 
 need of His mediation. The interval between death and the 
 judgment has its lessons and its training for them as well as 
 for us. The prophetic office of Christ continues to those who 
 are in the Middle State. After His own death He went to the 
 abode of the departed spirits, and preached unto them his gos- 
 pel. He ascended into heaven, taking His redeemed with Him. 
 All those whom He has purchased with His blood ascend to Him 
 to abide with Him. The redeemed robber is not the only one 
 to whom He has something to say in the Middle State. All 
 believers enter His school and are trained in the mysteries of 
 His kingdom. Those mysteries are not cleared up by a flash 
 of revelation; they are revealed as the redeemed are able to 
 apprehend them and use them. It is improbable that Augus- 
 tine, Calvin, and Luther will be found in the same class-room 
 as the redeemed negro slave or the babe that has entered heaven 
 to-day. The fathers and doctors of the Church will be the 
 teachers of the dead, as they taught the living. 
 
 Christ's priestly office continues for them. They who enter 
 the Middle State still need His blood and righteousness. Even 
 if they commit no positive sin they do not reach positive per- 
 fection until their sanctification has been completed in the 
 attainment of the complete likeness of Christ. They need the 
 robe of Christ's righteousness until they have gained one of 
 their own. He is still their surety, who has engaged with them 
 and with God to present them perfect in the last great day. 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 109 
 
 But, above all, Christ is a king in the Intermediate State. 
 Here in this world His reign is only partial ; there it is complete. 
 Here His kingdom is interwoven with that kingdom of dark- 
 ness. There it is apart from all evil and hindrance. His reign 
 is entire over His saints, and they are being prepared by Him 
 for the advent in which they will come with Him to reign over 
 the world. The Church is chiefly in the Intermediate State. 
 The Church on earth is only the vestibule of it. In this world 
 we have learned to know in part the Messiah of the Cross; 
 there in the Middle State the redeemed know the glory of the 
 Messiah of the Throne. There the Church is in its purity and 
 complete organization, as the bride of the Lamb. There Christ 
 the head and His body the Church are in blessed unity. We 
 have glimpses in the Apocalypse of the vast assemblies of the 
 saints in heaven about the throne of the Lamb. And the 
 epistle of the Hebrews gives us a picture of their organized 
 assembly on the heights of the heavenly Zion, It is important 
 for the Church on earth to have a better apprehension of its 
 relations with the Church in the Middle State. The Protestant 
 branch of Christendom is weaker here than the Roman Cath- 
 olic. It is high time to overcome this defect, for it is not 
 merely agnosticism, it is sin against the mysteries of our relig- 
 ion. The modern Church ought to return to the faith of the 
 ancient Church, and believe in the "Communion of Saints." 
 
 We have developed the doctrine of the Middle State in the 
 light of other established Christian doctrines. If the Church 
 has rightly defined these, then it results from them that we 
 must take that view of the Middle State that they suggest. If 
 we are not prepared to do this we cast doubt upon the legiti- 
 macy and competency of these doctrines. We confess them 
 inadequate and insufficient. The Calvinistic system, with its 
 principle that salvation is by the divine grace alone, and that 
 this grace is ever prevenient, enables us to believe that the 
 ordo salutis begins for all who are saved by the regeneration 
 of the Holy Spirit in this life. This regeneration begets the 
 seeds of a perfect Christian life. For some the oy^do sahitis 
 makes no further advance in this life ; for others it advances in 
 different degrees and stages ; but for all the redeemed the Mid- 
 dle State is of vast importance as the state in which our 
 
170 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 redemption is taken up where it is left incomplete in this life 
 and then carried on to its perfection. This view of the Mid- 
 dle State gives it its true theological importance. It enables 
 us to look forward with hope and joy for an entrance upon it. 
 This life is an introduction to it. 
 
 (7) The epistle to the Hebrews gives us a glimpse of the 
 Church in the Middle State in these words : 
 
 " But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living 
 God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels in gen- 
 eral assembly and to the church of the first-born who are enrolled in 
 heaven ; and to God of all the Jiidge, and to the spirits of just men made 
 perfect ; and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood 
 of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel " (Heb. xii. 23-24) . 
 
 This passage is cited by the Westminster divines in proof of 
 their phrase "made perfect in holiness." And it is their only 
 proof text. Let me call your attention again to the principle 
 laid down in my preliminary objection, that even if the West- 
 minster divines meant to teach the doctrine of immediate sanc- 
 tification at death, yet if the passage of Holy Scripture on which 
 they rely for proof teach a different doctrine, we are obliged by 
 our subscription vows and by the doctrine of the Westminster 
 Standards to follow Holy Scripture rather than the Confession, 
 and you must judge by Scripture rather than by the Confes- 
 sion. This is said as a guide to those who may not be convinced 
 by the argument I have given you as to the doctrine taught in 
 our Confession. I shall now endeavor to show you that this 
 passage of Holy Scripture does not teach the doctrine of imme- 
 diate sanctification at death, (a) Observe that we have in this 
 jjassage a scene of great magnificence and glory, an assembly 
 in the heavenly Jerusalem on the heavenly heights of Zion, of 
 the God of all, Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, the 
 general assembly of innumerable hosts of angels, and the 
 church of the first-born, the spirits of just men made perfect. 
 This festal assembly in the new Jerusalem is in antithesis to 
 Sinai blazing and quaking with terrors. What is there in text 
 or in context to suggest that this is a scene which immediately 
 follows the death of every individual, or that immediately after 
 death every believer is ushered into this festal assembly? What 
 is there in text or context to imply that these first-born from 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 171 
 
 among men, these just men, these spirits perfected, embrace all 
 believers that have departed this life? "What is there in text 
 or in context to imply that these perfected spirits attain their 
 perfection at the precise moment of their death? The prosecu- 
 tion will have to prove these three questionable propositions ere 
 they can use this passage as an evidence that all believers are 
 immediately sanctified in the moment of their departure from 
 this life. They cannot give you any such proof, (b) Listen to 
 the opinions of distinguished commentators on this passage. 
 Calvin is one of the commentators who interpret "spirits 
 of just men made perfect " of the fulfilment or completion of 
 their earthly life. If John Calvin, the father of Calvinists, the 
 prince of interpreters among the Reformers, be correct in his 
 interpretation, this passage has nothiiig whatever to do with the 
 question whether sanctification is immediate or progressive after 
 death. Calvin, however, gives his opinion on sanctification after 
 death in his comment upon another passage, where he says : 
 
 "As, however, the spirit is accustomed to speak in this manner in ref- 
 erence to the last coming of Christ, it were better to extend the advance- 
 ment of the grace of Christ to the resurrection of the flesh. For although 
 those who have been freed from the mortal body do no longer contend 
 with the lusts of the flesh, and are, as the expression is, beyond the reach 
 of a single dart, yet there will be no absurdity in speaking of them as 
 in the way of advancement, inasmuch as they have not yet reached the 
 point at which they aspire, they do not yet enjoy the felicity and glory 
 which they have hoped for, and, in fine, the day has not yet shone which 
 is to discover the treasures which lie hid in hope. And in truth, when 
 hope is treated of, our eyes must always be directed forward to a blessed 
 resurrection as the grand object in view" (Calvin on Phil., I., 6). 
 
