liifi i' 
 
 !|lili!i|li!!li||i||l;filil|5l(:|;ll!i!l!^ 
 
 flilliilllf^ 
 
 
y'. /-o . oz_ 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Presented bT^ro^ ~B7B.V^^C^r^\<2^Va ,~I).T, 
 
 Division ."^rTr..Tr"^>«....<» 
 
 Seciion . . P^ . f / 
 
(^i^-f-y^^cJ^ 
 
 AN ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 DR. BRIG6S' "SHORTEST CATECHISM 
 
 ~s:^ 
 
 '■ -u. 
 
 THE DETROIT FREE PRESS, 
 
 May 27th, 1891. 
 
"THE SHORTEST CATECHISM." 
 
 Great interest has been awakened In 
 church circles f?enerally by the publication 
 of what is now known as Dr. Briggs' cate- 
 chism which his friends lioped would be 
 accejited by the Presbyterian Church as a 
 substitute for the larger and shorter cate- 
 chisms of the Westminster (J^^andards. 
 Dr. Briggs' answers to this shortest cate- 
 chism have been urged by his friends as a 
 reason wliy the general assembly, now in 
 session, should defer action and not veto his 
 election as a professor in Union Seminary. 
 The following review of Dr. Briggs' 
 answers to this catechism has been furnished 
 to Thk Fi;ek Prkss by Mr. John J. Mc- 
 Cook, an elder in the Fifth Avenue Church, 
 New York (Dr. .John Hall, pastor), a com- 
 missioner from the presbytery of New York 
 to the general assembly : 
 
 Dr. IJiijij>C|( atecliisin. 
 
 The Ne\vYork Tribune of May 20 (it also 
 appears in Xjie Evangelist of May 21) con- 
 tained a brief catechism which the directoi-s 
 of Union Seminary laid, it seems, before 
 Dr. Briggs, and with his answers to which 
 they report that they listened with satis- 
 faction. This catechism does not touch up- 
 on many matters as to which the Presbyter- 
 ian Church would like to be iufoi-med more 
 exactly of Dr. Briggs' opiniorj: it is there- 
 fore deficient, considered as a reply to the 
 objections that have been raised as to his 
 teachings. It is more important to observe, 
 however, that in the matters upon which it 
 does t e aoh p i the catechism does not raise fhe 
 real issues under discussion but rather ob- 
 tains answers to questions not at all or lit- 
 
 tle in dispute. Tlie object of tliis brief paper 
 is to point out how the questions might 
 have been framed so as to give the church 
 some information on the pointfat issue. 
 For this purpose let us iiass in review the 
 questions that were asked and note how far 
 each question really touches upon matters 
 at issue and what answers Dr. Briggs would 
 have given on the real issues, had the com- 
 mittee of the directors been so kind as tO 
 place tliem before him. 
 
 QUESTION FIKST. A. 
 
 "Do you consider the Bible, the Church 
 and the Reason as co-ordinate sources of 
 authority. Answer— Xo." What Dr. Briggs 
 here denies is that he nuikes these three 
 sources co-oi'dinate in the seu.se of co-equal ; 
 he does not deny that he makes each of 
 them an iHcZcpcHf/oit source of knowledge 
 of God, by which^apart from or in opposi- 
 tion to the others, we may savingly find 
 God. But this latter is the real matter at 
 issue. Hence the question needs modifica- 
 tion, thus : 
 
 Question as it Ought to be Asked.— 
 "Do you teach that men may obtain that 
 knowledge of God which is necessary for 
 their salvation and find God savingly, by 
 the Reason independently of and apart from 
 the revelation of God given in the Scrip- 
 tures ; and therefore that the revelation of 
 God given in His written Word is not neces- 
 sary to salvation?" 
 
 Dk. Briggs' Axswkh to This Question*.— 
 "Martineau could not find Divine authority 
 in the Church or tlie Bible, but he did find 
 God enthroned in his own soul. There are 
 
 C^y 
 
2 
 
 those who would refuse these rationalists 
 a place in the company of the faithful. 
 But they forget that the essential thing is 
 to find God ^JJ^Divine certainty. '■ * '" 
 ( Inaugural <Bp5ress , p. r27.) "Men are in- 
 fluenced by their temperaments and en- 
 vironments which of the ways of access to 
 Grod they may pursue." C lbid .. p. 38.) "If it 
 be heresy to say that rationalists like 
 Martineau have found God in the reason 
 and Roman Catholics like Newman have 
 found God in the churchy I rejoice in 
 .such hei'esy, and I do not hesitate to say that 
 I have less doubt of the salvation of Martin- 
 eau or Newman than I have of the modern 
 Pharisees who would exclude such noble 
 men — so pure, so grand, the ornaments of 
 Great Britain and the prophets of tlie age — 
 from the kingdom of God."— i^ ^ew Yor k 
 HeialU, May 15, 1891^ 
 
 "Unless God's authority is discerned in 
 the forms of the Reason, there is no ground 
 upon which any of the heathen could e ver 
 have been saved, for they know nothing of 
 the Bible or Church. If they are not saving- 
 ly enlightened by the Ught of the world in 
 the forms of the Reason, the wholelieatheu 
 world is lost forever." — yuaugui-al address. 
 2nd ed., pp. 88-89^ 
 
 QUESTION FIRST. B. 
 "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testaments to be the only iufalli- 
 ble rule of faith and practice:^ Answer, 
 yes." Here Dr. Briggs merely affirms that 
 there are no other rules of faith and prac- 
 tice to which the epithet "infallible" can be 
 applied except the Scriptures. But he does 
 not affirm that there are no other sufficient 
 rules of faith and practice by which men 
 may be led to salvation. Nor does he point 
 out in what sense and to what degree the 
 term "infallible" is applied to Scripture. 
 In other word.s, the (questions at issue are 
 not here determined. The (juestion needs 
 amending so as to read thus : 
 
 Question as it Ought to be Asked— "Do 
 you believe the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testaments to be the only extant rev- 
 
 elation of that knowledge of God and of His 
 will which is necessary to salvation; and 
 therefore the only sufficient rule of faith and 
 practice?" 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to This Question— 
 "Another means used by God to make Him- 
 self known is the forms of the Reason, using 
 Reason in a broad sense to embrace the meta- 
 physical categories, the conscience and the 
 religious feeling. Here i«i- the Holy of 
 Holies of human nature, God presents Him- 
 •self to those who seek Him. There are few 
 who are able to rise by reflection into the 
 higher consciousne.ss of God. Such men 
 have appeared in all ages of the world.— 
 ( inaugm^ rtlgddress^ p -?J6.J 
 
 "If they are not .savingly enlightened by 
 the light of the world in the forms of the 
 Reason, the wliole hciitlien world is lost iox- 
 ever."- 6i Kuigiival^d(lres.s^ >(1 ed. p. 80. 
 [See also answers to question 1, A.] 
 
