The trial of Dr. Briggs before the general assembly. A calm review of the case

Preface

WHILE the writer of the following review believes that the majority of the members of the General Assembly at Washington were mistaken in their opinions of the views of the Rev. Professor Briggs, D. D., he at the same time cherishes sincere respect for the Assembly as the supreme court of a church of Jesus Christ.

He believes that the circumstances surrounding the trial of Dr. Briggs were of such a nature that error on the part of the court was unavoidable, and that it is therefore no reflection upon the court to point out wherein it may be shown to have erred. In doing this he has sought to avoid any word that might be regarded as disrespectful either to the Assembly as a whole or to any of its members.

He has at the same time sought to be strictly impartial and overlook no important point, whether favorable or unfavorable on either side.

He has not written in a contentious spirit, but dispassionately in the interests of truth and peace.

Believing that the truth has not been apprehended, by reason of obscurities by which it has been clouded

VI PREFACE.

to the minds of those standing nearest to the consideration of it, he has felt called upon by the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed as a stranger and a lover of the truth, to contribute his share toward dispelling those obscurities that, if possible, Christian brethren now unhappily at variance may be helped to see eye to eye.

Believing that peace can be established only on the basis of purity of doctrine, and that doctrines which have appeared to be heretical can be seen in their true light only by a careful reconsideration of the questions at issue in the light of all the evidence and arguments presented on both sides, the writer of the following review has undertaken this task, praying that the Holy Spirit, whose guidance has been sought in the accomplishing of it, may make use of the following pages as a help toward promoting the peace of Jerusalem and the prosperity of Zion.

This only need be added : Neither the Rev. Dr. Briggs, nor any other minister or member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States has had any knowledge of the writing of this review. The writer has assumed the sole responsibility for the writing of it, and for every sentiment it contains, and has withheld his name that the views presented may be judged according to their merits, apart from the influence of any name whether obscure or the reverse. R. J. L.

August, 1893.

Chapter I. Introductory

AS I happened to be on a visit to the American Republic and its Capital during the meeting of the Presbyterian General Assembly in May last, I availed myself of the opportunity of being present at all the sessions of the Briggs Trial.

I had never seen the Rev. Dr. Briggs and had taken but little interest in his case. I had read his inaugural in the quiet of my study shortly after its first appearance, but only laid it aside as the utterance of a scholar who seemed to have no hesitation about leaving the beaten track and extending his investigations into fields which are commonly regarded as the peculiar domain of heterodoxy.

I was aware that some of the writings of the author of the address were regarded by many as heretical in their tendencies if not in their teaching, and my reading of the inaugural gave me additional insight into the reasons for this opinion.

As time passed and the question of the orthodoxy of the views of Dr. Briggs came before the Detroit Assembly, and a year later the Portland Assembly, and as this question was once and again considered by the Presbytery of New York, I, in common with others, gained a general knowledge of the question through the religious and secular press, but not such information as enabled me to come to a definite conclusion as to the merits of the case.

The questions raised seemed to be such as could be settled only by a careful, critical study of them. I knew, however, that in the Presbyterian Church in the United States there was no scarcity of scholars capable of giving those questions the best consideration ; and I hoped to have the privilege, at the Washington Assembly, of hearing the views of so scholarly a man as Dr. Briggs set forth by himself, and of hearing the replies of other scholars so clearly presented as to set the church, if not the world, at rest regarding the question of Dr. Briggs' agreement or want of agreement with the standards of the Presbyterian Church.

The occasion seemed to afford an excellent opportunity for doing this. Many of the five or six hundred commissioners composing the Assembly were men of learning, and all of them were earnest and conscientious men. The promptness and general skill and fairness of the moderator could not easily have been excelled. The apparent equanimity of all the members of the court seemed also to be peculiarly favorable.

INTRODUCTORY. 11

I felt, at the opening of the proceedings, that if Dr. Briggs failed to prove that his views were Scriptural and orthodox, it must be either because they were not, or because he would fail to make the best use of his opportunity, or else because of something operating on the minds of his auditors to prevent them from giving due weight to his statements.

I felt, on the other hand, that if the opponents of the views of Dr. Briggs failed to prove to the satisfaction of all that his views were unscriptural and heretical, it must either be because they were not, or because those opposing them would not make the best use of their opportunity, or else because of something operating upon the minds of their hearers to prevent them from giving due weight to the statements and arguments presented.

As the case proceeded, however, I found that the occasion was not so auspicious as it at first sight seemed.