 (c) De Wette represents many commentators who think that 
 these perfected spirits are the martyrs of the old dispensation, 
 the theme of Heb. xi., of whom it is said : 
 
 "And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faitli, re- 
 ceived not the promise, God having provided some better thing concern- 
 ing us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect " (verses 
 39. 40). 
 
 There can be no doubt that our passage is based upon that 
 passage, not only because of the term "perfected," but also be- 
 cause of the " better thing " which appears in both passages. 
 
172 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 The " better thing " of xi. 40, is referred to as that in which 
 Hebrew and Greek martyrs share alike and at the same time ; 
 but what it is, is not distinctly stated. In our passage, however, 
 it is the new covenant of Jesus, the Mediator, and His blood of 
 sprinkling. Therefore we must extend the reference of the 
 perfected spirits to the New Testament martyrs as well as to 
 the Old Testament martyrs. The blood of sprinkling gives us 
 the clew to the meaning of perfected here. As Weiss says, the 
 entire usage of the Epistle refers this perfection to that attained 
 through Christ and His sacrifice. We are not to think of moral 
 perfection. Let us recall this usage for a few moments. There 
 are four passages which teach that perfection was not through 
 the Levitical priesthood or the sacrifices prescribed in the law 
 (vii. 11, 19; ix. 9; x. 1). It is then said in antithesis but "by 
 one offering he [Christ] hath perfected forever them that are 
 sanctified" (x. 14). The " sanctified " here are, as the present 
 participle shows, to use the words of Bishop Westcott, ''all 
 who from time to time realize progressively in fact that which 
 has been potentially obtained for them." The perfected spirits 
 here are therefore those who have been perfected by the media- 
 torial intercession and cleansing of the blood of Christ, and not 
 those who have attained moral perfection, or who have com- 
 pleted once for all their sanctification. It is possible that the 
 prosecution understand by " perfect in holiness " just this cleans- 
 ing by the blood of Christ and this equipment in the righteous- 
 ness of Christ. If this be their meaning I shall not dispute 
 their doctrine, so far as it goes. But the doctrine of sanctifica- 
 tion which is in Holy Scripture and in the Westminster Con- 
 fession is vastly higher than this. It is not merely cleansing 
 from sin ; it is the infusion of habits of holiness. It is not 
 merely clothing in the righteousness of Christ ; it is the habitual 
 practice of hol}^ conduct and the attainment of an indelible 
 holy character. 
 
 This festal assembly of angels and perfected spirits reminds 
 us of several similar gatherings in the Apocalypse with which 
 this passage seems to be in parallelism : 
 
 "And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the 
 souls of them that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testi- 
 mony which they held : and they cried with a gi'eat voice, saying, How 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 173 
 
 long, O Master, the hoh^ and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our 
 blood on them that dwell on the earth? And there was given them to 
 each one a white robe ; and it was said unto them, that they should rest 
 yet for a little time, until their fellow -servants also and their bretliren, 
 which should be killed even as they were, should be fulfilled " (Rev. vi. 
 9-11). 
 
 "And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount Zion, and 
 with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name, and 
 the name of his Father, written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice 
 from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great 
 thimder : and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping 
 with their liarps : and they sing as it were a new song before the throne, 
 and before the four living creatures and the elders : and no man could 
 learn the song save the hundred and forty and four thousand, even they 
 that had been purchased out of the earth. These are they which are not 
 defiled with women ; for they are virgins. These are they which follow 
 the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among 
 men, to be the first fruits unto God and unto the Lamb. And in their 
 mouth was found no lie : they are without blemish " (Rev. xiv. 1-5) . 
 
 " And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given 
 unto them : and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the 
 testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and sucli as worsliipped not 
 the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their fore- 
 head and upon their hand ; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a 
 thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years 
 should be finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is 
 he that hath part in the first resuiTCction : over these the second death 
 hath no power ; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall 
 reign with him a thousand years " (Rev. xx. 4-6) . 
 
 In all these passages the martyrs of the martyr age of the 
 Church are conceived as the first fruits, or the first-born, or par- 
 takers of the first resurrection. They have been faithful and 
 true in their testimony even unto death, they have kept them- 
 selves undefiled and without blemish from contact with idol- 
 atry, they are virgins as the bride of the Messiah and have not 
 committed fornication with heathen gods, they are clad in the 
 white robes of the priests of God, they live and reign with 
 Christ in the heavenly Zion throughout the complete period of 
 His mediatorial reign, they share the Redeemer's blessedness 
 and glory. But for all this it is not said that they cease to 
 progress in sanctification, or that they have attained moral 
 perfection, or that they have gained that Christlikeness and 
 Godlikeness which is the final goal of redemption and which 
 
174 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 alone can come according to the apostle John, when the Messiah 
 is manifested in glory at His second advent when the saints are 
 manifested with Him. Then for the first time the rays of the 
 sun of righteousness will shine through every saint and not 
 a mote will be found in those sunbeams. 
 Bishop Westcott gives a wise word here : 
 
 "The perfection (Ti;?.etu(Tig) of the individual Christian must in its 
 fullest seuse involve the perfection of the Christian society. The 'per- 
 fection' which Christ gained for humanity in his person (ii. 10 ; v. 9 ; 
 vii. 28 ; x. 1, 14) must be appropriated by every member of Christ. In 
 part this end has been reached by the old saints in some degree, in virtue 
 of Christ's exaltation (c. xii. 23), but in part it waits for the final 
 triumph of the Saviour, when all, that we sum up in confessing the ti'uth 
 of the resurrection of the body, is fulfilled. Primasius interprets the gift 
 of the white robe in Apoc. vi. 11 (ad. 40 c.) of that endowment of love 
 whereby the waiting souls gladly accept the postponement of their own 
 consummation " (383, 383) . 
 