 QUE.STION SEC(3XD. 
 "When you use the term 'The Reason,' do 
 you include the conscience and the religious 
 feeling? Ans.— Ye.s. ' In his answer to 
 this question Dr. Briggs merely aflirms that 
 when he says men find God savingly 
 through tlie Reason, he intends to include 
 all purely natural faculties and means 
 under that term, and to refer to all sources 
 of the theistic inference and of the religious 
 feeling. But this is not at all the question 
 at issue ; wh ich concerns not whethe r 'reas- 
 on" isH*«#rth a broad or nai-row sense, buT 
 whether man by 'reason' alone in however 
 broad a sense, can .so 'find God' as to be 
 saveil. The question needs restatement, 
 thus : 
 
 Question as it Ought to Have Been 
 Asked— "When you speak of men 'finding 
 God' through the forms of the Reason, in 
 however broad a sense, do you mean merely 
 that they thus obtain some knowledge of 
 God, or do you mean that they may obtain 
 such a knowledge of God and of His umi i i^ 
 as is sufficient unto salvation? ** 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to this Question 
 — "If they are not savingly enlightened by 
 
 zc 
 
hsc<s' 
 
 the jjght of the world in the formfof the 
 Reason, Uie wholeTieathen world is lost for- 
 ." — ^nauguralyfddress, 2nd ed., p. 89. 
 
 ever.' — ^i naugural/iddre ss, 2nd ed., p. 89.7 
 "Martineau could not find God in the 
 church or in the Bible, but he did find God 
 enthroned in his own so\il." •'■ * * "If it 
 be heresy to say that rationalists like 
 Martineau have found God in the rea- 
 son. * ' '• I rejoice in such heresy, 
 and I do not hesitate to say that I have less 
 doubt of the salvation of Martineau ••■ ■■■ * 
 than I have of the modern Pharisees who 
 would exclude such noble men ■■ * 
 
 from the Kingdom of God."— fi naugural 
 Address , p, 
 11, 1891.) 
 
 of all the 
 
 i^f^i ^iJir<^^^ 
 
 the old and new Testa- 
 
 r, and New York Herald, May 
 
 (See also above in answer to question 1.) 
 
 QUESTION THIRD. 
 
 "Would you accept the following as a sat- 
 isfactory definition of inspiration •' 'Inspir- 
 ation ix such a divine direction as to secure 
 an infallible record of Ood's revelations 
 in resjject to both faith and doctrine.' 
 Answer, yes." Here the question is so 
 framed as to confine the affirmative reply to 
 an affirmation of such divine direction as 
 secured an infallible record of God's "revel- 
 ations" only;V"not necessarily of all God's 
 revelations, but only of those "in respect to 
 faith and doctrine." Nothing is affirmed of 
 the inspiration of the record of God's revela- 
 tions as to matters of fact. Nothing is af- 
 firmed as to the inspiration of such parts of 
 the Scriptures as are not "records of God's 
 revelations." And no definition is given o^ 
 "infallible record," even as so limited, tih 
 other words, the real issues that 
 have been raised are not here raised 
 and a useless question is asked. 
 It needs to be amended somewhat as fol- 
 lows ; 
 
 Question Th.vt Ought to Be Asked— 
 "Would you accept the following as a .satis- 
 factory definition of inspiration? 'Inspira- 
 tion is such a special and extraordinary, 
 and immediate iilllt-diviue superintendence 
 of the whole process of the writing of the 
 scriptures as constitutes tlieni, consisting 
 
 ment,uiuajiti©*«»**/by inspiration of God Jthe 
 Word of God written, which he has com- 
 
 mitted wholly to writing, and which ought, 
 therefore, to be believed and obeyed, be- 
 cause God (who is truth itself) is the author 
 thereof.' ^«*A,^-i»- ." 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to This Wi v* "The 
 time has come when the .shibboleth of the 
 older apqlogeWc^^ 'The Bible is the Word of 
 God,' flnrr against 'The Bible iontains the 
 Word of God.' {mmL should be abandoned.'" 
 "Hence the author is correct in his state- 
 ment : * * ■'■ 'But in the higher and 
 more distinctively religious meaning of the 
 word, it is not the Biblical books through- 
 out — it is only the Word of God which is in 
 the Biblical books— that can be spoken of as 
 inspired' (p. 87'2.) Whatever does not be- 
 long to that divine organism is purely 
 formal and circumstantial and not inspired. 
 How shall this living divine organism of 
 truth be discriminateil from its formal en- 
 velope^;^^ 
 
 ■^^^'he (ib)i(A<itc divine truth in the Bible 
 must be discriminated from the relative 
 truths in which it is enveloped, or in other 
 words, the divine suljstance has been given 
 in human forms, and no one will truly under- 
 stand the Bible until he has learned to dis- 
 tinguish between this temporal, circumstan- 
 tial and variable form, and the eternal, es- 
 sential and permanent sub-stance. "< ^resby- 
 terian Review . 1884, pp. :58I, 384, ;585j' "We 
 cannot, in the symbolical or historical use 
 of the term, call this providential care of 
 His Word, or superintendence over its exter- 
 nal protection— inspiration. Such pro videii^ . 
 dial care and superintendence is onl i / dift'er- 
 ent in kind with regard to the Word of (^od. 
 the visible churcli of God, or the power of 
 the Sacraments." (i Mblical Study , p. ItH.j) 
 "These errors are all in the circumstantials 
 and not in the essentials; they are in the 
 human setting and not in the precious jewel 
 itself; they are found in that section of the 
 Bible thattheologianscommonly account for 
 from the providential sui)erintendence of the 
 
mind m»the author, as distinguished from 
 divine revelation itself. It may be that this 
 providential superintendence gives infalli- 
 ble guidance in every particular; and it 
 may be that it diflEers but little, if at all. 
 from the providential superintendence of 
 the fathers and schoolmen and theologians 
 of the Christian Church. It is not impor- 
 tant for the present purpose that we should 
 decide the question. If we should abandon 
 the whole field of providential superintend- 
 ence so far as inspiration and divine au- 
 thority are concerned and limit divine in- 
 spiration and authority to the essential con- 
 tents of the Bible, to its religion, faith and 
 morals, we should still have ample room to 
 seek divine authority where alone it is es- 
 sential, or even important, in the teaching 
 that guides our devotions, our thinking 
 and our conduct.'' — H naugural Address, pp. 
 35-36. *JI - 
 
 "It is not to be presumed that divine in- 
 spiration lifted the author above his age any 
 more than was necessary to convey the di- 
 vine declaration and the divine instruction 
 with infallible certainty to mankind, ^is^ 
 fcquestion of cre dulit y is to be distinguished 
 /from infallibilty. The form is credible, 
 the substance alone is infallible. ' '—f Whith - 
 er, p. T2. I 
 ^^ J QUESTION BX)UKTH. 
 
