w 
 
 mm:. 
 
cr,^^!^ ^TTJur-.f ■ ^t-::.. :'.M;-wry^'aK,''V ■ a^s ys*»^- 
 
 #"'^ 
 
 ^jl t1(W ®bfolffirii'«| ^ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 '% 
 
 Presented hJY^VCy ?S7S . VJ^ CArV\ A d ,"S -"D . 
 
 Division 
 Section • 
 

 Standing Connmittee on Theological Seminaries 
 
 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE REV. 
 CHARLES A. imiGGS, D. D., AS PROFESSOR OF 
 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IN UNION THEO- 
 LOGICAL SEMINARY, X. Y. CITY. 
 
 The stauding committee on theological 
 seminaries to whom were referred certain 
 overtures respecting the Kev. Charles A. 
 Briggs, D. D., beg leave respectfully 
 to report that tliey have examined the same 
 and find that sixty-three presbyteries, to- 
 wit, the presbyteries of Allegheny, Balti- 
 more, Butler. Cairo, Carlisle, Cherokee Na- 
 tion, Chester, Cincinnati, Clarion, Colum- 
 bus, Crawfordsville, Dayton, Dubuque, 
 Duluth, P3bene/,er, Freeport, Grand Kapids, 
 Hastings, llolston, Huron, Iowa, Iowa ('ity, 
 Los Angeles, Lackawanna, I^a Crosse. 
 Marion, Mauniee, Monmouth, Nebraska 
 City, Xeoslio, New Bnmswick, New Castle, 
 North River, Northumberland, Osborne, 
 ( >/.ark, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Central, 
 I'liiladelphia North, Redstone, Pittsburg, 
 Portsmouth, Pueblo, Puget Sound, St. 
 Chiirsville, St. Louis, Shenango, Solomon, 
 South Florida, Sprluglield, Steubenville, 
 Transylvania, Trinity, I'nion, Utah, Vin- 
 < cnne.s, Walla Walla, Washington City, 
 West .Jersey, White Water. Willa- 
 iiii'tte, Winona and Wood River, 
 have overtured the General Assembly in 
 reference to the utterances of the Rev. Dr. 
 
 Briggs, contained in the address which he 
 delivered on the occasion of his induction 
 into the chair of Biblical theology in the 
 Union Theological Seminary, New York. 
 Some of the presbyteries recommend specific 
 action on the part of the Assembly, but the 
 majority of them ask in general terms that 
 the General Assembly take such action as, 
 in its wisdom, it may deem best. 
 
 Inasmuch as the thetjlogicai training of 
 our candidates for the ministry is a matter 
 in which all the presbyteries have a deep 
 and common interest, the presbyteries 
 aforesaid are to be commended for their 
 vigilant regard for the purity of the church, 
 and their overtures should have weight 
 with the Assembly in taking action upon a 
 matter which would, in any event, have 
 come to the knowledge of the A.ssembly 
 through the report of the directors of 
 Union Theological Seminary to the general 
 as.sembly. The present report of your com- 
 mittee is also a report on so much of the re- 
 port of the directors of the Union Theological 
 Seminary as refers to the ajipointment of 
 Dr. Briggs to the diair of Bil)lical tlieology 
 in the siiid seminary. It appears from that 
 