 The invariable statement of the New Testament is that the 
 second advent of Jesus Christ is the goal of sanctificafion. In 
 addition to the passages already considered, I would refer to 
 Rom. viii. 29, 30; I. Cor. i. 8; Eph. iv. 13-16; Phil. i. 6; I. Thess. 
 iii. 13; v. 23; II. Peter iii. 13, 14. There is not a passage in 
 the Bible that teaches either directly or indirectly immediate 
 sanctificafion at death, or that the completion once and for all 
 of the holy advancement of mankind is accomplished in a 
 moment of time by a magical transformation in the dying hour. 
 The Christian Church has always taught the doctrine of the 
 Middle State between death and the resurrection; and of 
 progress in the holy life after death, in that state. There have 
 been those who taught the sleep of pious souls. Dr. Birch 
 seems to hold that opinion, for he said in his argument : " All 
 dead Christians are asleep. When we are asleep we show the 
 rest which consists in the inaction of mind and body " (Stenog- 
 rapher's Report, p. 631) . Others have held that departed spirits 
 pass a dreamlike existence, with powers of memory of the life 
 in this world, and of anticipation of the resurrection of the 
 body and the judgment-seat of God ; but without real activ- 
 ity or change of condition throughout the entire period. But 
 these opinions have always been rejected by the orthodox. 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 175 
 
 Those passing into this Middle State pass into a higher and 
 more active condition than their condition in this world. 
 What then is the nature of this activity? There are several 
 different opinions: (1) The Roman Catholic doctrine of Purga- 
 tory teaches that those who enter the Middle State imperfect 
 have their imperfections removed — (a) by purgatorial fires, 
 which are of the nature of chastisement, discii^line, and pen- 
 ance for sin; (b) bj^ the efficacy of prayers for the dead and 
 the sacrifice of the altar. This doctrine of purgatorial fires and 
 sacrifices for the dead I reject in common with the reformers 
 and all Protestants. I am not surprised that the theologian 
 who speaks in Mr. McCook prefers tliis doctrine of Purga- 
 tory to my doctrine of Progressive Sanctification after death ; 
 for he will have magic of some kind, and if he cannot have a 
 magical transformation without means, he will take a magical 
 transformation by the use of means. He cannot understand 
 growth in holiness, or the ethical progress of holy souls, or the 
 transformation which takes place by the constant influence of 
 the spirit of Christ upon the spirit of man. 
 
 (2) The common traditional doctrine among Protestants is 
 that believers are by a divine transformation immediatel}- 
 sanctified and judged by the private judgment at death and 
 thereafter continue in a perfectly sanctified condition. This 
 doctrine is set forth in its grossest form by Cotton Mather 
 where he says: 
 
 "Death like an hot and strong forge has run out of these holy souls, all 
 the dross which all the ordinances and all the calamities formerly em- 
 ployed upon them, had left remaining in them " ("Hades Looked Into," 
 p. 13. 1717). 
 
 This doctrine makes death itself the purgatory, and represents 
 death as more potent for the salvation of men than Bible and 
 Reason, Church and Sacrament all combined. This doctrine 
 lies at the other extreme from the doctrine of Purgatory, and 
 is equally erroneous. (3) The true doctrine, which is older 
 than Purgatory and which has ever been taught by the soundest 
 divines, is that believers after death advance in the holy life, 
 and make progress in sanctification until they attain Christ- 
 likeness and perfect purity and holiness at His second advent. 
 
176 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 when body and soul are united in the resurrection, and the 
 whole man for the first time attains complete redemption and 
 glorification. Sanctification begins in justification and attains 
 its end only in the glorification of the judgment day. 
 
 My honored teacher and friend Dr. Dorner, now in the com- 
 pany of the blessed, gave an orthodox statement when he said : 
 
 "As fbr the pious, intercourse with the ungodly, to which they were 
 subject on earth, ceases after death ; they suffer nothing more from them, 
 not even temptation. The connection of believers with Christ is so inti- 
 mate that death and Hades have no power over it. On the contrary 
 death brings them an increase of freedom from temptations and disturb- 
 ances, as well as of blessedness. For believers there is no more punish- 
 ment, but there is growth, a further laying aside of defects, an invigora- 
 tion through the greater nearness of the Lord which they may experience, 
 and through the more lively hope of their consummation." . . . "In 
 this life, the realities of the sensuous world are the objects of sight, the 
 spiritual world is the object of faith. Then, when the physical side is 
 wanting to the spirit, these poles will be reversed. To the departed 
 spirits the spiritual world, whether in good or evil, Aviil appear to be the 
 real existence resting on immediate evidence. Since, then, such internal 
 soul-life unveils the groimd of the soul more openly, the retiring into 
 self has for believers the t^ffect of purifying and educating. It serves to 
 obliterate all stains, to harmonize the whole inner being, in keeping 
 with the good disposition brought over from the other life or later ac- 
 quired ; thus there will be for them no idle waiting for the judgment but 
 a progressing in knowledge, blessedness, and holiness, in communion 
 with Christ and the heavenly company" (Dorner" s "Future State," pp. 
 106-108). 
 
 This is the orthodox doctrine of progressive sanctification 
 after death. It is the progressive sanctification after death of 
 those whose sanctification has been begun in this world by re- 
 generation and justification. It has nothing whatever to do v/ith 
 the doctrine of future probation. Those who hold future pro- 
 bation may believe this doctrine or they may not believe it ; for 
 that doctrine has to do with the regeneration and justification 
 after death of those who leave this world impenitent, unjusti- 
 fied, and unregenerate. This doctrine I have never taught. 
 
 When I indorse the doctrine of Dorner as regards the pro- 
 gressive sanctification of believers after death, that does not 
 imply that I hold with him that those who die impenitent here 
 and go to the world of the lost may yet be redeemed from their 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 177 
 
 lost condition in the Middle State. Many holy and wise men 
 hold that doctrine, and God forbid that I or any other should 
 challenge their right to their opinion. O that I could agree with 
 them ! I would gladly make many sacrifices if I could honestly 
 indulge in such a comfortable hope. But I do not, I cannot. 
 I exercise my right in disclaiming this opinion, and I also ex- 
 ercise my right of Christian charit}^ in refusing to condemn 
 them as enemies of Christ on account of it. 
 
