^ PRINCETON, N. J. "^ 
 
 Presented bT^ro^ TSTB . V/^u <:Ar\\ A O ,"X) ■ 
 
 &r/w« *=^ r / 
 
J)r. §riggs' 
 
 '^iblical ]fieoIog2 
 
 jraced to its 
 (jrganiflc 
 
 Principle 
 
 BY 
 
 Robert Watts, D. D., UUD. 
 
 BEliFAST. 
 
DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 
 
 TRACED TO 
 
 ITS ORGflNIFIG PRINCIPLE. 
 
 EGBERT WATTS, D. D. 
 
 (Reprinted from the Presbyterian QuarterU/. ) 
 
 ItlCHOND, VA.: N] 
 
 WinTTET A: SUKll'EHSON, PuBIJSHEn^. ' 
 
 1892. 
 
DK. 13RIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY TRACED TO 
 ITS ORGANIFIC PRIX(UPLE. 
 
 TiiK appointniGiit of a professor in a tl<eolo<,ML'iil institution is a 
 transaction the importance of which it would he difficult to over- 
 estimate. As it is in such institutions that those who arc to unfold 
 to men the unsearchal)le riches of Christ are u.-jually trained, it is 
 manifest that all such appointments must affect for good or evil 
 the vital interests of the kini^dom of God. It is this conviction 
 which has stirred to her |)rofoundest depths the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, on the apj)ointment of Dr. 
 Charles Au<^u8tus Brii^ga to the newly erected ('hair of Biblical 
 Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York. Impressed 
 withasense of the importance of the i)ranch of theological study with 
 which the occupant of the chair has to deal, and cognizant oi tlie 
 views of the person selected by the Board of Direct(»r8 to till it, 
 the church has taken the alarm, and in her late Assembly has 
 declined, by an overwhelming majority, to apj>rove of the ap- 
 pointment. As the directors, after taking legal advice, have re- 
 solved to adhere to their action in tilling the chair, it is likely the 
 case will be transferred to the civil courts. 
 
 The wide-spread interest taken in the case on i)oth sides of the 
 Atlantic, the character of the principles avowed by the newly- 
 appointed professor in his Inaugural, and the re-pid)lication t>f 
 tiie Inaugural, together with defences of its teaching by two 
 professors of the Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, with 
 a commendatory introduciion by Professor Bruce, of the Free 
 Church College. Glasgow, may serve as a sufficient apology for 
 an examimition of the doctrines thus opeidy proclaime<l. 
 
 As my chief 8ul>ject is tlu; Inaugural I shall iu»t enter at largo 
 upon a criticism of the papers furnished by the Lane professors, 
 whom Dr. Bruce pronounces as men of liglit ami lea^liIlL^ Tin- 
 
4 DR. BRIGG8 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, 
 
 theory of inspiration thej advocate is not new, nor is there any- 
 thing novel in their advocacy of it. Tiieir avowed object is to 
 prove the errancy of Scripture. The theory is simply this, that 
 the men who wrote the Scriptures were gifted with an indefinable 
 species of inspiration, somewhat akin to that possessed by Shake- 
 speare, Milton, or Tennyson, as theologians, but not as historians, 
 scientists, geographers, astronomers, etc. These apologists not 
 only look unmoved upon the attempts of the enemies of the Bible to 
 make good their charges of errancy against it within these depart- 
 ments, but take sides with them and exercise their gifts and draw 
 upon the resources of their scholarship, to discover, and array 
 before tlie general public, what they regard as evidence of scien- 
 tific and historical mistakes and of sanctioned immoralities, or, as 
 Dr. Bruce has expressed it, of " crude morality." 
 
 It is not difficult to see the drift and tendency of this theorj' 
 and its concessions. All that the adversary of the Bible has to do 
 is to deal with it as Dr. Duff and others have done with tlie sacred 
 books of the Hindus. He has simply to establish against it the 
 existence of errors within the spheres in question. Having done 
 tliis, his work is done. He can say to these apologists, as Duff 
 said to the Hindus, "If your sacred writers have made mistakes 
 within the sphere of the Natural, and in regard to things subject 
 to human observation, what right have you to claim acceptance 
 for their teaching within the sphere of the Supernatural ? If 
 they have proved themselves unworthy of trust in the former, who 
 will credit their testimony in the latter?" Passing then, at once, 
 from further notice of these Lane essays, let us examine the Inau- 
 gural which gave occasion to their production, and which has led 
 Dr. Bruce to introduce both it and them to the churches of these 
 lands. 
 
 Revealed Tlieology may be divided into Exegetical Theology, 
 Biblical Theology, and Systematic Theology. Exegetical The- 
 ology is so designated because it treats of the exegesis or interpre- 
 tation of the Sacred Text. Biblical Theology has for its object 
 the tracing of the genesis and development of the religion of tlie 
 Bil)le, in a purely historical manner, as it presents itself in both 
 Testaments. Systematic Tlieology aims at the scientific exhibi- 
 
DR. BR1GG8 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 5 
 
 tion of the knowledge of God and tlie things of God, pointing out 
 the mutual harmonious relations subsisting among the truths it 
 embraces and their harmony with the revelation made tiirough 
 the light of nature, so far as it treats of the same sul)ject6. 
 
 It is with the second of these subjects that the Ciiair in question 
 h;is to deal, and Dr. Briggs very properly tai<es it as tiie themo 
 of his Inaugural. It is not unnatural that he sliould have formed 
 a very high estimate of his subject, or that he sliould enter upon 
 the discussion of it with enthusiasm. He might, however, have 
 done both without speaking in terms of disparagement of creeds 
 and dogmatic systems. In his letter of thanks to the Board of 
 Directors (pp. 6-7), we liave the following comparison instituted 
 between Biblical theology and ecclesiasticism and dogmatism — 
 "Biblical 6ch(»lars have been long held in Itondage to ecclesias- 
 ticism and dogmatism. But modern Biblical criticism has won 
 the battle of freedom. The accumulations of long periods of 
 traditional speculation and dogmatism have been in a large 
 measure removed, and the Bible itself stands before the men of 
 our time in a commanding position, such as it has never enjoyed 
 before. On all sides it is asked, not what do the creeds teach, 
 what do the theologians say, what is the authority of the church, 
 but what does the Bible itself teach us? It is the office of Bibli- 
 cal theology to answer this question. It is the culmination of the 
 work of exegesis. It rises on a complete induction of all the de- 
 partments of Biblical study to a comprehensive grasp of the Bible 
 as a whole, in the unity and variety of the sum of its teaching. 
 It draws the line with the teaching of the Bible. It fences off 
 from the Scriptures all the speculations, all the dogmatical elabo- 
 rations, all the doctrinal adaptations that have been made in the 
 history of doctrine in the church. It does not deny their i)ro- 
 priety and importance, but It insists upcm the three-fold distinction 
 as necessary to truth and theological honesty, that the theology of 
 the Biljle is one thing, the only infallible authority, the theoh»gy 
 of the creeds is another thing, having simply ccclesia.-tical au- 
 thority, and the theology of the theologians or dogmatic theology 
 is a third thing, which has no more authority than any ••ther 
 system of human constructiop. Now, liiblic^il theology aims to 
 
t) DR. BRIGGS BIBLICAL TIIKOLOGY. 
 