report that "on th^ 11th of November? 18^0, 
 the Edward Robiason Professorship of 
 Biblical Theology was founded and endowed 
 by Charles Butler, LL. D., by the gift of 
 SlOOjOOO;" and that "at the same time Prof. 
 Charles A. Briggs, D. D. was transferred to 
 the new chair from the Davenport Profes- 
 sorship of Hebrew and the Cognate 
 languages." On the 20th of January, 1891, 
 Dr. Briggs delivered an inaugural address 
 on "The Authority of Holy Scripture," 
 which has been the subject of severe criti- 
 cism, and which is the occasion of the recom- 
 mendations which your committee feel con- 
 strained to make to the Assembly. In mak- 
 ing these recommendations your com- 
 mittee feel that they are acting in the 
 discharge of a difficult and delicate 
 duty. The matter with which they have 
 been called to deal bears in a very important 
 way upon the purity and peace of our 
 church. The interests of the Union Theo- 
 logical Seminary should be most carefully 
 considered, and great regard should be had 
 for the judgment of those who, as directors 
 and as members of its faculty, are admin- 
 istering its affairs. The committee feel, 
 moreover, that while the Assembly has not 
 been officially informed that the presbytery 
 of New York has taken steps that look 
 toward a prosecution of Dr. Briggs on the 
 charge of heresy, this well-known fact 
 should be so far recognized as to secure 
 from the Assembly the protection of the 
 good name of Dr. Briggs in the discussion 
 of the question that will come before the 
 Assembly through this report, and also to 
 prevent any expression of opinion on the 
 part of this Assembly that could be justly 
 regarded as a prejudgment of the case that 
 will soon, as it now appears, assume the 
 form of a judicial process in the presbytery 
 of New York. It cannot be too carefully ob- 
 served that the question before this Assembly 
 is not whether Dr. Briggs, as a Presbyterian 
 minister, has so far contravened the teach- 
 ings of the Westminster confession of faith 
 as to have made himself liable to judicial 
 
 censure; but whether, in view of the iitter- 
 ances contained in the inaugural address 
 already referred to, and the disturbing effect 
 which they have produced throughout the 
 church, the election of Dr. Briggs to the 
 chair of biblical theology in the Union 
 Theological Seminary should be disap- 
 proved. 
 
 Your committee have examined the law 
 of the church regarding the relation of the 
 General Assembly to the theological semi- 
 naries under its care. The relation of the 
 Assembly to the Union Theological Semi- 
 nary, so far as the appointment of pro- 
 fessors is concerned, is embodied in the fol- 
 lowing statement, taken from page 390, of 
 the new digest : 
 
 "1. That the board of directors of each 
 theological seminary shall be authorized to 
 appoint all professors for the same. 
 
 "3. That all such appointments shall be 
 reported to the General Assemblj% and no 
 appointment of a professor shall be consid- 
 ered as a complete election if disapproved 
 by a majority vote of the assembly. 
 
 "And further, be it resolved, That the 
 board of directors of the Union Theological 
 Seminary in the City of New York, per- 
 suaded that the plan proposed in the memo- 
 rial will meet the cordial approval of the 
 patrons, donors and friends of all these 
 seminaries, and contribute to the peace and 
 prosperity of the church, do hereby agree, 
 if the said plan shall be adopted by the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, that they will agree to con- 
 form to the same, the Union Theological 
 Seminary in New York being in this respect 
 on the same ground with other theological 
 seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. — 
 [1870, pp. 148-14!*.] 
 
 "The Assembly complied with this re- 
 quest." — [See Minutes, pp. 60-64.] 
 
 On page 39T of the new digest there is the 
 following statement respecting the "limita- 
 tions of time within which the Assembly 
 may exercise its veto in the election of a 
 professor:" 
 
 "That the Assemblv declare that the true 
 
meaning of the act subjecting the election 
 of a professor to the veto of the Assembly is 
 that such election be reported to the next 
 General Assembly thereafter, and if not 
 vetoed by that Assembly the election shall 
 be regarded as complete according to the 
 plan ratified by the assembly of 1H70." — [See 
 Minutes, pp. (K)-(j5, 18TH; 1871, p. 581. | 
 
 It appears, then, that according to the 
 terms of the contract quoted above, the 
 directors of the Union Theological Semi- 
 nary have conceded to the Assembly the 
 right to veto the appointment of professors; 
 and that an election is complete unless 
 vetoed by the next Assembly following the 
 election. 
 