That Dr. Briggs did not succeed in convincing the majority of the Assembly that his views were orthodox, it is unnecessary to say ; and it is equally true that his opponents did not succeed in convincing the whole Assembly that his views were at variance with the Westminster standards. More than one hundred of the commissioners held that his views were not at variance with any essential doctrine, nor in any respect such as to warrant his suspension from the office of the ministry. Many of the disinterested spectators were of the same opinion, and there appear to be thousands throughout the church whose minds are still in doubt.

Chapter II

ATTITUDE OF DR. BRIGGS.

THAT Dr. Briggs did not succeed in persuading the Assembly to sustain the New York Presbytery's verdict of acquittal, was not due to any failure on his part to make the best use of his opportunity. From the first moment of his appearance in the court until near the close of the proceedings, when fatigue compelled him to withdraw, he was intent upon the case. He listened to the statements and arguments of his opponents hour after hour, occasionally checking seeming departures from the right line of procedure, with the earnestness of one who realized that his ecclesiastical life was at stake and that great principles were involved.

When it came his turn to speak, his appearance was a surprise to some who had formed their impressions of him from current rumor. Those who had formed the opinion that he was not a deeply conscientious man had to reverse that opinion. Those who had received the impression that he was not a thoroughly devout student of the Word of God had to dismiss that impression. They saw before them a man whose utterances and whole bearino- commended

ATTITUDE OF DR. BRIGGS. 13

him to them as a Christian scholar, a reverent student of the Word of God, a devout seeker after truth. He had evidently spent much of his time among books, and students, and ideas, where he had his course of study and reasoning for the most part in his own hands, and it was, perhaps, partly on this account that he seemed to find it difficult to bear patiently at times with the opposition of those who seemed unable either to understand or accept his views.

It was evident that the opinions he held were not lightly entertained. They were based upon what he saw to be incontrovertible facts. They had been closely reasoned out in the light of Scripture and of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. He claimed that while some of them were not directly taught in the Westminster standards, they were not contradictory of anything in those standards. They might be extra-confessional but were not contra-confessional. He frankly admitted having used the language of all the quotations that were made from his writings, but in some cases he strongly repudiated the meaning that had been put upon his words, and the inferences that were drawn from them. He was deeply stirred at the omission by the prosecution, and the overlooking by the court, of explanatory statements and qualifying phrases which seemed to him to be of vital importance ; and from his point of view those statements and phrases were indeed vital. No disinterested observer could for a moment accuse him of anything like quibbling, or of not fairly meeting each issue as it arose. To a stranger he appeared to be frank and candid in the highest degree. He seemed to be totally unacquainted with the arts by which some men seek to win favor, and outwit their opponents. He appeared to disregard the use that may be made of the tricks of oratory in appealing to a jury, and to rely solely on a plain statement of the facts of his position, and upon the lines of reasoning which had led him to the conclusions he had reached. His explanations of his positions seemed lucid and his logic accurate.

One of the most venerable of his opponents, the Rev. Dr. Duffield of Princeton, paid him the following tribute : —

"Dr. Briggs undoubtedly is a man of rare scholarship, — a man who has received honors from European universities, and who deserves the respect and the kind treatment of his Christian brethren. And, if Dr. Briggs will pardon me for sa} 7 ing it, if Dr. Briggs' logical faculty were equal to his scholarship, I know not his peer in the intellectual world, certainly of America."

To a stranger the value of this high tribute was enhanced by the fact that it was exceedingly difficult to detect any flaw in his logic. He seemed almost too good a logician. He relied too much upon logical syllogisms, and made use of them in some instances, in his defence before the Assembly, when a less strictly intellectual process might have served his purpose better. I would say that he sometimes appeared to forget that " those root truths upon which the founda-

ATTITUDE OF DR. BRIGGS. 15

tions of being rest are apprehended, not logically at all, but mystically ; " but I am forbidden by the recollection that some of his opponents accused him of mysticism. Nor can I appropriately quote here these other words of Principal Shairp : " When once awakened the spiritual faculty far outgoes all systems, scientific, philosophical, or theological, and apprehends and lives by truths which these cannot reduce to system." These words would be inappropriate inasmuch as the spiritual faculty in the case of Dr. Briggs was evidently far from being dormant. It was normally awake and keenly sensitive. His intimate friends testified to the earnestness and sincerity of his Christian life, and his opponents joined them in this testimony. They never once charged him with insincerity, nor as much as hinted that his heart was not right toward God. From all that he himself said, either incidentally or directly, regarding God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, it was manifest that he was a devout believer in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It was equally evident that he was an ardent lover of the Lord Jesus, and held firmly to the great doctrine of the Atonement. He did not parade his piety, it is true, yet it was apparent to all who saw and heard him for the first time that he was what his friends and opponents alike declared him to be, not only a great scholar but a good man. After carefully observing his attitude of mind, and listening attentively to all his utterances in his defence, I was not surprised when told privately that in matters of morals " he is a Puritan of the Puritans."