 The doctrine of progressive sanctification after death raises 
 many important and difficult questions with regard to the 
 Middle State, which I am no more bound to answer than are 
 others. I have stated my views so far as I see my way and no 
 farther. I see that believers enter the Middle State imperfect, 
 but they are cleansed by the blood of Christ from all sin, and 
 are therefore sinless. They are justified by the grace of God, and 
 are therefore guiltless ; they are by the immediate influence of 
 the divine Spirit raised to a higher and nobler life and more 
 blessed experience of redemption. But so soon as the redeemed 
 soul begins its active practice, conduct, and service in the 
 Middle State the question presses itself upon us v/hat that con- 
 duct, practice, and service will be. Will it be immediately after 
 and forever perfectly holy, or will there still remain some degree 
 of imperfection in their practice of true holiness? To those 
 whoso ideas of holiness are low, and measured only by inno- 
 cence, holy intention, and resolution, or who think of human 
 models of a holy life, it may not seem unnatural that believers 
 should at once become alike perfect in holiness and that their 
 practice of true holiness should be invariably free from imper- 
 fections of any kind. But to that man who considers how 
 weak and imperfect the greatest saints and martyrs have been 
 when they left this world ; how far from perfection the best of 
 our friends have been when they left us; and then compare 
 them with the sublime ideals of perfect likeness to the pure 
 and hoi}- Jesus, entire likeness to God the Father in perfect 
 conduct, it will seem incredible that the man who leaves this 
 world so imperfect should in a moment of time leap to this 
 perfection of practice. We need some verj' clear and express 
 teaching in Holy Scripture to justif}^ such a belief. And we 
 have it not. 
 12 
 
178 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 It is to be feared that those who are thinking of immediate 
 sanctification at death are not thinking of the sanctifioation set 
 forth in Scripture ; but of a merely negative sanctification, such 
 as consists in the absence of positive sin. Sanctification em- 
 braces this as one of its elements certainly, but Christian sanc- 
 tification is vastly more than this — it is the positive attainment 
 of perfect practice. It is not only the non-commission of sin ; 
 it is not only the doing of holy deeds under favorable circum- 
 stances; it is not merely the accumulation of holy strength, 
 purpose, resolution, and character such as make it easy to re- 
 sist sin ; but it is vastly more than that — it is the attainment 
 of the masterful experience and practice of Jesus Christ, so that 
 the saint rises superior to every temptation or any possibility 
 of temptation; and attains such a height of Christlikeness and 
 Godlikeness that it will be absolutely impossible for him to com- 
 mit sin, so to say, as impossible as for Christ to be stained with 
 guilt or for God to commit iniquity, and in which the entire 
 character, conduct, and practice are as perfectly holy as the 
 character and conduct of God, pure as Christ is pure, perfect as 
 God is perfect. Does an}'- one suppose that such purity, such 
 perfection, can be gained in the moment of death? Such a 
 sanctification is the goal of that progressive sanctification that 
 begins with regeneration in this life and is carried on until the 
 resurrection and the judgment day. 
 
 The doctrine that has been unfolded removes difficulties from 
 many other doctrines, (a) It enables us first to understand 
 the doctrine of the universal salvation of infants and incapables. 
 It seems most probable that the God of all grace begins their 
 redemption in this M'orld by an act of regeneration, takes it up 
 when they die at that point, and carries it on in the Middle 
 State through all the subsequent steps of sanctification. Dr. 
 Strong, the eminent Baptist divine, says : 
 
 "Since there is no evidence that children dying in infancy are regen- 
 erated prior to death, either with or without the use of external means, 
 it seems most probable that the work of regeneration may be performed 
 by the Spirit in connection with the infant soul's first view of Christ in 
 the other world" (A. H. Strong's "Systematic Theology," p. 357. Roch- 
 ester, 1886). 
 
 I do not share Dr. Strong's opinion, and yet I decline to say 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 179 
 
 that he is heterodox ; for the reason that this is a question of 
 speculative theory to which the Bible gives us no decisive 
 answer. I prefer to think of children as the sweet singer 
 Ephraim the Syrian thinks of them, when he sings : 
 
 " Our God, to thee sweet praises rise 
 From youthful lips in Paradise ; 
 From boys fair robed in spotless white, 
 And nourished in the courts of light. 
 In arbors they, where soft and low 
 The blessed streams of light do flow : 
 And Gabriel, a shepherd strong, 
 Doth gently guide their flocks along. 
 There honors higher and more fair 
 Than those of saints and virgins are ; 
 God's sons are they on that far coast, 
 And nurselings of the Holy Ghost. " * 
 
 How can we think of such a mechanical act, such a magical 
 change, as the transformation of a new-born heathen babe into 
 the perfect likeness of Jesus Christ in the very moment of 
 death ? No passage of Holy Scripture teaches such a doctrine. 
 (b) This doctrine of progressive sanctification after death also re- 
 lieves the doctrine of the salvation of some of the heathen and 
 of the heathen world. We can now see that those who have 
 been enlightened by the Logos and born again of the Holy 
 Spirit, among any of the religions of the world, having the root 
 of the matter in them, the vital tie of union with the Deity, 
 enter the Middle State, where they enjoy all the training the}' 
 ]ieed for their progressive sanctification. Israel was able to do 
 his mediatorial work for the nations only imperfectly in this 
 world. It seems probable that Israel has ever carried on that 
 mediatorial work as the religious teacher of mankind, when the 
 patriarchs and prophets, the sages and the singers received 
 the pious heathen into the school of holiness that lay beyond the 
 grave. And so it is with the ministr}'- of the Church. The 
 Church has only in part carried on its ministry in this world. 
 Its greatest ministry has ever been in the Middle State, in train- 
 ing the departed babes and pious heathen in the holiness and 
 
 * See article " Infant Salvation, " by G. L. Prentiss, " Presbyterian Re- 
 view, " iv. , pp. 569 seq. 
 
180 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 blessedness of the heavenly state. As our Lord descended into 
 Hades to preach the gospel there, so the ancient Church conceived 
 the apostles and teachers as carrying on His work. There is an 
 apostolic succession of ministry which is not confined to this 
 earth, but embraces in its redemptive scope the realm of the 
 living and the dead, as Christ is the king and judge of the liv- 
 ing and the dead, and His Church is composed of the living 
 and the dead. 
 
 I believe that this doctrine of progressive sanctification after 
 death is of great practical importance. 
 
 (a) It fills up the Middle State for us with an attractive, 
 industrious, holy life, a progress in grace, in knowledge, in 
 holiness, in all perfections. We realize that our departe<l 
 friends are not asleep, but awake in the most active of lives. 
 We see our babes growing in the divine life. We see our be- 
 loved in the companionship of prophets and apostles, of saints 
 and martyrs, and of the Holy Jesus. We know that they have 
 not forgotten us, that they are praying for us, and are waiting 
 to welcome us into the world of the redeemed. Death loses its 
 terrors — and becomes only agatev.ay into a better countrj^, into 
 a brighter and purer life. 
 
 (b) It incites to holy endeavor. The doctrine of immediate 
 sanctification at death cuts the nerves of Christian endeavor 
 and dries the sap of holy activity. What is the use, says the 
 sluggish soul, in my striving so hard for holiness, when I shall 
 receive it all in an instant whatever my life has been? All I 
 need is pardon, to get into the kingdom at the eleventh hour. 
 If I can only crawl through just at the moment the gate of 
 death creaks on its hinges, I shall be as holy and as blessed as 
 the greatest martyr and the most self-sacrificing of missionaries. 
 
