a sin against the divine majesty to prop up divine authority by human authority however great or extensive." Yet he says men have been "shutting out the light of God, obstructing the life of God, and fencing in the authority of God." Such barriers he holds to be: (1) Superstition; (2) Verbal Inspiration; (3) Authenticity; (4) Inerrancy; (5) Violation of the Laws of Nature; and (6) Minute Prediction. Here again it can hardly be doubted that historically such barriers have existed. The Bible has sometimes been treated as a talisman, and this is superstition. Verbal inspiration and inerrancy have sometimes obscured the historical sense, as where the harmonists made Peter's wife's mother miraculously healed three times, to conserve the exact truth of all the Gospel accounts. Extravagant emphasis upon authenticity and the fulfillment of prophecy have sometimes diverted attention from the spiritual teaching of the Scriptures. The Church is not exempt from danger on this side any more than on any other, and it is the duty of the exegete who thinks he sees danger on this side to give the warning just as he would on any other. The somewhat rhetorical form of the prediction that these breastworks of traditionalism are undermined and soon to be blown to atoms may be criticized, but it may bé justified by the enthusiasm of the occasion in which no doubt the orator saw a fulfillment of long cherished hopes.

The main theme is now reached in the theology of the Bible. This is treated under the three heads of Religion, Doctrines of Faith, and Morals. A supplementary topic is the Messiah. The conclusion of the address treats of the harmony of the three sources of divine authority.

It should be noted that Dr. Briggs had already been a professor in Union Seminary for seventeen years, and that for ten years of that time he had been one of the editors of the Presbyterian Review, and a frequent contributor to its pages.

He had published several extended articles or addresses on Biblical Theology, besides a volume on Biblical Study (1884), in which his critical views were distinctly stated. Theologically his divergence from the prevailing Presbyterian school of thought was set forth in a volume entitled "Whither," published in 1889. But up to the delivery of the inaugural address he was rectus in ecclesia, as is indicated by the fact that the chairman of the committee which recommended the veto of his election in the General Assembly stated that he himself would have been present to hear the address had he not mistaken the date. Yet, as has been pointed out by Dr. Briggs himself, all the views which were so criticised in the address were advocated in his earlier publications. Why they should have been passed by, while the address was at once made the object of the attack, is difficult to see. Doubtless the fact that the address was first known in a newspaper report had something to do with it. The "Authorized Syllabus" gave the most startling expressions of the address apart from the context, which might have thrown a different light on them, but this is no more than is generally true of a newspaper report.

case,

For whatever reason-perhaps because now was seen to be a good time to strike-the question of a veto by the General Assembly was agitated before the full text of the address was published. The New York Independent of February 5 called attention to the power of the Assembly in the and said: "The question then arises whether the Assembly, in the light of the views stated by Dr. Briggs in his recent inaugural address, will deem it wise and just to the interests of the Presbyterian Church, and those of sound doctrine, to confirm this appointment. This question has already been asked, and we should not be at all surprised if it were to come up for grave consideration at the next meeting of the General Assembly. The fact that Dr. Briggs has subscribed

to the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church does not supersede this question, especially if it be true that his own formal utterances virtually contradict and invalidate that subscription. We do not see how the General Assembly, when called to act upon his appointment, can ignore these utterances, or fail gravely to consider their import, and the question of their consistency with the standards of the Presbyterian Church and the teaching of the Bible. The matter involved is one of the most serious character." The Presbyterian of the next week, in an article entitled "Pledge and Performance," says: "In view of the contradiction that is apparent between Dr. Briggs' own statements, and their entire divergence from the teachings of the standards of the Church, does not the imposing pageant of that inauguration look very much like an absolute farce?" This article concludes with urging a most emphatic veto by the Assembly.

It is evident from these early utterances (the full text of the inaugural was not published) that in influential quarters Dr. Briggs was already pronounced guilty of heresy. Looking back on the history of the case, one marvels at the readiness with which this judgment was formed and uttered. According to Presbyterian law, the only judge authorized to pronounce on a man's "entire divergence" from the Confession is the presbytery of which he is a member. The Presbytery of New York has now (January, 1893) pronounced upon this alleged divergence, after examination of the full text of the inaugural as well as other utterances of the author, and has declared it not to exist. But on the basis of an outline report one religious newspaper announces the contrary verdict, and another at least intimates that Dr. Briggs' utterances virtually contradict and invalidate his subscription to the Confession. The whole agitation for the veto was based

upon such prejudgments, and the veto itself had no other

reason.

On the 16th day of February, an adjourned meeting of the Presbytery of Cincinnati was held, at which an overture to the General Assembly was offered, calling attention to the inaugural, and asking the Assembly (in effect) to veto the election. Some of the members present at this meeting objecting to the overture, it was referred to a committee, which reported at another meeting held March 2. The overture had been somewhat modified in form, and was as follows:

"Whereas, in 1882, the General Assembly, in view of the introduction and prevalence of German mysticism and higher criticism, and of philosophic speculation, did in the name of the great Head of the Church, solemnly warn all who give instruction in our theological seminaries against inculcating any views or adopting any methods which may tend to unsettle faith in the doctrine of the Divine origin and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, or in our Presbyterian system of doctrine, by ignoring or depreciating the supernatural element in Divine revelation, or by exalting human conjecture and speculation above historical and Divine facts and truths;' and,

"Whereas, The General Assembly, in 1883, did again declare itself clearly and decidedly on the rationalistic treatment of the Holy Scriptures;' and,

Whereas, quite recently, in connection with the public inauguration of a professor in one of our theological seminaries, the Church has been disturbed, and apprehension excited by utterances as given in what is declared to be an authorized syllabus of the professor's address, apparently rash and unguarded and erroneous in their tendency, as calculated to unsettle faith in the inspiration, genuineness, and infallibility of the Scriptures; therefore,

"Resolved, That while we recognize the importance of full and free critical study of the Scriptures and kindred subjects, provided it be made in a reverential spirit, and with the purpose of vindicating the true nature of the Scriptures as held by our Church, we, nevertheless, deem such utterances worthy of the attention of the General Assembly; and furthermore, we would petition the General Assembly, which is to meet the third Thursday of May, 1891, at Detroit, to take such action as shall in its judgment be best adapted to preserve the peace, purity, and prosperity of the Church."

Examination of this paper shows that it was in fact a condemnation of Dr. Briggs as heretical. The citation of the action of the Assembly of 1882 was irrelevant unless Dr. Briggs were supposed to be under the influence of German mysticism or philosophic speculation. The citation equally implied that he was inculcating views tending to unsettle faith in our Presbyterian system of doctrine. The action of the Assembly of 1883 also could be of no force unless Dr. Briggs were adjudged guilty of rationalistic treatment of the Holy Scriptures. The resolution was an unconstitutional measure because it pronounced on the ministerial fitness of a member of another body. Almost equally objectionable is the positive principle of Biblical inquiry announced. The Presbytery recognized the importance of full and free critical study of the Scriptures and kindred subjects, provided it be made in a reverential spirit, and with the purpose of vindicating the true nature of the Scriptures as held by our Church. The assumption is worthy of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserts that our Church already holds the true nature of the Scriptures. So long as critical investigation does not disturb the established belief of the Church, but confirms it, it may be encouraged. But one can not help raising the question: How,