 limit itself strictly to the theology of the BiMe itself. Biblical 
 theologians are fallible men, and doubtless it is true that they err 
 in their interpretation of the Scriptures, as have others, but it is 
 tlie aim of tlie discipline to give the tlieology of the Bible pure 
 and simple, and the inductive and historical methods that deter- 
 mine the working of tlie department are certainly favorable to an 
 objective presentation of the sul)ject, and are unfavorable to the 
 intrusion of subjective fancies and circumstantial considerations." 
 The prominent points of the claim here set up on belialf of 
 Bil)lical theology as distinguished from the teaching of creeds 
 and dogmatic theology raise very naturally the question, " Is 
 Biblical theology itself exempt from the objections here preferred 
 against all dogmatism, and, if so, how has this exemption been 
 secured ?" The writer admits that Biblical theologians are falli- 
 ble men, and that it is doubtless true they err in their interpreta- 
 tion of the Scriptures, as have others. How does it come to pass, 
 then, that their interpretations of the Scriptures are a safer guide 
 to the study of the Bil)le than the formulated teaching of ecclesi- 
 astical creeds and the systems of dogmatic theologians? It is no 
 answer to this question to say, as we are told, that "it is the aim 
 of the discipline to give the theology of the Bible pure and 
 simple," and that "the inductive and historical methods that de- 
 termine the working of the department are certainly favorable to 
 an objective presentation of tlie subject, and are unfavorable to 
 the intrusion of subjective fancies and circumstantial considera- 
 tions." This is no answer to the questions regarding the fact 
 and the mode of the exemption of Biblical theology from the 
 errors charged against the creeds and systems of dogmatic 
 theology. The creeds and dogmatic systems aim to give the 
 theology of the Bible pure and simple, and they follow the induc- 
 tive methods as well as the system advocated l)y Biblical theo- 
 logians. Nor are they forgetful of the historical order observed 
 in the revelation of the economy of redemption, under diverse 
 and successive dispensations. There is no claim that can be ad- 
 vanced, on the grounds here specified, that can be regarded as the 
 exclusive property of Biblical theology. To warrant the claim 
 to preeminence it must be shown that the Biblical theologian is 
 
DR. BRIGG8 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 7 
 
 a better logician, and, therefore, less liable to make mistakes in bis 
 deductions tliaii the authors of the creeds and the theological dog- 
 matic systems. It is admitted that both exercise the logical 
 faculty, and deduce from the sacred text doctrines wliich they do 
 not find made ready to their hand. Wherein, then, lie the safe- 
 guards which distinguish the theological inductions of the Biblical 
 theologian in point of purity, or any other Scriptural quality, 
 from the inductions of the men who, in the exerijise of this same 
 inductive facult}^ have framed the creeds, or the dogmatic sys- 
 tems whicli liuve appeared in the iiistory of the cliurch? Mani- 
 festly the safeguard is not to be sought in greater purity of aim, 
 and it certainly cannot be claimed tliat the sciiools represented by 
 Dr. Briggs have proved tliemselves possessed of logical powers 
 transcending those manifested by the master minds wiio have 
 given to the church her creeds and her carefully-l)alanced systems 
 of theology. 
 
 It had been wiser for the interests of the higher criticism if Dr. 
 Briggs had not instituted comparisons upon these points. He 
 speaks of the Biblical tlieology as one unfavorable to the intrusion 
 of sul)jective fancies, while tlie higher criticism which has furnished 
 him with a Bible which he acknowledges is so diflFerent from the 
 Bible of his earlier years as to be to iiiin anew book, is built upon 
 the subjective fancies of the higher critics, no two of them agreeing 
 in their subjective imaginings. The Bible these men have given 
 the author of the Inaugural is a Bil)le transfigured from 3'ear to 
 year as new critical conjurers have arisen to bewitch their votaries 
 by their enchantments. The Biblical theology basetl on this ever- 
 changing Bible should be careful about instituting invidious com- 
 parisons. Its historical nictiiod is subvei'sive of all theology, 
 whether Biblical, symbolical, or dogmatical. One wiio has taken the 
 trouble of reckoning the number of theories invented by tlieao 
 higher critics in regard to the origin of the books of the Bible 
 puts them down at 747 — 008 of the Old Testament and 144 of the 
 New — and affirms that they are, with few exceptions, either dead 
 or moribund. Is it from a Bible manipulated l)y such theorisers 
 that our Biblical theologians are to deduce, and present to the 
 Church of God, "the theology of the Bilde pure and simple"! 
 
b DR. BRIGGS BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 Those who identify themselves with the critical system so fertile 
 of ever-diesolving theories, might be a little more modest in criti- 
 cising the symbolism or the dogmatism of the churches, and less 
 forward in claiming for themselves the championship and guard- 
 ianship of the sacred oracles and the key to unlock their myste- 
 ries. One would think that an indispensable preliminary to all 
 such criticisms and claims would be a convention of these higher 
 critics to settle the fundamental vital question, the question of 
 questions. Which of all the new Bibles which the higher criticism 
 has produced is to be the Bible of the future, from which the 
 Biblical theologian is to deduce his Biblical theology ? Until this 
 is done his work cannot begin ; and Dr. Briggs was rather prema- 
 ture in undertaking, even at the call of the venerable Directors of 
 the Union Theological Seminary, the task of erecting the temple 
 of Biblical theology in that institution until the higher critics 
 shall have agreed about the foundation on which he is to build. 
 
 But let us test the claim put forth for Biblical theology by our 
 newly inaugurated Biblical theologian by a specimen of his own 
 workmanship. On page 50 of the Inaugural, speaking of man's 
 original state, he charges Jew and Christian alike with exaggerat- 
 ing man's original innocence and depreciating his ultimate perfec- 
 tion. " Protestant theologians," he says, " have exaggerated the 
 original righteousness in order to magnify the guilt of our first 
 parents. They thus come in conflict with ethical and religious 
 philosophy. The Bible is not responsible for these exaggerations- 
 The original man was innocent and sinless, but not possessed of 
 that righteousness and moral excellence that comes only by di- 
 cipline and heavenly training." Confounding a test of federal 
 fidelity with a means of grace, he adds, " The temptation was a 
 necessary means of grace. Man did not make his progress in the 
 straiglit lines of faith and obedience, but in the curved line of sin 
 and redemption." 
 
 One of the greatest theologians of our age has remarked, " Let 
 a man tell me what his philosophy is, and I shall ask him no ques- 
 tions about his theology." Dr. Briggs has told us in these few 
 sentences what his ethical and religions philosophy is, and has, at 
 the same time, told us how it has affected his views on one of the 
 
DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 9 
 
 cardinal points of Protestant theology, viz., the question of man's 
 original state. He rejects the Protestant doctrine on this (jiies- 
 tion because it comes in conflict with iiis ethical and religious phi- 
 losophy. His reason for rejecting the Protestant doctrine is that 
 it teaches that tlie original man was created in knowledge, right- 
 eousness and hoHness, while his ethical and religious philosophy 
 teaches that such an estate comes only througli discipline and 
 lieavenly training. Such is the confession made hy our new Bib- 
 lical theologian, who tells us that "the aim of his discipline is to 
 give the theology of the Bible pure and simple, ami to fence off 
 from the Scriptures all the speculations, all the dogmatic elabora- 
 tions, all the doctrinal adaptations that liave been made in the his- 
 tory of doctrine in the church." Is it not singular that, after 
 starting with such purity of aim, and after " fencing off from the 
 Scriptures the speculations and dogmatic elaborations, and all the 
 doctrinal adaptations that have been made in the history of doc 
 trine in the church," he 'should have left a gap in ins fence for the 
 admission of a species of ethical and religious philosophy which 
 from the day of Pelagius, its author, has done more to mar the 
 peace of the church and corrupt her theology than any other prin- 
 ciple that could be named? The ethical and religious philosophy 
 which he has admitted through this gap is neither more nor less 
 than the fundamental principle of the Pelagian heresy, which has, 
 in one shape or other, veiled or unmasked, inspired and armed for 
 the conflict all the opponents of the Augustinian and Calvinistic 
 theology from the days of Pelagius till the present. IIow is it 
 that in fenciuir off all traditional dogmatism he has reserved an 
 opening for this traditional Pelagian "ethical anil religious phi- 
 losophy?" It is manifest that by the admission of it he has 
 gainsaid all that he has professed about the high "aim of his dis- 
 cipline to give the theology of the Bible pure and simple." lie 
 will admit no theological dogma, nor will he accept of any doc- 
 rine deduced from the Bible by man which comes in conflict with 
 this "ethical and religious philosophy." In a word, he haa aban- 
 doned the position that the Bible alone is to luive voic^ in deter- 
 mining his doctrinal deductions from its contents. The Lydian 
 stone by which all its teachings are to be tried, and in conformity 
 
10 DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. v 
 
 with which they are to be formulated, is the principle that " right- 
 eousness comes only by discipline and heavenly training." This 
 is the generative principle of his theological system, and we must 
 conclude that it will govern him in all his utterances as professor 
 of Biblical theology. 
 
 But leaving him to reconcile the claim advanced to absolute 
 Biblical purity of aim and method, with the admission of this 
 Pelagian factor, let us consider its bearing upon the leading facts 
 and doctrines of the Sacred Kecord. How must it affect (1) the 
 Scripture account of the creation of the first Adam ; (2) the 
 account given of the creation of the second Adam; (3) the account 
 given of the estate in which men are born into this world ; (4) the 
 bearing of this principle upon the Scripture doctrine of the new 
 birth ; and (5) its bearing upon the doctrine of sanctification ? 
 Having examined the theological consequences of this principle, 
 it will be in place to consider its claims to take rank as a principle 
 or law of " ethical and religious philosophy." 
 
 1. Let us see how this principle must affect one's views regard- 
 ing man's original state. The Scriptures teach that " God 
 created man, male and female, in his own image, after his own 
 likeness." Dr. Briggs objects to the Protestant interpretation of 
 this account of the creation of man, which infers from it, that 
 man was created in the possession of righteousness and moral ex- 
 cellence. This, he alleges, comes only by discipline and heavenly 
 training. There can be no doubt about the antagonism between 
 the principle in question and the Protestant doctrine of the estate 
 in which our first parents were created. That doctrine is briefly 
 stated in the Shorter Catechism of the Westminister divines in 
 answer to the question, "How did God create man?" The an- 
 swer given is, "God created man, male and female,' after 
 his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with 
 dominion over the creatures." Such is the Protestant doc- 
 trine of the moral state of man in virtue of the creative act, 
 and it is manifest that no one holding the principle that such 
 moral qualities "come only by discipline and heavenly training," 
 could, conscientiously, accept the Protestant doctrine on this 
 point. How Dr. Briggs managed to hold the one and subscribe 
 
DR. BEI0G8 BIBLICAL TFIKOLOOY. 11 
 
 the other is a problem. According to the Inaugural, mans' 
 original estate, so far as "righteousness and moral excellence" 
 are concerned, was one of mere negation, lie did not posscBB 
 such righteousness or moral excellence, and was innocent before 
 God without it. According to the Standards, subscribed only a 
 few minutes previously, our first parents were created in God's 
 own image and likeness in possession of knowledge, righteousness 
 and holiness. Dr. Briggs alleges that this is a Protestant exag- 
 geration of man's original estate, and rejects it because it is (as it 
 un(juestionably is) in conflict with his ethical and religious philo- 
 sophy. It would be interesting to know by what species of 
 ethical and religious philosophy he justified himself in subscribing 
 that which he must have looked upon, at the time he subscribed 
 it, as in conflict with ethical and religious philosophy. lie must 
 have had some way of reconciling his previous profession and his 
 subsequent utterance, but it must be a way unknown to ordinary 
 " ethical and religious philosophy." 
 
 l>ut let us see whether the Protestant doctrine on this subject is 
 in conflict with genuine Biijlical theolog}'. If, as that doctrine 
 teaches and the Bible expressly aflBrms, man was created in (iod's 
 own image and likeness, what reason is there for alleging that this 
 image and likeness did not embrace "righteousness and moral ex- 
 cellence?" Is it possible to conceive of a moral agent possessing 
 such an image and j'et being destitute of these (pialities and exist- 
 ing in a merely negative state of so-called innocency without bias 
 of inherent principle toward good or evil? In so far as such a one 
 lacks these (jualities, in so far does he lack confornjity to the 
 Divine image. If we are to take the testimony of the Bible 
 "pure and simple" as our authority on this vital point, it is in 
 these qualities that the Divine image preeminently consists, for 
 when through the provisions of the economy of grace, the lost 
 imago is restored, the subject of the restoration is "renewed in 
 knowledge after the image of Ilim that created him" (Col. iii. 10), 
 and "after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" 
 )Eph. iv. 24). Manifestly these passages tejich that the image 
 of God embraces the very qualities which Dr. Briggs' "ethical 
 and religious philosophy " excludes as unattaiiuible sjive through 
 discipline and heavenly training." 
 
12 DR. BRIGGS .BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 2. This " ethical and religious philosophy" is clearly at war with 
 the doctrine of the incarnation. The expression, image of God, is 
 employed in Scripture to indicate the transcendent moral beauty 
 and perfection of the Son of God. He is " the image of the in 
 visible God" (Col. i, 15). He is "the briglitness of his glory and 
 the express image of his essence." (Heb. i. 8.) Are we then to 
 eliminate from this image of God. as exhibited in the Incarnate 
 Son, whom to see was to see the Father, the qualities of "righte- 
 ousness and moral excellence," because the possession of such quali- 
 ties prior to his moral activities would be out of keeping with 
 Dr. ]3riggs' "ethical and religious philosophy?" It is true the 
 Scriptures speak of him as increasing in wisdom and stature and 
 in favor with God and man (Luke ii. 52), but they never speak of 
 him as increasing in holiness, or growing in moral purity. The 
 Pelagian canon excludes all such subjective states as impossible in 
 a moral agent, until he exercises his moral faculties, and Dr. 
 Briggs is not at liberty to limit its operation to any particular 
 class of moral qualities. If, therefore, moral excellence includes 
 moral purity, this " ethical and religious philosophy " must elimi- 
 nate moral purity from the estate of the Man Christ Jesus as gene- 
 rated by the immediate agency of the Holy Ghost, under the 
 overshadowing power of the Highest! Prior to the exercise of 
 his mental and moral faculties as a man, however, even from his 
 inception in the womb of the Virgin, the Scriptures teach that he 
 was holy, a moral quality which according to Dr. Briggs, comes 
 only by discipline and heavenly training. This was evidently the 
 doctrine propounded by the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation. 
 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing 
 which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." 
 (Luke i. 35.) The ethical and religious philosophy which nega- 
 tives the Protestant doctrine of the creation of man must also set 
 aside the Scriptural doctrine of tlie Incarnation of the Son of 
 God. And this is Biblical theology, forsooth ! If Adam could 
 not have been created in a state of positive holiness, and could not 
 have possessed these qualities which enter into the conception of 
 moral excellence, for the reason assigned, viz. — that such qualities 
 
DR. BRIGG8 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 13 
 
 "come only by discipline and lieavenly training," it must follow 
 (for the Pelagian canon will allow of no exception) that prior to 
 the exercise of his moral faculties under "discipline and heaveidy 
 training," the Man Christ Jesus was not possessed of righteous- 
 ness or moral excellence. 
 