 "Do you believe the Bible inerraut in all 
 matters concerning faith and practice, and 
 in everything in which it is a revelation 
 from God or a vehicle of divine truth, and 
 that there are no errors that disturb its infal- 
 libility in these matters, or in its record of 
 the historic events and institutions with 
 which they are inseperably connected? 
 Answer — Yes.'" This question is so framed 
 as to confine the affirmation of inerrancy to 
 the substance of faith and practice, to the 
 
 *What Dr. Briggs expresses with an "if" in 
 the Tpa.i]g^iriil Arlfirp^f^hf^ asscrts as fact in the 
 PrtfshyteVian Reviey ". as above quoted, teaching 
 that inspiration does not extand to anything be- 
 yond the ^-u/j.s((r act', and abandoning it for the 
 whole of what he calls fonnal atid circumxtan- 
 tial, i. e., apparently for the whole form of Scrip- 
 ture as distinguished from its contents. 
 
 communication of direct revelation from 
 Gofl, and to such historic events and institu- 
 tioiK as are inseperably conneeted with 
 these matters. Errors are not denied to 
 existieven in that element of the Bible that 
 delivers doctrine and regulatior 5 for life ; 
 but only such errors as would ( isturh its 
 InfaUfhility in these matters of ^m* when 
 dealt with so as to separate the absolute 
 kernel u-om the relative husk, as outlined 
 in the passages quoted above under ques- 
 tion threV. Errors further, are not denied 
 to exist \in Biblical history; but only 
 in the recoids of tJiose historic events and 
 iiistitutionk tvhich (in Dr. Briggs' judg- 
 ment) are ffSiwoinUy connected with the sub- 
 stance of divine truth as to faith and prac- 
 tice. This does not bring out the question 
 at issue. The question should rather have 
 been framed thus : 
 
 Question as it Ought to Have Been 
 Asked — "Do you believe the Holy Scrip- 
 ture, consisting of all the books of the Old 
 and New Testaments, to be (as the Word of 
 God, Who is truth itself, the author there- 
 of) of infallible truth in all its affirma- 
 tions, so as that, as a Christian man, you 
 believe to be true whatsoever is delivered 
 therein, for the authority of God himself 
 speaking therein!-'" 
 
 Dk. Briggs' Answei: to This Question— 
 "It is sheer assumption to claim that the 
 original documents were inerrant. No one 
 can be persuaded to believe in the inerrancy 
 of scripture, except by a priori considera- 
 tions from the elaboration of the doctrine 
 of verbal inspiration."— {\\liith£j; p. 68. 1 
 
 "The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scrip- 
 ture is in conflict with biblical criticism. It 
 seems to me that no candid mind without 
 invincible dogmatic prepossessions can 
 doubt that there is an error of citation in 
 Matt, xxvii., 9, that goes back to the original 
 autographs. The question of credibility is 
 to be distinguished from infallibility. The 
 form is credible, the substance alone is in- 
 fallible."— (\Xhjther, pp. Tl.T'i. "^ 
 
 "I shall venture to affirm that, so far as I 
 
vl.'^ I 
 
 can see, there are errors in the Scriptures 
 that no one has been able to explain away, 
 and the theory that they were not in the 
 original text is sheer assumption, upon 
 which no mind can rest with certainty. If 
 such errors destroy the authority of the 
 Bible, it is already destroyed for historians. " 
 — ^Inaugural/^dress, p. 3.5.^ 
 
 "In Dibiical Study and Whitherl 
 limited myself to two errors of citation. I 
 have not taken a brief to prove the errancy 
 of Scripture. Conservative men should 
 hesitate before they force the critics in self- 
 defense to make a catalogue of errors in the 
 Bible."— / inaugural^ddress, 2d ed., p. 95. ) 
 QUESTION FIFTH. 
 
 "Do you believe that the miracles recorded 
 in Scripture are due to an extraordinary 
 exercise of divine energy, either directly or 
 indirectly through holy men? Answer — 
 Yes." The question is so phrased as that 
 the answer affirms nothing more than that 
 God is somehow (directly or indirectly) con- 
 cerned in the production of miracles* and 
 that thej- are not every-day phenomena. 
 But these are not the questions at issue. 
 The question should have been framed thus : 
 
 Question as it Ought to Have Been 
 Asked — 'Do you believe that the miracles 
 recorded in Scripture are wrought by the 
 immediate power of God and so clearly ex- 
 hibit the presence of God with the messen- 
 ger in whose authentication they are 
 wrought, as that though we believe not )|im 
 we must believe the works, though we be- 
 lieve not the words spoken we must believe 
 for the very works' sake?' 
 
 Dk. Briggs' Answer to this Question— 
 "If it were possible to resolve all the 
 miracles of the Old Testanient into extra- 
 ordinaiy acts of Divine Providence, using 
 the forces and forms of nature in accordance 
 with the laws of nature ; and if we could 
 explain all the miracles of Jesus, His 
 unique authority over man and over nature, 
 from His use of mind* cure, or hypnotism, 
 or any other occult power — still I claim that 
 nothing essential would be lost from the 
 
 miracles of the Bible; they would still 
 remain the most wonderful exhibition 
 of loving purpose and redemptive acts of 
 God and of the tenderness and grace of the 
 Messiah's heart." (In augural ^ddre ss, p. 
 37.) '-' 
 
 "The study of the miracles of the Bible 
 has convinced me that they may be explained 
 from the presence of God in nature in varied 
 forms of Theophany and Christophany, 
 for when God is present we may expect 
 manifestations of divine authority and 
 power," — ( Do. , p. 38. ) 
 
 QUESTION SIXTH. 
 