 No such doctrine was known to the martyr age of the Church. 
 Those who hold such views are not the stuff martyrs are made 
 of. There would have been no martyrs, there would have been 
 no Church, if Christianity had built on such a foundation. 
 Those who, with Paul and John, keep their eyes fixed upon the 
 perfection of God, the likeness of Christ, and make it their one 
 aim, their one hope, to attain that perfection and likeness at 
 the resurrection and the advent — those will purify themselves 
 in this world that they may enter the next world with as great 
 
PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 181 
 
 an advancement as possible. For if there are gi'ades of service 
 and advancement here, there will be still greater differences 
 of grade there ; and the honors of heaven will be apportioned in 
 accordance with the self-sacriticing ministry of earth. The lioly 
 deeds done in the body are the sacred nucleus of the holj- prac- 
 tice of the Middle State. 
 
 The doctrine of progressive sanetiiication is in accordance 
 with the laws that God has established in the ethical constitu- 
 tion of man. The conscience speaks the categorical imperative 
 in the first dawn of the moral consciousness, and it pronounces 
 its decision in the light of the training that men receive in their 
 successive stages of advancement in morals. 
 
 The Church and the Bible give their potent aid to the con- 
 science in the ethical elevation of humanity. It is always, 
 everywhere, and in every variety of form and edvication, a 
 training. Shall all this ethical training cease at death, all the 
 varied stages of progress in the different periods of life, of 
 culture, of racial and national advancement, be reduced to a 
 common level and made of none effect, by a mighty transfor- 
 mation that will deal with the race, father and child, mother 
 and babe, master and scholar, self-sacrificing missionary and 
 pagan convert, the devoted evangelist and the thief and mur- 
 derer turning in his last hour to Christ from the shadow of the 
 gallows — all as one undistinguishable mass? Such a doctrine 
 strikes a deadly blow at the moral nature of man, the ethical 
 constitution of society, the historic training of our race, and the 
 moral government of God. 
 
 The doctrine of progressive sanctification after death har- 
 monizes Christian faith with Christian ethics, and both of 
 these with the ethics of humanity and the ethics of God. It 
 enables us to comprehend the whole life of man, the whole his- 
 tory of our race from its first creation until the day of doom, 
 and all the acts of God in creation and providence, under one 
 grand conception, the divine sanctification of man. 
 
 I have gone over all the Charges made against the doctrines 
 set forth in my Inaugural Address. I have shown that the 
 doctrines taught by me are not contrary to the Westminster 
 Confession, but that they are in accord therev/ith ; that they are 
 
18;J THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGB 
 
 not irreconcilable with the Scriptures, but are the product of 
 a comprehensive study of the Scriptures. They set forth the 
 doctrines of the Bible, which have been made of none effect 
 by the traditions of men. It is now for the Presbytery of 
 New York to make its decision. I pray God you maj'' make no 
 mistake, but that you may stand firmly by the Word of God 
 and the Constitution of our Church and so deliver a righteous 
 verdict. 
 
Additional Remarks made during the Delivery of the 
 Argument for the Defence. 
 
 P. xiv, line 1, after "once more" insert "the words with 
 which this sentence begins." 
 
 P. 103, line 11, after " irreverent " insert " But in what ancient 
 language do the prosecution find dotted i's and crossed t's? In 
 the Aramaic letters which took the place of the original He- 
 brew letters we find the little yodh, but in the ancient Hebrew 
 alphabet the yodh was as long and broad as any other letter. 
 Possibly the prosecution have found some original autograph 
 unknown to the rest of the world which they are suddenly to 
 spring upon us. We shall calmly wait for its disclosure." 
 
 P. IGl, line 22, after "whether" insert "the prosecution have 
 any right to force their interpretation upon me. I have a right 
 to my interpretation even if you think it a wrong one. The 
 prosecution have no more legal right to their interpretation 
 even if it be the right one. It is plainly a difference of inter- 
 pretation ; for the prosecution put their interpretation into the 
 charge, by inserting the two little words 'at once.' They 
 have no right to make the Westminster Standards responsible 
 for their 'at once.' They have no right to exact of me that I 
 should say 'at once,' or to condemn me because I refuse to 
 make this addition to our Standards. But even granting that 
 you have a right to insist upon the insertion of 'at once ' into 
 our Standards and to claim that the interpretation contained in 
 these words is the true interpretation, is this." Omit "the" 
 before " doctrine " and " is " between " death " and " an essen- 
 tial" and insert an interrogation mark after "Westminster 
 Confession" in the clause beginning with "the doctrine" and 
 closing with " Confession ;" lines 22, 23. 
 
 P. 175, line IC, after "means" insert '4n Purgatory." 
 
Concluding Remarks upon the New Matter introduced by 
 the Prosecution into their Argument in Rebuttal. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, Ministers and Elders of the Pres- 
 bytery OF New York: 
 The Biblical scholar (and may I also say, the historian?) of 
 the prosecution has spoken. He has done precisely what the 
 defendant, prior to the delivery of the argument for the defence, 
 intimated to the Presbytery that he would do. He has disre- 
 garded the evidence as set forth in the Amended Charges and 
 submitted to the Presbytery, and has introduced a large amount 
 of new evidence. He has ignored the case as presented by the 
 real chairman of the prosecution, as well as by the ostensible 
 chairman, in their opening arguments. He has not considered 
 the argument for the defence as worthy of rebuttal. He has 
 introduced such a large amount of new matter as to make an 
 entirely new case. The ostensible chairman of the j)rosecution 
 promised that the prosecution would introduce no new matter. 
 But this promise, like many others from that same source, was 
 a disguise of its fulfilment. Dr. Lampe has done precisely 
 what was promised and agreed he should not do. He has 
 trampled under foot the rights of the defendant, the precedents 
 which govern all trials, and the rulings of this court. The in- 
 justice and the wrong have been done. The court has per- 
 mitted them. The argument goes up on the Stenographical 
 Report to the higher courts to the injury of the defence. What 
 shall the defendant do under the circumstances? Shall he 
 claim the right to make a new argument against this new case? 
 He might justly do so. And yet the time already given to this 
 trial has been so extended, the strength and patience of the 
 court have been so strained, the health of some of the dearest 
 friends of the defendant has become so imperilled, and his own 
 vigor is so much impaired, that he does not hesitate to say that 
 he would rather be convicted than undertake a new argument at 
 this stage. It has come to this pass, that members of the court 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS 185 
 
 are saying, If such things can be done in the name of the Pres- 
 byterian Church in the United States of America, it costs more 
 to be a Presbyterian than it is worth. 
 
 It is necessary, however, that I should say a few words. 
 