 Here, then, are two of the plainest doctrines of the Bible which 
 cannot abide the test of this Pelagian philosopliy, and which must 
 be excluded from the future system of Biblical theology tliat is to 
 be elaborated by Professor Briggs and inculcated upon such of 
 the future ministry of the Presbyterian Church as may be com- 
 mitted to his care. If these youths are to accept his teaching and 
 recognize the ethical and religious philosopliy from which it flows, 
 they nnist go forth as heralds of this novel Biblical theology and 
 inform the people that neither the first Adam nor the second 
 Adam was created " in knowledge, righteousness or holiness," 
 and that these moral qualities in both cases were the outcome of 
 the exercise of their moral faculties under discipline and heavenly 
 training. 
 
 3. Equally manifest must be the bearing of this same "ethical 
 and religions philosopliy" upon the doctrine of original sin, viewed 
 simply as a subjective state. The estate into which the Fall 
 brought mankind is an estate of sin and misery, and the sinful- 
 ness of this estate consists in "the guilt of Adam's first sin, the 
 want of original righteousness, and the corruption of our whole 
 nature, commonly called original sin, together with all actual 
 transgressions which proceed from it." The doctrine propounded 
 liere is, that men enter this world in a morally corrupt state, and 
 that this estate is not the product, but the cause, of all actual 
 transgressions. Now the question here is, can this doctrine abide 
 the application of the Pelagian test? If the moral qualities of 
 righteousness and moral excellence cannot be concrete, and must 
 be the result of a prior exercise of the moral faculties, will it not 
 necessarily follow that the evil (jualities embraced under tlie con- 
 ception of moral corruption, must be the offspring of the imlawful 
 and vicious exercise of these same jiowers of the souW If good 
 moral qualities cannot come into being save through the exercise 
 of the moral powers, on no principle of ethical or religious phi- 
 
14 DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 losophj can it be shown that bad moral qualities can originate in 
 the soul of a moral agent until that agent shall have performed 
 immoral acts. If, as the Pelagian maxim teaches, moral character 
 be a thing of acquisition, the product of moral action, no child 
 born into the world can at its birth, and prior to the exercise of 
 its moral powers, be regarded as existing, as our Standards teach 
 it does, in a state of moral corruption. Pelagius and Celestius 
 taught, that "omne hoiiuin et maliwi quo vel laudahiles vet vitu- 
 perdbiles suvius, non nohiscum, oritur, sed agitur a ?iohis — et ut 
 sine virtute, ita et sine vitio 2)^"0C7'eamur.'''' That is, all good or 
 evil, on account of which we are worthy of praise or blame, does 
 not come into being with us, l)ut is the result of our own action 
 . . . and as we are procreated without virtue so are we also with- 
 out vice. Such is Dr. Briggs' "ethical and religious philosophy' 
 as expounded by its authors, and there is no need of argument, to 
 satisfy any person of ordinary intelligence, that it sets aside the 
 Scripture doctrine of original sin as set forth in the Standards of 
 the Westminster divines. Dr. Briggs by his act of subscription 
 proposed to hold the latter, and in his Inaugural avowed the 
 former, as the organific principle of his Biblical theology, and we 
 must leave him to solve the "ethical and religious" problem cre- 
 ated by his action on the very solemn occasion of his inaugura- 
 tion. Perhaps he may have satisfied himself, as Mr. George 
 Ward, Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, one of the principal 
 leaders in the Oxford movement, did, by signing the Standards in 
 a "non-natural sense" which were all one with signing them in a 
 sense not natural. 
 
 4. But the difficulties multiply and are intensified, once we en- 
 ter the sphere of the application of redemption, and consider the 
 bearing of this " ethical and religious philosophy " upon the doc- 
 trine of regeneration. As stated in the Shorter Catechism, the 
 Spirit not only convinces us of sin and misery, but also enlightens 
 our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renews our wills, and 
 both persuades and enables us to embrace Jesus Christ as he is 
 offered to us in the gospel. There could be no more truly Bibli- 
 cal summary of the points embraced in the doctrine of regenera- 
 tion than is given in the above account of effectual calling. By 
 
DR. BRIGG8 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 16 
 
 tlie direct agency of the Holy Spirit, acting correlatively to the 
 divine objective revelation, the mind of the sinner has such a view 
 of his sin and moral wretchedness, and siu-h a view of Christ as 
 he is offered in the gospel, as lie could never acquire through any 
 process of discipline or heaveidy training. Nor is tiiis all. Not 
 only is his mind enlightened, but iiis will is renewed, and he is 
 persuaded and enabled to embrace the Saviour thus revealed by 
 the supernatural agency of the Holy Ghost. This representation 
 is in full accord with our Saviour's own account of this funda- 
 mental change, in his conversation with Nicodenuis — John iii. 
 3-5. In tlie third verse he informs Nicodemus of the necessity 
 of this radical change in order to see the kingdom of God, and in 
 the fifth verse he informs him of the necessity of it in order to 
 eyiter the kingdom. In a word, both the intellect and the loill must 
 undergo this change. He conditions the spiritual action of both 
 the cognitive and conative powers of the soul upon the previous ac- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit, which he likens to a new genesis of the man. 
 
 Our Saviour was evidently not of Dr. Briggs' opinion, that 
 moral character cannot originate in a moral agent prior to his own 
 moral activities, or that "rigliteousness and moral excellence come 
 only by discipline and heavenly training." His verdict on this 
 point is that prior to a change, which the Spirit of God alone can 
 effect, a change which is equivalent to a re-creation of the soul in 
 all its powers, the sinner can have no right apprehension of divine 
 things, and can have no saving knowledge of tiiem, or desire to 
 possess them. 
 
 This doctrine prevades both Testaments. Tims — Jeremiah, 
 xxxi. 33; Heb. viii. 10 — God promises to make a new covenant 
 with his people, putting his law in their inward parts and writing 
 it in their hearts. Here we have the same principle, antecedent 
 divine action, reaching to the roots of man's spiritual nature, and 
 producing knowledge of God and observance of his covenant, prior 
 to the "discipline and heavenly training," through which alone, if 
 we are to credit this new Biblical theology, such a moral subjec- 
 tive state could be produced. Such is Christ's estimate of this 
 change and of the necessity of it, prior to all spiritual action on 
 the part of the soul, that he compares it to the change that shall 
 
16 DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 take place at the resurrection of the dead. " The hour is coming, 
 and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, 
 
 and they that hear shall live Marvel not at this, for the 
 
 hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 
 and shall come forth, those who have done good unto the resur- 
 rection of life, and those who have done evil unto the resurrection 
 of condemnation." John v. 25-29. In Ephesians i. and ii., the 
 apostle employs this same figure of the resurrection, to illustrate 
 the mighty revolution that takes place in all the elements of man's 
 moral nature, when he is quickened from his natural estate of 
 spiritual death, into one of spiritual life. He compares the change 
 to the change which took place when God raised Christ from the 
 dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 
 far above all principality and power and might and dominion and 
 every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that 
 which is to come. The apostle seems to labor for language to 
 convey to the Ephesians some conception of the greatness of the 
 power by which a sinner dead in trespasses and sins is made alive 
 and united with Christ in all the stages of his elevation, from the 
 tomb of Joseph to the throne of God, in the heavenly places. It 
 is evident that the apostle did not write this account of this spir- 
 itual change under the inspiration of the "ethical and religious 
 philosophy" which teaches that the moral excellence which such 
 a change implies comes only by discipline and heavenly training. 
 Dr. Briggs enumerates several barriers which have been erected 
 by ecclesiastics and dogmaticians, between the people and " the 
 theology of the Bible pure and simple ; " but this barrier of his own 
 Pelagian "ethical and religious philosophy" stands erect and 
 frowning between himself and the vital doctrine of the new birth, 
 as propounded by Christ liimself and his apostles. Here again he 
 is in a strait between the two. He must abandon his organific 
 theological principle, or abandon the Scripture doctrine of regen- 
 eration — a doctrine so clearly expounded in the Standards to which 
 he had set his hand and seal on the day of his inauguration. 
 