IIearing such testimony borne regarding the accused, and observing that this testimony was confirmed by all his utterances and his whole bearing, it was scarcely possible for a disinterested stranger to help wishing in the early stages of the proceedings, that the trial should not go on, but that the request of Dr. Briggs and his friends should be complied with, and the case be allowed to take the usual course and be first dealt with by the court of next higher jurisdiction after the Presbytery, the Synod of New York.

The attitude of Dr. Briggs may perhaps be best set forth by the following quotations from the close of his two main arguments before the Assembly. In closing his five hours' argument upon the question of procedure, he spoke as follows : —

"Mr. Moderator and brethren, the appellant in the opening argument, as I have already intimated, entered into the merits of the appeal. I shall not attempt to go into that merit myself except so far as to make an explicit denial of his statement, when he charges me with teaching doctrines which are fundamental errors. I deny that I have ever taught any doctrines that are fundamental errors, and nry presbytery has acquitted me, brethren, of teaching any fundamental errors."

Then, with uplifted hand, Dr. Briggs solemnly uttered the following words : —

"I affirm before this body that I believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, according to the vow that I assumed at my ordination, and which I have assumed every three

ATTITUDE OF DR. BRIGGS. 17

years, according to the rule of the Union Theological Seminary. I affirm that I hold to the whole doctrine taught in the first chapter of the Westminster Confession relating to Holy Scripture, without any qualification or reservation whatever.

"I heg leave to affirm that I hold to the entire system of doctrine set forth in the Wesminster Confession, and anything that I may have said that at all conflicts with this statement is due to the misinterpretations which have he'en put upon the language which I have uttered. I will not say that these misinterpretations are always intentional. I shall not exonerate myself from some possible blame in lack of clearness in the enunciation of them. But I beg leave to affirm the truth that I have made no statement that at all conflicts with the affirmations that I have made before you.

"And now, brethren, in all honesty between us as brethren, ought not this case to cease ? Send it to the Synod of New York, — and I call in all honesty and friendliness upon the appellants to unite with me in that procedure, — and I promise them in your presence that if they will go with me to the Sjmod of New York, where the whole case can be considered by that Synod, in the most friendly and courteous manner, I will aid in a full solution of all the matters in dispute. That is all I have to say. If I have said anything that at all injures the feelings of any member of this court, I very much regret it. If I have said anything in my inaugural that has disturbed the peace of the church or caused any doubt or uncertainty or affliction to even the feeblest of God's children, I regret it more than any one else can do.

"I have been a teacher of the Bible in the Union Theological Seminary for twenty years. There are only four professors now teaching in your theological seminaries that have been in service longer than I have. There are only two of them that have taught more minister- now in the service than I have. I challenge the production of a single one of these ministers that have been under my instruction during the past twenty years who can say that anything that I have taught him has undermined or diminished his faith in the divine authority of Holy Scripture or his love for the Word of God."

It was not surprising that at the close of this earnest appeal the court should, for the moment, have forgotten the moderator's charge and given way to a burst of applause. Yet the appeal was in vain. The Assembly by an overwhelming majority, 409 to 145, decided not to remit the case to the synod, but to put Dr. Briggs on trial at once. When the merits of the case were considered, he closed his seven hours' argument in his defence with the following words :

' ' Now, Mr. Moderator and brethren, I have endeavored to set before you as clearly and thoroughly as I could what are my views on the subjects in dispute. I hold these views sincerely and with all my heart. I hold that they are the views that are set forth in Holy Scripture. The larger portion of them are set forth also in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and as I know from a study of the Westminster divines for many years, would be regarded by them as very important matters of the Puritan faith of the seventeenth century.

" There are other matters in dispute which have arisen in the public mind since the times of the Westminster Assembly, and have received no definition in our stand-

ATTITUDE OE DR. BRIGGS. 19

ards. Now, you must judge upon these matters as judges in the presence of Jesus Christ, and before the living God, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I challenge you before God that you judge righteous judgment. I challenge you before God that you judge me according to the record of the declarations I have made. I challenge you before Jesus Christ that you do no wrong to the Church of the living God."