 "Do you hold what is commonly known 
 as the doctrine of a future probation ? Do 
 you believe in purgatory? Answer-r-No (to 
 both)." The question is so framed as not to 
 raise the questions at issue. Dr. Briggs is 
 understood tohold the Augustinian doctrine 
 of the fall, and that, therefore, mankind had 
 its sole probation, properly so called, in 
 Adam : man has, therefore, no true proba- 
 tion in this life and, accordingly, no future 
 probation in the next life. And as he does 
 not teach "what is commonly known" as 
 the doctrine of a "future probation," so 
 neither is he charged with teaching the his- 
 torical doctrine of "purgatory." To bring 
 out the matters at issue, the questions 
 should have been framed thus : 
 
 Questions as They Ought to Have Been 
 Asked — "A. Do you hold that all the con- 
 scious operations of grace may be undergone 
 after death, in the intermediate state? B. 
 Do you believe that saved souls may enter 
 the intermediate state unprepared for Heav- 
 en and needing an extended period of prep- 
 aration to fit them for it?" 
 Di;. BRKiGs' Answers to These Questions. 
 —"Another fault of Protestant theology is in 
 its limitation of the process^ of redemption 
 to this world and its neglect of those vast 
 periods of time which have elapsed for most 
 men in the middle state between death and 
 the resurrection. ■■ We look witli 
 
 hope and joy for the continuation of the 
 processes of grace, as the wonders of re- 
 
6 
 
 demption in the company of the blessed, 
 to which the faithful are all hastening." 
 [[l nau°:ural^dress, page 55.^ "There is no 
 salvation without personal faith. * * * 
 There is but one way of salvation for all, 
 one ordo salutis. There is but one kind of 
 ju.stification, one kind of sanctification, one 
 kind of saving faith, and one kind of re- 
 pentance unto life. * ' '" It is not dif- 
 ficult to understand that the Divine Spirit 
 may regenerate all the elect in th# world 
 and plant within them the seeds of faith 
 and repentance, so tliat redemption may 
 have its beginning here for infants 
 and incapables. •■ • The salvation 
 
 which is begun here by regeneration 
 is carried on there. For the vast 
 majority of our race who die in infancy or 
 have lived beyond the range of tlie means 
 of grace, th^ salvation begun in this life 
 by regeneration is carried on in the inter- 
 mediate state witli the exercise of personal 
 faith in Christ, whom they know there for 
 tlie first. * "•■" ■•■" Not till then are they 
 justified, for there can be no justification 
 witliout faith for them any more than for 
 others. The intermediate state is for them 
 a state of blessed possibilities of redemp- 
 tion. ' '— iMa gazine of Christian Literature, 
 December, 1880, pp. 110, IIL^ 
 
 "The doctrine of immediate justification 
 and sanctification at death involves the con- 
 ceit that the child who died in infancy a 
 few moments after birth is immediately 
 justified and sanctified, receives saving 
 faith and all the Christian graces in an in- 
 stant. * '■ • If this were so, then blessed 
 are those who die in infancy and thus out- 
 strip their fellows in the Christian race. 
 Vastly better to be born to die than to be 
 l)orn to live in this uncertain world. What 
 parent would not prefer to lay all his cliil- 
 dren in an early grave assui'ed of their sal- 
 vation than expose them to the dreadful 
 risks of life and tlie possibility of eternal 
 damnation!' According to the current be- 
 liefs those Chinese mothers who put their 
 children to death make more Christians 
 
 than all the missionaries."— ^I naug ural Ad- 
 _dress, second edition, p. 105.^ ^ 
 
 B. "The intermediate state is, therefore, 
 for all believers, without exception, a state 
 for their sanctification. They are there 
 trained in the school of Christ, and are pre- 
 pared for the Christian perfection which 
 they must attain ere the judgment day." 
 j Magazine of Christian TiiteraturP j^necenn- 
 ber, 1889, p. 112. J "The Roman Catholic 
 doctrine of purgatory is a perversion of the 
 true doctrine. '■ * •■ There is much truth 
 and some comfort in the midst of its errors. 
 ■X- * j^^ jg jggg mechanical and less un- 
 ethical than the theory that has prevailed 
 among Protestants that there is both im- 
 mediate justification and immediate sanc- 
 tification in tlie article of death." ^o., p. 
 113.1 "Sanctification has two sides — morti- 
 fication and vivication. '■' ■ ■ It is the 
 work of sanctification to overcome 
 sin in the higher nature. We may 
 justly hold that the evil which 
 begins in the higher moral nature of be- 
 lievers will be suppressed and modified, 
 with an energy of repentance, humiliation, 
 confession and determination that will be 
 more powerful than ever before, because it 
 will be stimulated by the presence of Christ 
 and the saints. If it were possible that 
 sanctification at death would make men so 
 perfect in holiness as to remove all evil ten- 
 dencies and habits and not only destroy 
 their disposition to sin, etc."— {Do. p. 114. 1 
 QUESTION SEVENTH. 
 
 "Do you believe that the issues of this life 
 are final, and that a man who dies *H(^rii- 
 tent will have no further opportunity of 
 salvation? Answer — Yes. ' This question 
 was worth asking and appears to bring out 
 a fact of importance in Dr. Briggs' teacli- 
 ing. We rejoice to believe that Dr. Briggs 
 has thus cleared his skirts of one of the 
 charges brought against him. We under- 
 stand liim to teach that the final destiny of 
 all men is already determined in this life; 
 that regeneration takes place invariably be- 
 fore death and that accordingly the great 
 
gulf fixed between the saved and lost is in 
 the next life impassable. 
 
 QUESTION EIGHTH. 
 "Is your theory of progressive .sauctifica- 
 tion such as will permit you to say that you 
 believe that when a man dies in the faith, 
 he enters the middle state regenerated, jus- 
 tified and sinless ?N Answer— '^ Yes." "Such 
 an will jwrmit you to sa]r—''f^hen a 
 man dies in the faith"— "rcricnerated, justi- 
 fied, and siuless''" All these are limiting and 
 undefined clauses which destroy the useful- 
 ness of this question. Prof. Briggs will no 
 doubt affirm of a man dyiiKj a hclicver that 
 he is already'./i(sf7"./!('t/ and in that sense im- 
 putalively six/fss. lie does not affirm here 
 that the terms employed are the natural 
 ones to express his theory as to the middle 
 state ; or that he is permitted by his theory 
 to say of (dl the saved that they enter the 
 middle state "regenerated, justified and 
 sinless?" or that his^^tUeoi-y will per- 
 mit him to say of hiTu, a man who 
 "dies in the faith," that he enter the middle 
 state "sinless" in any other than the impu- 
 tative sense. For Dr. Briggs uses the term 
 "sinless" in this sense : "Believers," he says, 
 ( Magazine of Christian Ijiterat ure, Decem- 
 ber, 188!), p. 114), "who enter the middle 
 state, enter sinless^'' and this he immedi- 
 ately defines as follows: "They are par- 
 doned and justified* they are mantled in the 
 blood and righteousness of Christ; and 
 nothing will be able to .sepai-ate them from 
 His love. ■•■ * * But they are still the 
 same persons, with all the gifts and graces, 
 and also all tin: coil Itabits of the mind, dis- 
 position and temper they had when they 
 left the world." Accordingly, he substitutes 
 "guiltless" for "sinless" in the enlarged 
 statement given in the appendix to his in- 
 amjiiral address. The question therefore 
 fails to raise the question at issue. The 
 question should take the following form : 
 
 Question AS IT Should be Asked: "Is 
 your theory of progressive sanctification such 
 as is consistent with the affirmation that all 
 those who are to be saved enter the middle 
 state cleansed from all pollution of sin, with 
 all evil tendencies and dispositions removed, 
 and in such a sense perfect in holiness, as 
 that remainders of sin no longer cling to 
 them? 
 