 (1) The new evidence. The new evidence introduced by the 
 prosecution ought to have been offered as rebuttal evidence, in 
 accordance with the Book of Discipline, § 23; so that the de- 
 fendant might test it in his defence. Inasmuch as this was 
 not done and the defendant has excepted to it, j'ou cannot law- 
 fully allow it or consider it. But as many members of this 
 court are not accustomed to sit as judges and jurors, and we 
 have no presiding judge who can give a final statement of the 
 case for your guidance, let me say in brief : 
 
 («) That the new evidence from Luther and Calvin is irrele- 
 vant. It does not show that the great reformers held to the 
 modern dogma of inerrant original autographs. Let me cite 
 from Kostlin, the most competent authority on Luther now 
 living. With the permission of the court and to save my 
 strength, I will ask my friend Dr. Brown to read this and 
 another extract for me. Will Dr. Brown please read the trans- 
 lation from the German? 
 
 Dr. Brown : The book is entitled " Kostlin's Luther's Theol- 
 ogie." I translate from the second volume, page 280: 
 
 "But especially there meet us utterances (of Luther), which belong 
 here, on passages of Scripture about which the question arose, whether 
 the one does not testify against the ti'uthful contents of the other. Now, 
 here we have carefully to distinguish between testimonies of the Scrip- 
 ture concerning the truth of salvation (Heilswahrheit) — which forms, for 
 Luther, the object of religious belief — and external historical state- 
 ments. As far as concerns the former there is conceivable for Luther no 
 contradiction whatever, and nothing incorrect in the canonical Scrip- 
 tures which have proceeded fi-om the Spirit. . . . But the case is dif- 
 ferent with declarations of the second kind. Here, too, he is indeed con- 
 cerned, with conscientiousness and acuteness, to remove the difficulties 
 (die Anstosse zu beseitigen). The Commentary on Genesis offers many 
 examples of this. . . . But even contradictions, in which the evangel- 
 ists seem to be involved with one another, as in regaixl to the time of 
 the cleansing of the Temple, or in regard to the place of the denial of 
 Peter, occasion him no great concern (machen ihm doch keine grosse 
 Serge) ; in the second case he says of John, that he makes confusion here 
 (dieser mache hier eine Verwirrung) ; that perhaps be has not observed 
 
186 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 the exact order in speaking, but as he declares, not much depends on 
 such questions. . . . Finally he does not shrink from explicitly recog- 
 nizing plain mistakes ; and indeed he finds such mistakes in the mouth 
 of a man whom he expressly holds to speak full of the Holy Spirit, 
 namely, in the speech of Stephen. According to Stephen (Acts of the 
 Apostles vii. 2) Abraham was called while still in Mesopotamia — ac- 
 cording to Moses, in Haran ; Luther is aware that a double call is on this 
 account commonly assumed ; but he does not seek this solution ; it has 
 rather (he says) happened witli Stephen, as it often happens when we 
 cite something casually, without carefully regarding all the circum- 
 stances, while Moses, on the other hand, narrates as a historian. " 
 
 Dr. Briggs: (b) The evidence from divines of the 17th 
 century, adduced by Dr. Lampe, was adduced to show that 
 they held to verbal inspiration and dictation; he has not 
 shown that they teach that there are no errors in Holy Scrip- 
 ture, or that the original autographs were inerrant. The ex- 
 tent of Dr. Lampe's knowledge of the Westminster Divines 
 may be measured by his statement that John Ball " was one of 
 the leading Westminster divines." John Ball is an author 
 whom I greatly admire, and whose writings are ever at hand 
 in my study ; but he was not a Westminster divine. He died 
 October 20th, 1640. The Westminster Assembly convened July 
 1st, 1613. In order to know the views of the Westminster di- 
 vines something more is necessary than a resort to a few pas- 
 sages of their works under the guidance of a dogmatician who 
 is himself a tyro in that department. Let me quote from Alex- 
 ander F. Mitchell, the best authority on the Westminster 
 divines now living, from his introduction to his published 
 minutes of the Westminster Assembly. Will Dr. Brown 
 please read? 
 
 Dr. Brown : I read from the minutes of the Westminster 
 Assembly, Introduction, page 49 seq. : 
 
 "If any chapter in the Confession was more carefully framed than 
 another, it was this, ' of the Holy Scripture. ' It formed the subject of 
 repeated and earnest debate in the House of Commons as well as in the 
 Assembly ; and I think it requires only to be fairly examined to make it 
 appear that its framers were so far from desiring to go beyond their 
 predecessors in rigor, that they were at more special pains than the 
 authors of other Confessions. 1. To avoid mixing up the question of the 
 canonicity of particular books with the question of their authorship, 
 where any doubt at all existed on the latter point. Any one who will 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS 187 
 
 take the trouble to compare their list of the canonical books with that 
 given in the Belgian Confession or in the Irish Articles, may satisfy 
 himself that they held, with Dr. Jamieson, that the authority of these 
 books 'does not depend on the fact whether this prophet or that wrote a 
 particular book or parts of a book ; whether a certain portion was derived 
 from the Elohist or the Jehovist ; whether Moses wrote the close of 
 Deuteronomy, Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, or Paul of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews ; but on the fact that a prophet, an inspired 
 man . . . wrote them, and that they bear the stamp and impress of a 
 divine origin. ' 2. To leave open all reasonable questions as to the mode 
 and degree of inspiration which could consistently be left open by those 
 who accepted the Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith and duty. 3. 
 To refrain from claiming for the text such absolute purity, and for the 
 Hebrew vowel points such antiquity, as was claimed in the Swiss For- 
 mula Concordice, while asserting that the originals of Scripture are, after 
 the lapse of ages, still pure and perfect for all those purposes for which 
 they were given. Not even the text they adduce in proof of this state- 
 ment will suffice to fix down their meaning to the sense which Lee and 
 others have sought to impose on it ; for Lightfoot, who in matters criti- 
 cal was regarded as one of their highest authorities, has expressly stated 
 that the words one iota or one tittle are by our Loi'd himself used inter- 
 changeably with 'one of the least of these commandments;' and that 
 his meaning in both cases is not that no letter or part of a letter should 
 be lost or corrupted, but that not a particle of the divine meaning should 
 be so 'eousque in corruptam immortalitatem ac puritatem textus sacri 
 asserere et non peritura sit ulla sensus sacri particula a capite legis ad 
 calcem. ' To the same effect Vines says that the Scripture stands not in 
 cortice verborum, but in medulla sensus; and shows that he not only knew 
 of varice lectiones in the Hebrew, but held that some in the margin were 
 'truer' than those in the text. Tuckney expresses himself in similar 
 terms, and so does Ussher in his famous letter to Cappellus. 4. To de- 
 clare that the sense of Scripture in any particular place is not manifold, 
 but one, and so raise an earnest protest against that system of spiritualiz- 
 ing the text which had been too much countenanced by some of the most 
 eminent of the fathers, and many of the best of the Mystics." * 
 
 Dr. Briggs : The passage from Rutherford, as cited in my 
 evidence, speaks for itself. It may be colored and warped by 
 the glasses through which Dr. Lampe and his guide look at it; 
 but he cannot color it and warp it for you. I have the book in 
 my hand, and I could read the whole passage, but it would take 
 twenty minutes to do it. I have gone over it again very care- 
 
 * Minutes of Westminster Assembly, 1644-1649 (Introduction, Alex. F. 
 Mitchell, pp. 49 seq. ) . 
 