 5. Few of the singular propositions of this singular Inaugural 
 have drawn forth so much criticism as its avowal of the doctrine of 
 "progressive sanctification after death." "There is," we are told, 
 
DR. BRIG08 BIBLIOAL THEOLOGY, 1 7 
 
 "no autliority in the Scriptures, or in the creeds of Christendom, 
 for the doctrine of inunediatc sunctification at death. . . 
 Progressive sanctifieation after death in the doctrine of the Bible 
 and the church." Before giving expression to this doctrine Dr. 
 Briggs had subscribed the doctrine of the Westminster Standards 
 on this subject, which is briefly thus given in tlie Shorter Cate- 
 chism : " The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in 
 holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies be- 
 ing still united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection.'' 
 Dr. Briggs tells us that "there is no authority in the creeds of 
 Christendom for the doctrine of immediate sanctitication at death." 
 Well, here is one of the chief creeds (if Christendom, and one, t(»o, 
 which he had subscribed a few minutes before he made this state- 
 ment, which affirms what he denies on this very point. It says 
 that "the souls of believers are at their death made perfect in 
 holiness, and do immediately pass into glory;" while he, after 
 affirming in the most solemn manner that this was a part of his 
 faith, immediately tells his auditors that such doctrine is contained 
 in no creed of Christendom! He even in a footnote refers, in 
 proof of this statement, to the Confession of Faith, Chap. XIII., a 
 chapter which treats of sanctification in this life, while he gives 
 no hint of the fact that Ciiap. XXXII. expressly affirms what ho 
 denies, viz., that the souls of the righteous are at death made 
 perfect in holiness. Such treatment of these immortal Standards 
 can only serve to shake confidence in the cause it is designed to 
 serve. Dr. Briggs' "ethical and religious philosophy" demands 
 a progressive sanctification, as sanctitication, according to its 
 teaching, comes only through discipline and heavetdy training, 
 either here or hereafter. Hence our Standards must give way to 
 his Pelagian "ethical and religious ]>hilos()phy," and fis the be- 
 liever is imperfect in this life, he must be subjected to ethical and 
 religious discipline in the future state. Here is the key to his 
 pod-viortevi sanctitication. His theory is not determined by "tiio 
 theology of the Bible pure and simple," but by the fundamental 
 canon of the Pelagian heresy. 
 
 Having seen the l»earing of Dr. Ihiggs' "ethical and religious 
 philosophy " upon the chief facts and features of the economy of 
 
18 DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 redemption, let us examine the principle underlying it, as ex- 
 pounded by himself. This principle, he informs us, is that "right- 
 eousness and moral excellence come only by discipline and heav- 
 enly training." In other words, moral qualities come into being 
 only through the moral activities of moral agents, ftnd can have 
 no existence prior to such exercise of the moral faculties. Against 
 such Pelagian dogmatism it is here claimed that it is one of the 
 commonplaces of ethical and religious philosophy — that all moral 
 and religious action, in order to be recognized as such, must proceed 
 from moral and religious principles. Such is the verdict of sound 
 moral science and sound religious philosophy. They both reiter- 
 ate the verdict of Scripture, that the tree is known bj' its fruit, and 
 that an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, nor a good tree evil 
 fruit. The order ordained by God is, first make the tree good, 
 and then its fruit will be good. A good man out of the good 
 treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man 
 out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things, for 
 it is out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 
 
 This is Scripture, it is Biblical theology, and it is "ethical and 
 religious philosophy" as well. It would be recognized as the 
 truth on the subject the wide world over. In the judgment of the 
 race, actions flow from principles, and moral actions from moral 
 principles. So obvious is this relation of principle to action, that 
 all men recognize it in their judgment of the actions of their fel- 
 low-men. An action is never adjudged bad or good apart from 
 the principle l)y which the agent has been actuated. The agent 
 himself is judged of as morally good or morally bad according to 
 the principle revealed in his actions. The moral quality revealed 
 in the action is ever regarded as having its habitat in the moral 
 agent, and as constituting part and parcel of his moral character. 
 On this assumption are based all forecasts of the actions of indi- 
 viduals. We venture to predict the character of the actions of 
 particular individuals, and write out, on their behalf, certificates, 
 because of our faith in the principles by which their actions, as 
 far as known to us, have been governed. 
 
 Besides, the principle involved in this discussion is recognized 
 in all righteous jurisprudence. No jury will convict an accused 
 
DR. BIU008 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 19 
 
 party on tlie ground of an overt act pure and simple. Take, for 
 example, the case of one act-used of murder. The prosecution 
 must not only prove that A has killed li, but nujst prove that A 
 was moved thereto hy malice aforethought, and that the deed of 
 blood was the outcome of such cherished malice, if the defence 
 can prove that A acted unthinkingly, or that he acted in defence 
 of his own life or of the lives of others, no righteous jury will 
 find a verdict of guilty against the accused. Indeed, it was on 
 this principle that the cities of refuge were instituted in Israel. 
 They were appointed for the protection of the man who might 
 have slain his neighbor unwittingly, and who had imt hated him 
 in time past. When a case of this kind occurred, and the slayer 
 succeeded in reaching one of these cities bef<»re he was overtaken 
 by the avenger of blood, he was safe until the congregation de- 
 cided concerning his guilt or innocence. The point to be decided 
 by those who investigated the case was the one in question here. 
 Was the act the result of premeditated malice, or was it done un- 
 wittingly and without cherished hatred ? It is manifest that this 
 entire institution was based upon the principle that overt acts 
 have, in themselves, no moral character, as good or evil, but take 
 their character, not onl^' from their matter, but also fr<'m the 
 characteroftlie motives and springs of action which give them birth. 
 This principle is so plain in itself and is so intimately interwoven 
 with the institutions of the Bible and of civilized nations, that one 
 feels like apologizing for occupying time in stating and defending 
 it. The oidy excuse for <loing so is, that our new professor of Bi- 
 blical theology has failed to discover it in the Bible, and has ac- 
 cepted in its stead its ethical and religious antagonist. But if the 
 principle now estaldished be valid, what becomes (»f Dr. Briggs* 
 theology, which is l>uilt upon the principle that "righteousness 
 and moral excellence come only by discipline and heaveidy train- 
 ing?" The higher criticism is ever blasting of its science and 
 philosophy, but its claims to scientitic or philosophical rank, if we 
 are to judge of them by this specimen, are certainly not well 
 founded. The principle avowed is in direct conflict with one of 
 the most clearly established principles of "ethical and religious 
 philosophy,'' and as we have seen, if recognized within the sphere 
 