 Dr. Brkjgs' Answer to This Que.stiox. 
 — "Believers who enter the middle state. 
 * * * are .still the same persons, with all the 
 gifts and graces, and also the evil habits of 
 mind, dispositions and temper they had 
 when they left the world. It is unpsycho- 
 logical to suppose that these will be changed 
 in the moment of death. It is the mani- 
 chean heresy to hold that sin belongs to 
 the physical organization, and is laid aside 
 with the body. ■ ■ The Plymouth Jjrethren 
 hold that there are two natures iir the re- 
 deemed, the old man and the new. In ac- 
 cordance with such a theory the old man 
 might be cast off at death. Sin. as our 
 Savior teaches, has its source in the 
 heart, in the higher and immortal 
 part of man. It is the intent of sanctifica- 
 tion to overcome sin in the higher nature. 
 We may justly hold that the evil that still 
 lingers in the higher moral nature of be- 
 lievers will be suppressed and modified with 
 an energy of repentance, confession and 
 determination that will be more powerful 
 than ever before because it will be stimu- 
 lated by the presence of Christ and His 
 saints, etc." — CVIagaz ine of Christian Liter- 
 ature, December, 1889, page 114.^ 
 
 This brief catechism we repeat cannot 
 settle all questions. But so far as it goes 
 it seems to bring the truth of Dr. Briggs' 
 teaching before us. These things cannot be 
 explained away. They must be retracted or 
 ahidcd by. 
 
"THE SHORTEST CATECHISM." 
 
 Great interest has been awakened in church circles generally 
 by the publication of what is known as Dr. Briggs' catechism, which 
 some of his friends hoped would be accepted by the Presbyterian 
 Church as a substitute for the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the 
 Westminster Standards, Dr. Briggs' answers to this shortest cate- 
 chism have been urged by his friends as a reason why the General 
 Assembly, now in sessioUj should defer action and not veto his elec- 
 tion as a professor in Union Seminary, The following review of Dr, 
 Briggs' answers to this catechism has been furnished to The Free 
 Press by Mr. John J. McCook, an elder in the Fifth Avenue Church, 
 New York (Dr. John Hall, pastor), a commissioner from the Presby- 
 tery of New York to the General. Assembly,* 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Catechism. 
 
 The New York Tribune of May 20 (it also appears in The Evan- 
 gelist of May 21) contained a brief catechism which the Directors of 
 Union Seminary laid, it seems, before Dr. Briggs, and with his 
 answers t^ which they report that they listened .with satisfaction. 
 This catechism does not touch upoa many matters as to which the 
 Presbyterian Church would like to be informed mpre exactly of Dr. 
 Briggs' opinions ; it is therefore deficient, considered as a reply to the 
 objections that have been raised as to his teachings. It is more mi- 
 - ^ 
 
 [* The subjoined paper was written by ^rofessor Warficid on May 21st, and placed in the 
 hands of a friend for his personal information, but with liberty " to make whatever use of it he 
 chose." In the exercise of this liberty, and in the desire not to commit.PVof. Warficid without con- 
 sultation with him, it was printed anonymously in The Detroit Free PYrss of May 27th. On the 
 issue of this reprint, Prof. Warfield h.-is expressed a desire to have the anonymousness removed, 
 • as he has no unwillingness to assume th^ responsibility of the entire contents of the paper.] 
 
 ^ J^\ 
 
 1 \, ■ ' 
 
 
 
portant to observe, however, that, hi the matters upon which it does 
 touch, the catechism does not raise the real issues under discussion, 
 but rather obtains answers to questions not at all or little in dispute. 
 The object of this brief paper is to point out how the questions 
 might have been framed so as to give the church information 
 on the points at issue. For this purpose let us pass in review the 
 questions that were asked and -note how far each question really 
 touches upon matters at issue and what answers Dr. Briggs would 
 have given on the real issues, had the Committee of the Directors 
 been so kind as to place them before him. 
 
 QUESTION firs;. A. 
 
 " Do you consider the Bible, the Church and the Reason as co-or- 
 dinate sources of authority ? Answer — No." What Dr, Briggs here 
 denies is that he makes these three sources co-ordinate in the sense 
 of co-equal ; he does not deny that he makes each of them an inde- 
 pendent source of knowledge of God, by which apart from or in 
 opposition to the others, we may savingly find God. But this latter 
 is the real matter at issue. Hence the question needs modification, 
 thus : 
 
 Question as it Ought to be Asked. — " Do you teach that 
 men may obtain that knowledge of God which is necessary for their 
 salvation and find God savingly, by the Reason independently of and 
 apart from the revelation of God given in the Scriptures ; and there- 
 fore that the revelation of God given in His written Word is not 
 necessary to salvation ? " 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to this Question. — " Martineau could not 
 find divine authority in i,he Church or the Bible, but he did find 
 God enthroned in his own soul. There are those who would refuse 
 these Rationalists a place in the company of the faithful. But they 
 forget that the essential thing is to find God and divine certainty. 
 * * *" {Inaugural Address, p. 27.) "Men are influenced by 
 their temperaments and environments which of the three ways of 
 access to God they may pursue." {Ibid., p. 28.) " If it be heresy to* 
 say that rationalists like Martineau have found God in the reason, 
 and Roman Catholics like Newman have found God in the church, 
 I rejoice in such hcr<-sy, and I do not hesitate to say that I have less 
 doubt of the salva.Ion of Martineau o' Newman than I have of '•he 
 
s 
 
 -modem pharisees who would exclude such noble men — so pure, M 
 ^and, the ornaments of Great Britain and the prophets of the age 
 . — from the kingdom of God" — (JVew York Herald, May ii, 1891), 
 " 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 know nothing of the 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.'' — {Inaug- 
 ural Address, 2nd ed., pp. 88-^891,^ 
 
 QUESTION FIRST, B. 
 
 " Or do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 
 •to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice ? Answer — Yes." 
 Here Dr. Briggs merely affirms that there are no other rules of faith 
 and practice to which the epithet " jrf allible" can be applied besides the 
 Scriptures. But he does not amrm that '-.nere are no other sufficient 
 rules of faith and practice by which men may be led to salvation. 
 Nor does he point out in what sense and to what degree the term 
 " infallible " is applicable to Scriplure. In other words, the questions 
 at issue are not here determined. The question needs amending so 
 as to read thus : 
 
 Question as it vJUGht to be asked, — " Do you believe the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the only extant 
 revelation of that knowledge of God and of His will which is neces- 
 sary to salvation; .--.nd therefore the only sufficient rule of faith and 
 practice ? " 
 
 Dr. Briggs' ...nswer to this Question. — "Another means used 
 toy God tc make Himself known is the forms of the Reason, using 
 Reason in a broad sense to embrace the metaphysical categories, 
 the conscience and the religious feeling. Here, in the Holy of Holies 
 •of Human nature, God presents Himself to those who seek Him. 
 * * * There are few who are able to rise by reflection into the 
 higher consciousness of God. * * * Such men have appeared 
 in all ages of the world," — {Inaugural Address, p. 26.) " 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." — 
 {Inaugural Address, 2d ed., p. 89.) 
 