Chapter III. Attitude Of The Assembly

THE General Assembly that convened at Washington, D. C, on the 18th May, 1893, was a typical Presb} T terian Supreme Court. Seldom have over' five hundred and fifty men of equal intelligence been seen gathered together as one body. Coming from all parts of the great American Republic, and from the church's mission fields in China, India, South America and elsewhere, all the commissioners, clerical and lay alike, seemed from the first to be possessed of a spirit of calmness which betokened that they felt there was grave business on hand. The exceptions to this state of calm reserve were so rare as to be very noticeable when they did occur.

Some minds were so overburdened with a sense of the importance of the great issue before them that they could not refrain from giving vent to their feelings as soon as an opportunity was afforded them of addressing their brethren. The retiring moderator was the first to relieve his mind in this way. His opening sermon was of the nature of an earnest argument in advance against the supposed heresies the Assembly when constituted was expected to deal with. That the calmness on the surface of the assembly had a great depth of strong feeling underneath it was made manifest by the applause that unexpectedly burst forth in the sacred gathering when the preacher gave utterance to sentiments that most directly antagonized the alleged heresies.

This burst of feeling over, the commissioners settled back into their former attitude of calm reserve. Observing their decorum throughout the prolonged discussions, one was sometimes at a loss to understand the secret of their marked calmness. Was it a conscientious sense of the gravity of the occasion ? Or was it simply coolness, such as is ordinarily characteristic of the American people ? Were many of the commissioners still undecided as to what their final action should be, and were they holding their judgment in abeyance until the arguments were in ? Or did the majority of the assembly feel that they had been sent to Washington to discharge an unpleasant duty, and must discharge it whatever arguments to the contrary might be presented ? Did they feel that they were so strong that they could afford to be silent and allow the opposing minority the utmost latitude until the time of voting should come ? Probably no one of these suppositions, nor all of them taken together, would fully account for the quiet reserve that was manifest. To a disinterested observer the considerations that seemed to have chief weight were these : The impression prevailed throughout the length and breadth of the church that Dr. Briggs entertained and taught heretical views upon several doctrines which the Presbyterian Church has always regarded as vital ;

the commissioners sent to the assembly were expected to set the mind of the church at rest by condemning those alleged heresies ; if they failed to do this, then the impression would go abroad that the Presbyterian Church had drifted away from her old moorings ; if they sent the case to the Synod of New York, they would be accused of having failed to discharge the duty assigned them ; and as for their failing to find Dr. Briggs guilty of the heresies charged against him, this would be out of the question, inasmuch as the majority of the membership of the church believed that, through the columns of the religious and secular press, they were already in possession of all the evidence that was needed in order to condemn him. Under such circumstances what could the assembly do, in the interests of the peace of the church and the cause of truth, but the thing which the great majority of the church believed to be the only thing that could properly be done ? It might be said that they should have braved the opinions of the many who would have been disappointed by such a mode of procedure, and remitted the case to the Synod of New York, in the hope that both the peace of the church and the interests of truth in general would eventually be better conserved in this way ; but in the discretion of the Assembly it was not deemed expedient to pursue this course ; and what more need be said ? The discretion of a court is not subject to review. It would be ungenerous to say that their discretion may have been governed by circumstances outside the court, or to say that the members of the prosecuting committee were far from being alone in wishing to have the case settled at that Assembly, and settled in favor of their appeal. To say this might be equal to imputing not very creditable motives to a body of Christian men who were without doubt honorable and conscientious.

I am aware that there are those who think that all the above considerations should be ruled out, and that it should simply be said that the case of Dr. Briggs was decided solely in accordance with the evidence and arguments presented before the court. There are no doubt thousands who believe this. Far be it from me to say that those who voted for the condemnation and suspension of Dr. Briggs did not believe they were voting in as close accord as possible with the evidence and arguments presented. I sincerely believe the very opposite of this. But I also believe that it was impossible for the court to be properly seized of all the explanations made and all the arguments and evidence presented. The evidence was simply voluminous. It consisted of printed volumes, and sections and sentences of volumes, which it would have taken the most skilled of scholars days, if not weeks, to examine under the most favorable circumstances. Think of the following as submitted in evidence by Col. J. J. McCook on behalf of the Prosecuting Committee, here called the appellant.: —

"Upon pages 86, 88, and 89 of the printed document in the hands of the commissioners will be found reference to the evidence introduced by the appellant. On pages

89, 00, 91, 02, and 93 will be found reference to the evidence introduced by the appellee, all of which, having been received as competent evidence by the lower court, ma}' be used by the parties in the argument of this

appeal.