20 DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 of the remedial economy of grace, would supersede the necessity 
 of the office of the Holy Ghost in applying the redemption pur- 
 chased by Christ. As Dr. Briggs in his remarkable book entitled 
 " Whither," concedes a high place, even the locus pj^imarius, in 
 the future federation or future union of the churches of Christen- 
 dom, to the Latin or Eoman Church, he was, perhaps, indicating 
 the concessions he is ready to make to that church on the ques- 
 tion of the original state of man. That church holds that origi- 
 nal righteousness was an admirable gift bestowed upon man sub- 
 sequent to his creation. He was man, possessing all the essential 
 attributes of man, prior to the bestowal of this admirable gift ; and, 
 notwithstanding the absence of this gift, and despite the tendency 
 of the lower powers of his constitution to rise in rebellion against 
 the higher, he was innocent and sinless. There is not time to 
 point out Rome's reason for thus representing man's original state 
 as purely negative, further than to say that the position is essen- 
 tial to her doctrine of works of supererogation ; for if the subjec- 
 tive estate of concupiscence which underlies and mars all man's 
 moral activities is to be taken into account in judging of his mo- 
 ral achievements, there is not much hope of his attaining a posi- 
 tion of moral excellence which transcends the requirements of the 
 moral law and leaves a surplus to be funded for the benefit of 
 others, as the church, as the administratrix of the grace of God, 
 may in her wisdom decide. There is, however, this difference in 
 favor of the Romish view as compared with the doctrine of the 
 Inaugural. Rome teaches that righteousness was bestowed upon 
 the first man as an admirable gift, while Dr. Briggs denies the 
 possibility of righteousness coming in any way save through 
 means of discipline and heavenly training. His concession to 
 Rome, therefore, is a vain concession. She will not accept even 
 of the position of preeminence he is willing to concede to her, on 
 the condition that she shall tolerate, in the symbol of the future 
 federal organization, a principle which involves the denial of her 
 pi-erogative to infuse, through the medium of the sacrament of 
 baptism, a grace which constitutes the subject of it righteous be- 
 fore God. This leads to an examination of what the Inaugural 
 propounds on the subject of the authority of the church. 
 
DR. BRIGG BEBLIOAL THEOLOGY. 21 
 
 "There are," wo are told, "historically three threat fountains of 
 Divine authority — the Bible, the Church, and Reason." Having 
 specitied these as the three great liistoric fountains of Divine au- 
 thority, Dr. Briggs singles out the church from its secondary place 
 in the enumeration and sets it in the forefront as follows:' 
 
 " 1. The xiuthority of the Church. — Tiie majority uf Christians 
 from the Apostolic age have found God through the church. 
 Martyrs and saints, fathers and sclioolmen, the profoundest intel- 
 lects, tlie saintliest lives, have had this experience. Institutional 
 Christianity has been to them the presence chamber of God. They 
 have therein and thereby entered into communion with all saints. 
 It is ditticult for many Protestants to regard this experience as 
 any other than pious illusion and delusion. But what shall we 
 say of a modern like Newman, who could not reach certainty, 
 striving never so hard, through the Bible or the reason, but who did 
 find Divine authority in the institutions of the church ? Shall we 
 deny it because it may be beyond our experience i If we have not 
 seen God in institutional Christianity it is because the ciuirch and 
 its institutions have so enveloped themselves to us with human 
 conceits. Divine authority has been so encased in the authority 
 of popes and councils, prelates and priests, ecclesiastics and theo- 
 logians, "that nuiltitiides have been unable to discern it, and these 
 mediators of redemption have so obtruded tiiemselves in the way 
 of devout seekers after God that they could not find God." 
 (Pp. 24-25). 
 
 According to Dr. Briggs, the church is one oi the ''tiiree great 
 fountains of Divine authority." The proof ho gives of this claim 
 is, that " the majority of Christians from the Apostolic age have 
 found God through the church.'" It is difficult to see the con- 
 nection between the proof and the claim. Does it follow from 
 the fact that men " have found God through the church" tiuU the 
 church is one of the "three great foutitains of Divine authority?" 
 It is one thing to find God through the instrumentality of the 
 church, and another, and a very different thing, to accept him on 
 the authority of the church. To accept God upon tiie authority 
 of the church is not to exercise true fuitii. To do so wore 
 simply to repose one's faith upon tiie church iiorself. This would 
 
22 DK. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 not be true faith. Genuine faitli rests upon higher ground. It 
 believes God. " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto 
 him for righteousness." " God so loved the world that he gave 
 his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
 not perish, 'but have eternal life." "Ye believe in God, believe 
 also in MeP From Genesis to Revelation tliere is no instance of 
 a command or a counsel to believe in the church, or to believe 
 anything on the mere authority of the church. Neither prophet 
 nor apostle ever pointed to himself as the object of faith or as 
 speaking in his own name. The call the church has been com- 
 missioned to give precludes the possibility of her accepting any 
 such objective position. The call slie is to give is a call to " re- 
 pentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," and 
 the faith and obedience of him who accepts that call termi- 
 nates, not on the church, but upon God as he is revealed in 
 Christ. 
 
 The case of Newman cited in confirmation of this claim to di- 
 vine authority on behalf of tlie church, while it puts his meaning 
 beyond doubt, is very far from establishing his position. The 
 passage he quotes from Newman's Apologia points to a very 
 different conclusion. Newman says, in this very passage : " I was 
 not conscious to myself on my conversion of any difference of 
 thuught or of temper from what I had before. 1 was not con- 
 scious of firmer faith in the fundamental truths of lievelation or 
 of more self-command ; I had not more fervor; but it was like 
 coming into port after a rough sea ; and my happiness on that 
 score remains to this day without interruption." The ol)ject of 
 Dr. Briggs is to magnify the authority of the church, and to help 
 him in this glorification of her authority he cites the case of New- 
 man, who, he says, " Could not reach certainty, striving never so 
 hard, through the Bible and the reason, but who did find divine 
 authority in the institutions of the church." His witness, how- 
 ever, is no sooner in the witness-box than he testifies that he had 
 found salvation ere ever he had entered into the portals of the 
 Church of Rome. "Whatever else he found within her pale he did 
 not, if we are to accept his own testimony, find a firmer faith in 
 the fundamental truths of Christianity. He had as firm a faith in 
 
DR. BRIGGS BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, 23 
 
 these truths before he abandoned Protestantism for Roman Cath- 
 olicism as he liad afterwards. How does this testimony prove 
 that Newman found in the clnirch what he failed to find throuj^h 
 the Bible or the reason ? Surely a man who has a firm faith in 
 the fundamental truths of Ilevelation has found GcxI, and as New- 
 man possessed sucii faith, as he tells us ho did, prior to his con- 
 version to Kome, wherever else he found that faith, it was not 
 through the instrumentality of her institutions or her authority. 
 