 [See also answers to Question i, A.] 
 
Iclon thvz ohvlz: 
 
QUESTION SECOND. 
 
 "When you use the term 'Reason,* do you include the conscience 
 
 and the religious feeling ? Ans. — Yes." In his answer to this ques- 
 tion Dr. Briggs merely affirms that when he says men find God savingly 
 through the Reason, he intends to include all purely natural facul- 
 ties and means under that term, and to refer to all sources of the 
 theistic inference and of the religious feeling. But this is not at all 
 the question at issue; which concerns not whether ' reason' is used 
 in a broad or narrow sense, but whether man by * reason ' alone in 
 however broad a sense, can so ' find God ' as- tc be saved. The 
 question needs restatement, thus ; 
 
 Question as it Ought to Have Been Asked. — " When you 
 speak of men 'finding God' through the forms of the Reason, 
 in however broad a sense, do you mean merely that they thus obtain 
 some knowledge of God, or do you mean that they may thus obtain 
 such a knowledge of God and of His will as is sufficient unto salva- 
 tion?" 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to this Question. — " If they are not sav- 
 ingly enlightened by the Light of the World in the forms of the 
 Reason the whole heathen world is lost forever. ' — {Inaugural 
 Address, 2d ed., p. 89.) " Martineau could not find divine authority 
 in the Church or in the Bible, but he did find God enthroned in. 
 his own soul." * * * " If it be heresy tc say that rationalists 
 like Martineau have found God in the reason * * * i rejoice 
 in such heresy, and I do not hesitate to say that I have less doubt 
 of the salvation of Martineau * * * than I have of the modern 
 pharisees who would exclude such noblt men * * * from the 
 Kingdom of God." — [Inaugural Address, p. 27, and JVew York 
 Herald, May 11, 1891.) 
 
 (See also above in answer to Question i.) 
 
 QUESTION THIRD. 
 
 " Would you accept the following as a satisfactory definition of 
 Inspiration? * Inspiration is such a divine direction as to secure an 
 infallible record of God's revelation in respect to both fact and doc- 
 trine.'' Answer — Yes." Here the question is so framed as to confine 
 the affirmative reply to an affirmation of such divine direction 
 as secured an infallible record of God's " revelation " only ; not 
 
 -^Bl>, 
 
"necessarily of all God's revelations, but only of those " in respect to 
 both fact and doctrine." Nothing is affirmed as to the inspiration 
 of such parts of the Scriptures as are not a " record of God's reve- 
 lation." And no definition is given of " infallible record," even as 
 so limited. In other words, the real issues that have been raised 
 are not here raised, and a useless question is asked. It needs to be 
 amended somewhat as follows : 
 
 Question That Ought to Be Asked. — " Would you accept the 
 following as a satisfactory definition of inspiration ? * Inspiration is 
 such a special and extraordinary and immediate divine superintend- 
 ence of the whole process of the writing of the Scriptures as consti- 
 tutes them, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment (as given by inspiration of God) the Word of God written, 
 which he has committed wholly to writing, and which ought, there- 
 fore, to be believed and obeyed, because God (who is truth itself) 
 is the author thereof.' " 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to This Question. — " The time has come 
 when the shibboleth of the older apologetic, * The Bible is the Word 
 of God,' over against ' The Bible contains the Word of God,' should 
 be abandoned.' 'Hence the author is correct in his statement : 
 * * * « g^(■ jjj |-}^g higher and more distinctively religious meaning 
 of the word, it is not the biblical books throughout, — it is only the 
 Word of God which is in the Biblical books,— that can be spoken of 
 as inspired' (p. 372). Whatever does not belong to that divine 
 organism is purely formal and circumstantial and not inspired. How 
 then shall this living divine organism of truth be discriminated from 
 Its formal envelope ?" " The absolute divine truth in the Bible must 
 be discriminated from the relative truths in which it is enveloped, 
 or, in other words, the divine substance has been given in human 
 forms, and no one will truly understand the Bible until he has 
 learned to distinguish between this temporal, circumstantial, and 
 variable form, and the eternal, essential, and permanent substance." 
 {Presbyterian Review, 1S84, pp. 381, 384, 385). " We cannot, in the 
 symbolical or historical use of the term call this providential care 
 of His Word or superintendence over its external production — 
 inspiration. Such providential care and superintendence is not differ- 
 ent in kind with regard to the Word of God, the visible church of 
 God, or the forms of the sacraments." {^Biblical Study, p. i6i.) 
 
" These errors are all in the circumstantials and not in the essen- 
 tials ; they are in the human setting, not in the precious jewel 
 itself ; they are found in that section of the Bible that theologians 
 commonly account for from the providential superintendence of the 
 mind of the author, as distinguished from divine revelation itself. 
 It maybe that this providential 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 im- 
 portant for the present purpose that we should decide this question. 
 If we should abandon the whole field of providential superintend- 
 ence so far as inspiration and divine authority are concerned and 
 limit divine inspiration and authority to the essential contents of the 
 Bible, to its religion, faith, and morals, we would still have ample 
 room to seek divine authority where alone it is essential, or even 
 important, in the teaching that guides our devotions, our thinking, 
 and our conduct," — [Inaugural Address, pp. 35-36*.) ''It is not 
 to be presumed that divine inspiration lifted the author above his 
 age any more than was necessary tc convey the divine declaration 
 and the divine instruction with infallible certainty to mankind. The 
 question of credibility is to be distinguished from infallibihty. The 
 form is credible, the substance alone is infallible." {Whither i, 
 p. 72.) 
 
 QUESTION FOURTH. 
 