"When sitting as ajudicatory in a judicial case, the members of the court are charged with judicial knowledge of the contents of the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, consisting of the Confession of Faith, the larger and shorter Catechisms, the Form of Government, the Book of Discipline, and Directory of Worship, a copy of which was introduced in evidence by the appellant, marked F.

"The members of the court are also charged with judicial knowledge of the contents of the Holy Bible, a copy of which was introduced in evidence by the appellant, marked G, and any portions of the Holy Bible and the constitution of the church may be referred to by the appellant, without any previous designation of the part or parts thereof to be used.

"The minutes of the General Assembly being a public document and an official record of the church, the court must also take judicial knowledge of the contents thereof, and the appellant proposes to use portions of pages 57 and 235 of the minutes of the General Assembly of 1802.

"Use will also be made, as a part of the record in this case, of portions of the original charges and specifications in this case presented to the Presbytery of New York on the 5th day of October, 1891, or of all or any part of the amended charges and specifications (found at pages 44 to 75 of the printed document) presented to the Presbytery of New York on the 0th day of November, 1802, including the quotations from the inaugural address, and the citations of proof from Scripture, the Confession of Faith, and the larger and shorter Catechisms.

" The appellant will also use the judgment, the notice of appeal, the appeal, and the specifications of errors alleged, which have already been read, and will be found at pages 3 to 3-4 (inclusive) in the printed document.

••The appellant will also use the following pages, or parts thereof, of the minutes of the Presbytery of Xew York : vol. xiv., pages 227, 228, 265, 276. 285. 286, 291, 292, 294, '303-305, 310, 313, 319, 355, 356, 361, 378, 384, 385, 395, 396, 397, and 500 et seq. TVe don't propose to read those pages. This is for the identification of the matter. "We propose to read them if we care to, but we don't propose to read them as a whole. It is simply for notice to the appellee of such portions of the record as we wish to use.

••The appellant will also use the Preface to the Inaugural Address, third edition, with the appendix thereto, and the whole or parts of the following pages thereof: 25. 26, 27. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 53, 55, 5S, 89, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 147: Dr. Briggs' work, < Whither, 3 pages 11. 211, and 221; Dr. Briggs' 'Biblical Study,' pages 161 and 243; Dr. Briggs' 'Who Wrote the Pentateuch?' or parts thereof, as follows: pages 23, 25, 28, 29, 75. 79. 101, 106, 124, 157, 158, 159, and 162; Dr. Briggs'

'Who Wrote Isaiah?' pages 135, 137, and 138; Dr. Briggs' article in the ' Presbyterian Review ' for April, 1884, page 384.

"The appellant will also use in its argument portions of pages 1 and 4 of Newman's ' Apologia pro Vita Sua, in the volume submitted in evidence by the appellant marked D.

" The appellant will also use portions of book i. chapters i. and ii., book ii. chapter ii., and book iv. chapter ii., of Martineau's 'Seat of Authority in Religion,' in the volume introduced in evidence by the appellant marked E: 'Andover Review,' vol. xiii. page 59; Kuenen's 'Prophets and Prophecies in Israel ' (1877), pages 443-449.

"I shall not take the time of the court to read any of these citations at this time; but they may be read, and will be referred to from time to time during the argument. In this way the appellant hopes and expects to use but little more than one-half of the time assigned to it. Dr. Lampe will now present the appellant's opening argument."

Note also the following statements by Dr. Briggs, as indicating the vastness of the mass of evidence which it was necessary for the court to consider, in order to have an intelligent acquaintance with his position.

" I wish to make a few preliminary statements for the information of the house, and the gentlemen of the press, and the stenographer.

"First, I waive the reading of the records, although I feel very deeply that the records contain my defence in its fulness, including the printed document called the defence, also the volume entitled the ' Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch,' which is a part of the defence, and the volume on ' The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, ' which was submitted to the Presbytery of New York as a part of the evidence, and also all of the evidence which I submitted to the Presbytery of New York in the trial. But the reading of all that defence and all that evidence would consume a great many hours, and I have taken it for granted that this defence and the evidence having been sent by mail to every commissioner of this assembly, I might take it for granted that as honorable men they had read it, and it would only be necessary for me in argument to call attention to what I regarded as the essential parts thereof.