 It is not the object of this criticism to iji;nore (»r set aside the 
 testimony of the church. The object is to clear this subject of the 
 province of the church in the economy of grace from the confu- 
 sion in whifh it has been involved in this singular Inaugural. 
 Even were it true that the church is one of the three great foun- 
 tains of divine authority, the question must of necessity arise, 
 what is meant by the church ? According to the Inaugural, the 
 idea of the church is merged in the general vague conception of 
 what the author calls " institutional Christianity." To martyrs 
 and saints, fathers and schoolmen, the profoundest intellects and 
 the saintlicst lives, "institutional Chrit^tianity has been the pres- 
 ence chamber of God." There is certainly need of discrimination 
 here, which is not to be found in this Inaugural. On the con- 
 trary, its author employs the term in a sense well fitted to perplex 
 and confound his hearers, lie makes it embrace the Church of 
 Home, and as we have just seen, informs us that Newman found 
 in her institutions that certainty and divine authority which he 
 could not find through the Bible or reason, though Newman him- 
 self tells us in the very passage relied on that he had found a firm 
 faith in the fundamental truths of Revelation before his conver- 
 sion to the Romish Church. Scott's Force of Truth and Scott's 
 Commentary were instrumental in imparting to him a faith in the 
 fundamental truths of revelation which was not made firmer by 
 the ministrations of Rome. 
 
 Newman's case, therefore, cannot be citeil to prove the doi-trine 
 of the Inaugural, that the church is one of " the three great foun- 
 tains of divine authority." It wjis not on the authority of the 
 Church of Rome that Newman accepted the fundamental truths 
 of revelation. There were more reasons for saying that New- 
 
24 DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 man's faith rested on the authority of Thomas Scott, whose forci- 
 ble presentation of truth and expositions of the Bible convinced 
 his intellect and won the confidence of liis lieart. It is time that 
 these eulogies of Kome through compliments to Newman were 
 brought to an end, and that Protestants ceased to use his hymn, 
 " Lead, kindly light," which is simply the record of his progress 
 Homeward. The part taken by Rome in the salvation of New- 
 man cannot, for a moment, be put in comparison with the service 
 rendered him by Scott. Scott's administration was primary and 
 antecedent, Rome's secondary and ex post facto. If there is to be 
 any claim to divine authority advanced for either, the priority 
 certainly belongs to Scott and not to Rome. But neither Scott 
 nor Rome can be recognized as a fountain of divine authority. 
 Whatever of truth he learned from Scott was invested with an 
 authority which was not imparted to it by Scott. The funda- 
 mental truths of revelation have their origin in no finite foun- 
 tain, whether individual or corporate. Their sole fountain is the 
 infinite mind of the infinite Jehovah ; and from that fountain no 
 one save the Spirit of God can bring them forth. This the Spirit 
 has done, and by his inspiring agency has placed them on record. 
 The relation of the church to this record is not that of a fountain 
 to the streams that issue from it, but that of a herald whose busi- 
 ness is to cry "Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the wa- 
 ters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat, yea come, 
 buy wine and milk, without money and without price." To speak 
 of the church as the fountain of authority is to confound the 
 herald with the waters to which she is commissioned to invite the 
 thirsty. Rome, and her imitators in Lux Mundl^ may claim for 
 the church the prerogative of placing the stamp of authority upon 
 the Word of God, and may thus claim to be, as the author of the 
 Inaugural describes her, a fountain of divine authority ; this is to 
 reverse the relation which obtains between the church and the 
 word. The word itself is the sole fountain of divine authority, 
 and the church possesses no authority which she has not received 
 from the one divine fountain of the divine word. Her function 
 is ministerial and not magisterial. She can, on her own authority, 
 enact no law to bind the conscience ; she can make overture of 
 
DR. BRIGGs' BIULICAL THEOLOGY. 25 
 
 no promise to the acceptance of faith, for which she cannot adduce 
 the testimony of the written word. Her functions are executive 
 and not legislative, and the organization that forgets this distinc- 
 tion, and arrogates to itself legislative prerogatives, is usurping, as 
 Rome has done, the royal prerogatives of the sole King and Head 
 of the church. 
 
 But what our author concedes to Rome with one hand, he takes 
 away with the other. In the very same paragraph in which he 
 represents her as impsirting to Newman that certainty and assur- 
 ance of Divine authority which he coidd not reach tlirougii the 
 Bible or reason, he immediately prefers against her the following 
 charge : " Divine authority has been so encased in the authority 
 of popes and councils, prelates and priests, ecclesiastics and theo- 
 logians, that multitudes have been unable to discern it; and these 
 mediators of redemption have so obtruded themselves in the way 
 of devout seekers after God that they could not find him." How- 
 are the two ends of this paragraph to l)e reconciled i In the same 
 breath we are told that Newman found certainty and Divine au- 
 thority in the Church of Rome, and then we are told that this 
 Divine authority was so encased in the authority of popes and 
 councils, prelates and priests, ecclesiastics and theohtgians, that 
 multitudes have been unal)le to discern it; and that these medi- 
 ators of redemption have so obtruded themselves in the way of 
 devout seekers after God that they could not find him. If, then, 
 Newman found Divine autiiority in Rome, he nmst have found it 
 by turning a deaf ear to popes and councils, prelates and priests, 
 ecclesiastics and theologians, and by ignoring those mediators of 
 redemption which she obtrudes in the way of devout seekers after 
 God. That is, he found in Rome that which he eould not find 
 within the pale of Protestantism, l)y clearing out of his pathway 
 popes and councils, prelates and priests, ecclesiastics and theo- 
 logians, and the whole array of her mediators of redemption! 
 How much of Rome was left to instruct him after such clearance 
 it would be ditlicult to determine. Strii)ped of those accessories, 
 Rome is not Rome. Without her popes and councils, and ])rc- 
 lates and priests, and ecclesiastics and theologians, and mediator.- of 
 redemption, she is no longer distinguishable from that Pnttestantism 
 
26 DK. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 within whose pale, under the teaching of Thomas Scott, he found 
 that firm "faith in the fundamental truths of revelation" which, 
 notwithstanding all tiie liio;her preroi^atives claimed for her bj the 
 author of this Inaugural, Newman himself confesses he was unable 
 to increase. 
 
 One of the sources of obscurity and confusion exhibited in this 
 Inaugural is the lack of clear definition of terms. This is very 
 manifest in the author's vague use of the term church. If the 
 church be, as he affirms, a great fountain of Divine authority, it is 
 certainly a matter of vital importance for those who are in search 
 of Divine authority, that they should be very definitely informed 
 regarding what is meant by the church. It is true Dr. Briggs 
 quotes on this point the Confession of Faith, which gives one of 
 the best definitions of the church that has ever been framed by 
 uninspired men; but singularly enough, he omits the first clause 
 of the passage specified, that clause on which the whole ecclesi- 
 ology of the Westminster divines is built; that clause in which 
 they define the invisible church as consisting of "the whole num- 
 ber of the elect which have been, are, or shall be gathered in one, 
 under Christ the Head thereof." This is a grave omission, for 
 this is the Scriptural ideal of the church, and all external organi- 
 zations are recognized as part and parcel of the true church only 
 upon the assumption that their members are members of tiiis in- 
 visible mystical body of Christ. It is to this body that all the 
 promises are made, and to it alone belong all the prerogatives and 
 attributes which the Scriptures ascribe to the church. Even grant- 
 ing then that the church is a "great fountain of Divine authority" 
 it does not follow that this is true of the several external organiza- 
 tions bearing the name of church. Dr. Briggs has omitted to tell 
 his audience what the Westminster divines afiirm about all such 
 organizations erring. They teach that they may err, and have 
 erred, and it is needless to say, that both under the Old Testa- 
 ment and the New, the outward visible organization has erred 
 from the truth, even in relation to questions affecting the foundation 
 of the economy of Redemption. Was the Jewish external organ- 
 ization a "great fountain of Divine authority" when through its 
 Sanhedrin it condemned our Lord to death for claiming to be the 
 