 " Do you believe the Bible to be aierrart r ;... all matters concerning 
 faith and practice and in everything ir which it is t revelation fromi 
 God, or a vehicle of divine truth anJ that there are no errors that 
 disturb its infallibility in these matters 0.; in its records of the his- 
 toric events and institutions with whicli they are inseparably con- 
 nected? Answer. — Yes.'" This question is so framed as to confine 
 the affirmation of inerrancy tc the substance of faith and practice, to 
 the communication of direct revelation from God, and to such historic- 
 events and institutions as are inseparably connected with these mat- 
 
 * Wiiat Dr. Briggs expresses with an "if" in the Tnaugiiral Address he asserts as fact in 
 the Fresbytcriar. Review, as above quoted, leaching that inspiration does not extend to anything 
 beyond the substance, and abandoning it for the whole of what he calls formal and circumstan- 
 tial, i. e., apparently for the whole /orw of Scripture a* disting,uished from its contents. 
 
ters. Errors are not denied to exist even in that element of the Bible 
 'that delivers doctrine and regulations for life ; but only such errors 
 as would disturb its infallibility in these matters, of course, when dealt 
 with so as to separate the absolute kernel from the relative husk, as 
 outlined in the passages quoted above under Question three. Errors 
 further, are not denied to exist in the Biblical history ; but only in the 
 records of those historic events and institutions which (in Dr. Briggs' 
 judgment) are inseparably connected with the substance of divine truth 
 as to faith and practice. This does not bring out the question at 
 issue. The question should rather have been framed thus : 
 
 Question as n Ought to Have Been Asked. — "Do you 
 believe the Holy Scripture, consisting of all the books of the Old 
 and New Testaments, to be (as the Word of God, who is truth itself, 
 the author thereof) of infallible truth in all its affirmations, sO as 
 that, as a Christian man, you believe to be true whatsoever is 
 delivered therein, for the authority of God himself speakiiig there- 
 in?" 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to this Question. — " It is sheer assump- 
 tion to claim that the original documents were irierrant. No one 
 can be persuaded to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, except by 
 a priori considerations from the elaboration of the doctrine of verbal 
 inspiration.''— ( Whither ?, p. 68.) " The doctrine 6f the inerrancy of 
 Scripture is in conflict with biblical criticism. It seems to me 
 that no candid mind without invincible dogmatic prepossessions 
 can doubt that there is an error of citation in Matt, xxvii., 9, that 
 goes back to the original autographs. The question of credibility 
 is to be distinguished from infallibility. The form is credible, the 
 substance alone is misAWble."— {Whither ?,^^. 71, 72.) "I shall 
 venture to affirm that, so far as I can see, there are errors 
 in the Scriptures that no one has been able to explain away ; 
 and the theory that they were not in the original text is sheer 
 assumption, upon which no mind can rest with certainty. If such 
 errors destroy the authority of the Bible, it is already destroyed for 
 historians." — {Itiaugural Address, p. 35.) " In Biblical Study and 
 Whither ? I limited myself to two errors of citation. I have not 
 taken a brief to prove the errancy of Scripture. Conservative men 
 should hesitate before they force the critics in self-defense to make 
 a catalogue of errors in the BM^.'' - ' Inaugural Address., 2d ed., p: 
 95.) 
 
8 
 
 QUESTION FIFTH. . 
 
 •' Do you believe that the miracles recorded in the Scriptures are 
 due to an extraordinary exercise of divine energy, either directly or 
 mediately through holy men ? Answer — Yes." The question is so 
 phrased as that the answer affirms nothing more than that G'od is 
 somehow (directly or indirectly) concerned in the production of 
 miracles, and that they are not e very-day phenomena. But these 
 are not the questions at issue. The question should have been 
 framed thus : 
 
 Question as it Ought to Have Been Asked. — " Do you be- 
 lieve that the miracles recorded in the Scriptures were wrought by the 
 immediate power of God, and so clearly exhibit the presence of God 
 with the messenger in whose authentication they were wrought, as 
 that though, we believe not him we must believe the works, though 
 we believe not the words spoken we must believe for the very works' 
 sake ? " 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to this Question. — " If it were possible 
 to resolve all the miracles of the Old Testament into extraordinary 
 acts of Divine Providence, using the forces and forms of nature in 
 accordance with the laws of nature; and if we could explain all the 
 miracles of Jesus, His unique; authority over man and over nature, 
 from His use of mind cure, or hypnotism, or any other occult power, 
 —still I claim that nothing essential would be lost from the miracles 
 of the Bible; they would still remain the most wonderful exhibition 
 of loving purpose and redemptive acts of God and of the tenderness, 
 and grace of the Messiah's Yv^zxX^''— {Inaugural Address^ p. 37.) 
 "The study of the miracles of the Bible has convinced me that 
 they may be explained from the presence of God in nature, in varied : 
 forms of Theophany and Christophany, for where God is present we 
 may expect manifestations of divine authority and power."— (Z><7., 
 
 p. 38.) 
 
 QUESTION SIXTH. 
 
 " Do you hold what is commonly known as the doctrine of a future; 
 probation ? Do you believe in purgatory ? Answer — No (to both).' 
 The question is so framed as not to raise the questions at issue. 
 Dr. Briggs is understood to hold the Augustinian doctrine of the 
 fall, and 'that, therefore, mankind had its sole probation, properly sc 
 
9 
 
 called, in Adam; man has, therefore, no true probation in this life 
 and, accordingly, no future probation in the next life. And as he 
 does not teach " what is commonly known " as the doctrine of a 
 '•future probation," so neither is he charged with teaching the his- 
 torical doctrine of " purgatory," To bring out the matters at issue, 
 the questions should have been framed thus : 
 
 Questions as they Ought to Have Been Asked. — " A. Do 
 you' hold that all the conscious operations of grace may be under- 
 gone after death, in the intermediate state ? B. Do you believe 
 that saved souls may enter the intermediate state unprepared for 
 Heaven, and needing an extended period of preparation to fit them 
 for it ? " 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answers to These Questions. — A. "Another 
 fault of Protestant theology is in its limitation of the process of 
 redemption to this world, and its neglect of those vast periods of 
 time which have elapsed for most men in the Middle State between 
 death and the resurrection. * * * We look with hope and joy 
 for the continuation of the processes of grace, and the wonders of 
 redemption in the company of the blessed, to which the faithful are 
 all hastening." — {Inaugural Address^ page 53-54.) "There is no 
 salvation without personal faith. * * * There is but one way of 
 salvation for all, one ordo salutis. There is but one kind of justifica- 
 tion, one kind of sanctification, one kind of saving faith, and one 
 kind of repentance unto life. * * * It is not difficult to under- 
 stand that the Divine Spirit may regenerate all the elect in this 
 world, and plant within them the seeds of faith and repentance, so 
 that redemption may have its beginning here for infants and incap- 
 ables. * * * xhe salvation which is begun here by regeneration 
 is carried on there. For the vast majority of our race who die in 
 infancy or have lived beyond the range of the means of grace, their 
 salvation begun in this life by regeneration is carried on in the Inter- 
 mediate State with the exercise of personal faith in Christ, whom 
 they know there for the first. * * * Not till then are they 
 justified, for there can be no justification without faith for them any 
 more than for others. The Intermediate State is for them a state of 
 blessed possibilities of redemption." — {Magazine of Christian Litera- 
 ture, December, 1889, pp. no, in.) " The doctrine of immediate 
 justification and sanctification at death involves the conceit th'at 
 the child who dies in infancv a few moments after birth is imme- 
 
10 
 
 diately justified and sanctified, receives saving faith and all the 
 " Christian graces in an instant. * * * j^f this were so, then 
 blessed are those who die in infancy, and thus outstrip their fellows 
 in the Christian race. Vastly better to be born to die, than to. be 
 born to live in this uncertain world. What parent would not prefer 
 to lay all his children in an early grave, assured of their salvation, 
 rather than expose them to the dreadful risks of life and the possi- 
 bility of eternal damnation? According to the current beliefs, 
 those Chinese mothers who pu: their children to death make more 
 Christians than all the raissionaries." — (Inaugural Address^ second 
 edition, p. 105.) 
 