 Your committee would have been dis- 
 posed to recommend that the report of the 
 directors of the Union Theological Seminary, 
 so far as it has reference to the transfer of 
 Dr. Hriggs to the chair of bibilical theology, 
 be referred to the next Assembly, if such a 
 disi)osition of the matter had been possible. 
 But the Assembly has clearly no power to 
 postpone action. The control of the church 
 over the election of Dr. Briggs ceases with 
 the dissolution of the present Assembly. 
 Your committee are constrained, therefore, 
 to say that, in their judgment, it is the duty 
 of the Assembly to disapprove of the ap- 
 pointment of Dr. Briggs to the Edward I 
 Kobinson chair of biblical tlieology in the ! 
 Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 Your committee desire to say, moreover, 
 that while they are clear in their judgment 
 that the assembly has the right to veto the 
 appointment of Dr. Briggs to the chair of . 
 Biblical Theology, it is possible to impose a 
 meaning upon tlie apparently unambiguous i 
 phraseology of the compact between the 
 tieneral ^Vssembly and the directors of tlie 
 Union Theological Seminary that would 
 lead to a di tic rent conclusion. Fairness al- 
 so requires us to rememl)er|that the Assem- 
 bly is one of the i)arties to the contract that 
 it is called upon to construe. While your 
 committee are of the opinion that the com- 
 pact in (juestion, did not contemplate tlie 
 
 dLstinction between the election of a person 
 to be a professor and the appointment of 
 one already a professor to the work of ;i cer- 
 tain department of instruction, it cannot be 
 denied that such a distinction exists; the 
 one act conferring ataluti; the other only as- 
 signing duties. 
 
 The seemingly irregular cour.se of the di- 
 rectors of the Union Tlieological Seminarj* 
 whereby Dr. Briggs was inducted into of- 
 fice before the Asseml)ly had been advised of 
 his appointment, is doubtless to be attrib- 
 uted to their mode of construing their com- 
 pact with the (Jeneral As.sembly. While your 
 committee are sure that the Assembly will 
 not and should not admit that its right of 
 disapproval, is restricted to the original 
 election of a person to a place in the faculty 
 of the Union Theological Seminary, and 
 while they are of the opinion that acting 
 according to the light it now lias the Assem- 
 bly cannot but disappi'ove of the appointment 
 of Dr. Briggs to the professor.ship of Bib- 
 lical theology in that seminary, they are 
 nevertheless of the opinion that in the in- 
 terest of the mutual relations of confidence 
 and cordial resjiect subsisting between the 
 Union Theological Seminary and the (ien- 
 eral Assemblj-, it would be eminently proper 
 for the Assembly to appoint a committee to 
 confer with the directors of the Union Theo- 
 logical Seminary in reganl to the relations 
 of the said seminary to the (ieneral Assem- 
 bly, and to report to the next (Ieneral As- 
 seml)ly. 
 
 Your ccjmmittee recommend the adoption 
 of the following resolutions: 
 
 1. llixiilvi.il. That ill the exercise of its rinht to 
 veto till' appointnieiil of professors in the Union 
 Theological .Seminary the (ieneral .Vsseinbly 
 hereby disapiiroves of llie ajjpoinlineut of tlie 
 Hev. rharles A. Mrik'iis, 1). D.. to the Kdward 
 Kobinson professorship of Hiblical theoloK^" in 
 that seminary by transfer from another cbuir in 
 llie same seminary. 
 
 '^.RisDlvtil, That a eonuuittec consistint; of 
 eit;bt ministers and seven rnliuk' elders be ap- 
 I)ointed by this .Vsseml)ly to confer with tin- 
 directors of the Inion Tlio ilou'ical Seminary in 
 reuard to tlie relations of the said seminary to 
 the (ieneral .Vssembly, and to repi>rt lo the ne.\t 
 (ieucral .Assembly. 
 
 Resjiect fully submitted. 
 
 KH.VNt'IS L. I'VTTOV, Chairmau. 
 
- -*-i^L:-:f7,-_ KLZ^/1 
 
 Date Due 
 
iiiiiiiiiii