DK. HKIGGS' HIIILICAL THEOLOGY. 27 
 
 Soil of the Living God ? Was the Church of Rome "h great foun- 
 tain of Divine authority" when through its head, Pope Liherius, 
 it placed tlie stamp of its authority upon the Arian heresy, or 
 when, in later times, it condemned to the stake the servants of 
 God because they contended earnestly for the faith delivered once 
 for all to the saints, or refused to recognize tiie blasphemous claims 
 advanced in l»ehalf of the Roman See ? Or, to come to our own 
 day, was Rome a "great fountain of Divine authority" when, 
 through the Vatican Council, it passed the dogma of the infalli- 
 V>ility of the pope ? Or, to come still closer to the practical work- 
 ing of the theory propounded in this Inaugural regarding church 
 authority, how is it to be reconciled with the action of the direc- 
 tors of Union Theological Seminary, who have resisted the de- 
 cision of the General Assembly of tiie Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States, and have resolved to adhere to their action in trans- 
 ferring Dr. Briggs to the newly-instituted Chair of Biblical The- 
 ology in that seminary? Certainly neither the direct(»rs nor Dr. 
 Briggs can regard that Assembly as a great fountain of Divine 
 authority. From the action of the directors in taking legal coun- 
 sel we are warranted in the inference that they, at least, whatever 
 the author of the Inaugural may tiiink, regard the courts of civil 
 law as a higher fountain of authoritv than the courts of the church. 
 
 The theory, therefore, won't work, and the reason it won't work 
 is tliat it is unscriptural, and is in conflict with the convictions of 
 all intelligent Christians. No intelligent Christian accepts the 
 decision of any ecclesiastical assembly simply on the ground of its 
 authority. Its decisions nuist be establisiied by appeal to ti>e 
 Word of God, and it is only when thus fortified that any intelli- 
 gent Christian bows to it as authoritative. In other words, the 
 ultimate authority in the churcii is Christ, her King and Head, 
 and his word alone has any authority in her councils or decisions. 
 To submit to the decisions or commands of any church, whether 
 Papal or Protestant, simply on the ground of her own authority 
 is, as our standards teach, to betray true liberty of C(»n8<-iencc. 
 
 The primary mistake in the construction of this Inaugural is to 
 be found in its divisions. Its author tells us that "tluM-o arc his- 
 torically three great fountains of Divine authority — the P>il)le, the 
 
28 DR. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 church, and the reason." These are, according to Dr. Briggs, 
 "the sources of Divine authority." It would have prevented much 
 confusion of thought, as well as nauch erroneous dogmatism, had 
 he taken as his subject "the sources of theology" and given as his 
 divisions the Bible, external nature, and the moral constitution of 
 man. As his subject was theology, such should have been his all 
 dominant theme throughout, and these subdivisions of its sources 
 would have enabled him to keep his theme ever present through- 
 out the entire discussion. Instead of this natural common-sense 
 method of dealing with the subject proper to his chair, he throws 
 theology aside, and substitutes for it the " sources of Divine au- 
 thority," and gives, as one of his subdivisions, "the church," 
 which turns out to be an equivocal term, as in defining it he omits 
 that clause of the Confession of Faith which is the key to all genu- 
 ine Protestant ecclesiology, and apart from which, and the limita- 
 tions it implies, any visible organization which may choose to 
 arrogate to itself ecclesiastical prerogatives, may call itself a 
 church, and claim to be a fountain of Divine authority. 
 Had he adopted the course suggested, his theme, from begin- 
 ning to end, would have been the knowledge of God and 
 Divine things, as revealed in the Bible, in external nature, and 
 in the moral constitution of man. Following this method he 
 would have had a fine opportunity to magnify Biblical theology 
 to his heart's content, pointing out the fact, that there is nothing 
 of God or of Divine things revealed in external nature or in the 
 moral constitution of man that is not given, again and again, in 
 the Bible, and stamped with the seal of Divine authority. To 
 come down from this high platform to talk of the church, as un- 
 defined, as a source of Divine authority, exalting it above the 
 Bible itself, was to belittle the whole subject, and to clothe with 
 confusion the entire discussion. There is nothing proper to the 
 chair or to the occasion which would not have come under one or 
 the other of the above divisions. The only disadvantage incident 
 to such a method of treatment would have been that under it Dr. 
 Briggs could not have availed himself of the occasion to impeach 
 before the general public all traditionalism, all ecclesiasticism, and 
 all dogmatism, and all dogmaticians. This disadvantage, however, 
 
DR. BRIGG8 BIBLICAL THKOLOOY. 29 
 
 would have been more than counter-hiihmced by this mctliod, as it 
 would have kept him from perpctratin<^ the palpable contradiction 
 of condemning ecclesiasticism, traditionalism, and dDgmatism, and 
 then turning round and pronoiincing a panegyric upon the Clnirch 
 of Rome, whose bad preeminence in all these departments has 
 justified her enrolment as the mystery of iniquity. 
 
 There is an all-pervading characteristic of tiiis Inaugural wiiich 
 impresses one unfavorably, namely, its spirit of self-confi<ient 
 boasting and avowed contempt of the theological labors of almost 
 all theologians save those who have had the honor of taking ])art 
 in his own theological education. On page 41 we have the follow- 
 ing account of the critical exploits of the "Higher Criticism:" 
 *' We have undermined the breastworks of traditionalism; let us 
 blow them to atoms. We have forced our way tlirough the ob- 
 structions ; let us remove them from the face of the earth, that 
 no man hereafter may be kept from tiie Bible, but that all may 
 freely enter in, search it through, and find God enthroned in its 
 very centre.'' The " we" here means the critics, but the Inaugural 
 does not tell us what wing or arm of the critical array has had the 
 honor of these marvellous critical achievements. Of course this 
 "we" must be regarded as embracing Dr. Briggs himself, aiui if 
 we are to accept his own estimate of his critical prowess, he must 
 have taken a foremost place in these mining operations, and he is 
 sure to he heard of, if not seen, after the critical dynamite has 
 exploded. 
 
 These critics are in their operations somewhat like the men of 
 dynamite in the army of the Irish Nationalists, who thought that 
 by exploding a few of their cartridges in the Tower of London 
 and other public places they could cause the British Emj)ire to 
 totter to its overthrow. The advocates of this species of warfare, 
 however, have found to their cost that the " resources of civiliza- 
 tion are not yet exhausted." And so may these bctasting critics, 
 even with Dr. Briggs bearing in their rere tlie critical explosive in 
 the one hand, and his Pelagian /'«.y<?« in the other, find when the 
 noise of the explosion has subsided and the smoke has cleared 
 away, that the old historic fortress is still there, and that they 
 themselves, after imperilling their critical lives and limbs, have 
 
30 DK. BRIGGS' BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 been sliut up in some critical keep under the custody of some com- 
 petent critical warder. Walls that have withstood Y4T such min- 
 ing operations as Dr. Briggs boasts and threatens are very likely 
 to withstand the 74:8th explosion, however large the critical cart- 
 ridge, and however critically it may be laid Such is the Biblicai 
 theology which Prof. Bruce, of the Free-Churcli College, Glasgow 
 commends to the churches of these lands ! It is unbiblical, un- 
 scientific, uncritical, unethical, and untlieological, and rests upon a 
 Pelagian fundamental as its ultimate organitic principle. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^CAllIt 
 
 
 
 
 IS-** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vuLi \ 
 
 
 
 
 CULTi 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 .1^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^•n TV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 '- =4^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * rt r 'C^ 
 
 
 
 
 ,.uLlV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■■HM