188 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 fully, and the statements of the passages which I have given 
 in the evidence adduced are exactly as they are in the book. 
 
 I shall cite a few words from John Ball and from John 
 White. Let me say that I introduce this evidence because the 
 prosecution have introduced new evidence and it is necessary 
 for me to rebut it; but all of the evidence that I am using in 
 rebuttal was in the evidence which I introduced, with the ex- 
 ception of that passage from Kostlin which Dr. Brown has 
 read. All the rest was cited by me as parts of my evidence 
 at the beginning. 
 
 A few words from John Ball. Dr. Lampe cited and read 
 from John Ball a question with reference to Holy Scripture : 
 
 " Q. How may it be proved that those books are the word of God im- 
 mediately inspired by the Holy Ghost to the prophets and apostles? 
 
 "A. First, By testimony of the Church; secondly, Constancy of the 
 saints ; thirdly, Miracles wrought to confirm the truth ; and fourthly, By 
 the antiquity thereof." 
 
 And he stopped there, as if these were the evidences adduced 
 by John Ball for Holy Scripture. He overlooked the fact that 
 John Ball proceeds very much in the same way as the West- 
 minster Confession proceeds. The next question is : 
 
 "Q. How else? 
 
 "A. By the stile, elficacie, sweet consent, admirable doctrine, excel- 
 lent end, and the witnesse of the Scripture itselfe " (p. 15) . 
 
 And then finally he goes on : 
 
 " Q. These reasons may convince any, be he never so obstinate, but are 
 they sufficient to perswade the heart hereof? 
 
 " A. No ; the testimony of the Spirit is necessary, and onely all sufficient 
 for this purpose " (p. 28) . 
 
 Now let me read several passages additional further on : 
 
 "Concerning the Scripture, Ave must put difference betweene the doc- 
 ti'ine therein contained, and the writing ; for the signe is for the sense, 
 and the knowledge and faith of both is not alike necessary " (p. 9) . 
 
 And again : 
 
 "The Spirit of God doth assuredly perswade our consciences that the 
 Scriptures are of God, by enlightning our eyes to behold the light, writ- 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS 189 
 
 ing the Law in our hearts, sealing up the promises to our consciences, 
 and causing us sensibly to feele the effects thereof " (p. 29) . 
 
 "The testimonie of the Spirit doth not teach and assure us of the Let- 
 ters, syllables, or severall words of holy Scripture, which are onely as a 
 ves»?l, to carry and convey that heavenly light unto us, but it doth scale 
 in our hearts the saving truth contained in those sacred writings into 
 what language soever they be translated. The Spirit doth not lead them 
 in whom it dwelleth, absolutely, and at once into all truth, but into all 
 truth necessaiy to salvation, and by degrees, so that holy men partakers 
 of the same Spirit, may erre in many things, and dissent one from an- 
 other in matters not fundamental " (pp. 30, 81) . 
 
 A passage of more importance, from John White, which 
 was introduced by myself, and also by the prosecution, in evi- 
 dence, is: 
 
 " Nay, if he should goe a steppe further and beleeve any thing that is 
 written in the Scriptures, for the Testimony of the Scriptures, yet still 
 he beleeves upon an Humane testimony, because he beleeves the Scrip- 
 tures themselves upon Humane testimony, as upon the generall consent 
 of the Church which receives the Scripture as the Word of God ; or 
 upon the probability and reasonableness ; or of the things therein deliv- 
 ered, lastly, upon the observation of the Truth of those holy writings in 
 most things, which makes them beleeved to be true in all. For the 
 Assent unto one thing for another, is built upon tliat, to which we first 
 give our Assent. As a stone in a wall though it lies immediately upon 
 that stone that is next under it ; yet is indeed sujDported by the founda- 
 tion which beares up all the building" (White's "A Way to the Tree 
 of Life, " 1G47, p. 98) . 
 
 Now this seems to me to express exactly the attitude of this 
 prosecuting committee over against myself ; for I build entirely 
 upon the Divine testimony in the Holy Scripture. 
 
 I could go over all this evidence and show you that it is 
 irrelevant; but what is the use? The prosecution live in the 
 cavern of a dogmatic faith, and everything they read in the 
 Bible, or in the Confession, or in Christian writers, is seen in 
 that cavernous light. They are as blind as owls and bats to 
 the truth of history and the facts of the world of realit}'. If 
 any of you see as they do, I greatly regret it. 
 
 (2) The new matter. I have specified this new matter, in 
 part, in the exceptions which I have filed. It is impossible for 
 me to review it without taking a large amount of your time, 
 and in my judgment, to little purpose. I shall briefly refer to 
 
190 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 these matters, (a) A long argument has been made on verbal 
 inspiration and the theory of dictation and the inspiration of 
 the concept only. But there is no charge against my theory 
 of inspiration. Charge III. is not that I deny verbal inspira- 
 tion, or that I claim that only the concept is inspired, but defi- 
 nitely this and this alone, that I teach that *' errors may have 
 existed in the original text of the Holy Scripture as it came 
 from its authors." It is not claimed in the Charge that I teach 
 that errors did exist, or must have existed in the original text 
 of the Holy Scripture as it came from its authors. This I have 
 repudiated. I have declined to say whether the original auto- 
 graphs were inerrant or not. That is the extent of my fault as 
 stated in the Charge and so stated in my defence. This alone 
 is on trial before you. When the prosecution go further than 
 this in their argument and charge me with teaching that we 
 have an errant Bible, and so endeavor to envelop the real 
 offence in a cloud of prejudice against me on other matters, 
 they are guilty of inexcusable misrepresentation of me, and of 
 a gross offence against the intelligence of the court, by making 
 a more serious charge than that offered for probation. 
 
 (b) When Dr. Lampe argues that I teach the errancy of 
 Jesus, he argues on a much more serious matter than any con- 
 tained in the Charges, and in, such a way which shows that he 
 knows but little of the true doctrine of the personality of our 
 adorable Saviour. I am not surprised that a man who can 
 speak of the hours of prayer and religious meditation as lonely 
 hours should know so little of Jesus Christ. When we are 
 apart from the world and present with Jesus we have compan- 
 ionship which is richer and more glorious than that of all the 
 world beside. My argument was simply this, that Jesus never 
 said that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that Isaiah wrote all 
 of the book which bears his name ; and that He was not obliged 
 to correct all the errors of his contemporaries. This argument 
 the prosecution did not attempt to rebut, they did not refer to 
 it; but, in place of rebuttal, charge me with a more serious 
 error than anything contained in the Charge. How can this 
 court look upon such conduct with any degree of toleration ? 
 