 B. " The Intermediate State is, therefore, for all believers, without 
 exception, a state for their sanctificatiofi. They are there trained in 
 the school of Christ, and are prepared for the Christian perfection 
 which they must attain ere the judgment day.'' — (^Magazine of Chris- 
 tian Literature, December^ 1889, pv 112). "■■ "^he Roman Catholic 
 doctrine of purgatory is a perversion of the true doctrine. •' * * 
 There is much truth and some comfort in the midst of its errors. 
 
 * * * It is less mechanical and less unethical than the theory 
 that has prevailed among Protestants that there is both immedi- 
 ate justification and immediate sanctincation in the article of death." 
 {Do., p. 113). " Sanctification has two sides — mortification and 
 vivificatidn. * i; * j^ jg ^^g work of sanctification to overcome 
 sin in the higher nature. We may justly hold that the evil which 
 lingers in the higher moral nature of believers will be suppressed;- 
 and modified, with an energy of repentance, humiliation, confession 
 and determination that will be more powerful than ever before, 
 because it will be stimulated by the presence of Christ and the saints. 
 
 * * * If it were possible that sanctification at death would make 
 men so perfect in holiness as to remove all evil tendencies and 
 habits, and not only destroy their disposition to sin, but so lift them 
 above temptation that they would be not only like our Savior during 
 his earthly life, posse non peccart, but also like our Savior" after he. 
 had sanctified himself and risen victor over sin, death, and Satan, 
 and attained the position of non posse peccarc j even then they would 
 only have accomplished the negative side of sanctification, the mor- 
 tification or entire putting to death the old man of sin." — {Do.,. 
 p. 114.) 
 
11 
 
 QUESTION SEVENTH. 
 
 • 
 
 " Do you believe that the issues of this life are final, and that a 
 man who dies impenitent will have no further opportunity of salva- 
 tion ? Answer — Yes." This question was worth asking and 
 appears to bring out a fact of importance in Dr. Briggs' teaching. 
 We rejoice to believe that Dr. Briggs has thus cleared his skirts of 
 one of the charges brought against him. We understand him to 
 teach that the final destiny of all men is already determined in this 
 life ; that regeneration takes place invariably before death ; and that 
 accordingly the great gulf fixed between the saved and lost is in the 
 next life impassable. 
 
 QUESTION EIGHTH. 
 
 " Is your theory of progressive sanctification such as will permit 
 you to say that you believe that when a man dies in the faith he 
 enters the middle state regenerated, justified and sinless ? Answer — 
 Yes." " Such as will permit you to say " — " when a man dies in the 
 faith " — " regenerated^ justified and sinless.'''' All these are limiting 
 and undefined clauses which destroy the usefulness of this question. 
 Prof. Briggs will no doubt affirm of a man dying a believer that he 
 is already /W/Z/f^'d^ and in that sense, imputatively, siriless. He does 
 not affirm here that the terms employed are the natural ones to 
 express his theory as to the middle state ; or that he is permitted by 
 his theory to say of all the saved that they enter the middle state 
 •" regenerated, justified and sinless ;'i or that his theory will permit 
 him to say of even a man who " dies in the faith," that he enters the 
 middle state " sinless " in any other than the imputative sense. For 
 Dr. Briggs uses the term "sinless " in this sense : "Believers," he 
 says {^Magazine of Christian Literature, December, 1889, p. 114), 
 "who enter the Middle State, enter j-/«/<?j-j- /' and this he immedi- 
 ately defines as follows : " They are pardoned and justified ; they 
 are mantled in the blood and righteousness of Christ ; and nothing 
 will be able to separate them from his love. * * =1= jj^t (-[^gy 
 are still the same persons, with all the gifts and graces and also all 
 the evil habits of mind, disposition, and temper they had when 
 they left the world." Accordingly, he substitutes " guiltless " for 
 ** sinless " in the enlarged statement given in the appendix to his 
 Inaugural Address (p. 107). The question, therefore, fails to raise 
 
12 
 
 the question at issue. The question should take the following 
 form : 
 
 Question as it Should be Asked. — " Is your theory of pro- 
 gressive sanctification such as is consistent with the affirmation that 
 all those who are to be saved enter the middle state cleansed from 
 all pollution of sin, with all evil tendencies and dispositions removed, 
 and in such a sense perfect in holiness as that remainders of sin 
 no longer cling to them ? " 
 
 Dr. Briggs' Answer to This Question. — " Believers who enter 
 the Middle State * * * are still the same persons, with all the 
 gifts and graces and also the evil habits of mind, disposition, and 
 temper they had when they left the world. It is unpsychological to 
 suppose that these will all be changed in the moment of death. It is 
 the Manichean heresy to hold that sin belongs to the physical organi- 
 zation, and is laid aside with the body. * * * The Plymouth 
 Brethren hold that there are two natures in the redeemed, the old 
 man and the new. In accordance with such a theory, the old man 
 might be cast off at death. * * * gj^^ ^g ^m- Savior teaches, has 
 its source in the heart, in the higher and immortal part of man. It is 
 the intent of sanctification to overcome sin in the higher nature. 
 We may justly hold that the evil that still lingers in the higher 
 moral nature of believers will be suppressed and modified with an 
 energy of repentance, humiliation, confession, and determination that 
 will be more powerful than ever before because it will be stimulated by 
 the presence of Christ and His Saints, etc." — {Magazine of Chris- 
 tiati Literature, December, 1889, page 114). 
 
 This brief catechism we repeat cannot settle all questions. But 
 so far as it goes it seems to bring the truth of Dr. Briggs' teachipg 
 before us. These things cannot be explained away. They must be 
 retracted or abided by. 
 
Date Due 
 
 - , '• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O't^'i'^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ui.. 
 
 
 
 
 - A r> i ' ■ 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 V- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' ST 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V* or ''-j' 
 
 
 
 
 ■""^AiHX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (|) 
 
 
 
 
i:!j'!i:;!;:(!!;r 
 
 iiiiiiii