 (c) Almost the entire argument of Dr. Lampe is directed 
 against the views of rationalistic critics, with the implication 
 
 1 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS 191 
 
 that I am responsible for their opinions. The prosecution had 
 in their hands my printed argument on the authorship of the 
 Pentateuch and the book of Isaiah. They have not paid the 
 slightest attention to anything in my argument. As I stated 
 at the close of my argument on the Pentateuch, I defend the 
 historicity of the Pentateuch no less than the prosecution ; and 
 I defend it on better grounds and with far greater hopes of 
 success when I recognize parallel narratives of the same event 
 in the history contained in the Pentateuch. The court should 
 recognize all this irrelevant argument and rule it out of court, 
 and confine themselves to the specific matters contained in 
 Charges IV. and V., and determine whether a man who denies 
 the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and asserts that Isaiah 
 did not write half the book which bears his name, has taken 
 a contra-confessional position and is thereby ruled out from the 
 Presbyterian Church. 
 
 (3) I have taken exception to much the greater jjortion of 
 the alignment of Dr. Lampe, as in no sense a rebuttal, but a 
 new case against me. It is impracticable for me to go over all 
 the argument at this time. Let me take one glaring specimen. 
 He puts in my mouth (p. 16) the statement: "Newman could 
 not find certainty and God in the Bible striving never so hard, 
 but found a place among the faithful through the institutions 
 of the Church. Martineau could not find God in the Bible but 
 did find Him enthroned in his own soul." This is a misrepre- 
 sentation. The passages from the Inaugural referred to (pp. 25, 
 27) say no such thing. They say : " Martineau could not find 
 divine authority in the Church, or the Bible ; but did find God 
 enthroned in his own soul" (p. 27). "Newman, who could not 
 reach certainty, striving never so hard, through the Bible or 
 the Eeason, but who did find divine authority in the institu- 
 tions of the Church " (p. 25) . 
 
 I did not say that Newman and Martineau did not find God 
 in the Bible. That statement the prosecution, and they alone, 
 are responsible for. To find God is one thing, to find divine 
 authority in that in which we find God, is another and a differ- 
 ent thing. The difficulty with the prosecution is that they 
 seem incapable of making distinctions and seeing differences in 
 the fields of theology which are so unfamiliar to them. 
 
192 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 
 
 It is not necessary to first accept the doctrine of the inspira- 
 tion of Holy Scripture, and the divine authority of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, before we can find God and His Christ in the Scriptures, 
 For most people this order is reversed. "We find God and 
 Christ in the Bible before the question of the inspiration and 
 authority of the Bible are raised to us ; and in fact most men 
 accept the Bible as the Holy Book of God just for this reason, 
 that they have found God and Christ in it and through it. 
 But if some men like Martineau have found God in the Bible 
 without going on to the further stage of recognizing the divine 
 authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture, shall we say on 
 that account that they did not find God in the Bible? I de- 
 cline to say it. You may say so if you can, but you have no 
 right to convict me of heresy because I refused to share your 
 opinion in this particular. To know God and the Christ He 
 has sent is the Christian religion, even if men doubt the in- 
 spiration of Holy Scripture or deny the infallibility of the 
 Bible. 
 
 (4 ) Finally, let me call your attention to the fact that this 
 afternoon Dr. Lampe has reiterated the argument on the seventh 
 Charge that you threw out, and has reiterated it in a most 
 offensive form. Do you allow a committee claiming to be ap- 
 pointed by this Presbytery, and to represent 3^ou, to override a 
 ruling which you have distinctly made? I call for the justice 
 of the court. I appeal to the sense of honor of the judges. In 
 this argument on the seventh Charge (which was ruled out) he 
 attributes to me the words of my beloved teacher Dr. Dorner, 
 when I have expressly disclaimed in my argument, as you will 
 remember, holding that particular phase of his doctrine. It 
 is true that in my book entitled " Whither?" on pages 260 and 
 261, I quoted an extract from Dr. Dorner with reference to 
 those who had passed into the middle state, in which he said a 
 few words about the condition of the impenitent there, and ex- 
 presses the hope that some of them may be saved ; but as the 
 greater part of the extract (and that is the reason why I cited 
 it) refers to the progressive sanctification of believers who have 
 gone into the middle state, I did not in "Whither?" indorse 
 every word that Dr. Dorner said, nor did I think it necessary 
 for me to disclaim that portion of his doctrine when I said, 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS 193 
 
 " Lest any one should stumble at these excellent thoughts, owing 
 to the name of Dorner, I shall conclude with the wise words of 
 John Wesley." The previous context in which this passage 
 was contained shows sufficiently well that I had been teaching 
 the doctrine of progressive sanctificHtion of believers after 
 death, and had not thought of any change for unbelievers so far 
 as their redemption is concerned. And in the argument which 
 I made before you I took the precaution, lest any one should 
 misunderstand me, when I quoted this extract from Dorner 
 again, to disclaim that specific teaching of Dorner which Dr. 
 Lampe has again, and in spite of my disclaimer, attributed to 
 me this afternoon. 
 
 Much more might be said ; but I forbear. The Charges are 
 in your hands. You have my defence. You should read i«t 
 again in order that you may see how little attention has been 
 paid to it by Dr. Lampe in his argument before j'ou during the 
 three days in which you have heard him, and in order that you 
 may find therein an answer to all these misrepresentations, 
 which are thick in the argument that a^ou have heard from his 
 lips. You have heard the argument of the prosecution. Once 
 more I challenge you before God to judge me by the Holy 
 Scripture and by the Westminster Standards, not by your own 
 opinions, not by any dogmatic system of theology, not hj any- 
 thing attributed to me by the prosecution — but by the Holy 
 Scripture and by the Standards; and then you will give a 
 righteous verdict, to which I shall submit. 
 
■ ^v<ii.TWirffTO^aiiOT..HLt;' 7a:.aaK'.'«WBW 
 
 Date Due 
 
 :©'■ s 
 
 j;^*******^' 
 
 tts/fftrnmimmm 
 
 m^'^ m r TTfi ^ 
 
 W.- 
 
1 1012 01013 5400 
 
 mm 
 
 m, 
 
 f5><tV'nr 
 
 <i)]^ji 
 
 mn 
 
 Un.tis 
 
 m 
 
 'MHit 
 
 U'-.m^ 
 
 
 
 [■^m 
 
 nl^m