years.

He had shown there wide learning and unusual teaching power. He had great influence in the denomination and beyond its limits as a scholar and thinker. He was universally regarded as a pious and earnest man. The directors of Union, in appointing him to their new chair, expressed their hearty approval of his past services; moreover, his appointment was believed by them to be, because a transfer, not subject to the Assembly's veto.

Secondly, the nature of the ideas put forth in the inaugural. These were for the most part of a historical, not dogmatic character, the avowed results of exegetical and critical studies. Dr. Briggs professes and is admitted by all to be familiar with recent research into the Scriptures. He claims that modern evangelical scholarship has found certain things in the Bible which show that the statements about it made by some Presbyterians need correction, although not showing error in the Presbyterian estimate of its value. He claims that in the interests of truth the correction should be made, and that making it will greatly increase the influence of the Bible. True, other affirmations were made in the inaugural, dogmatic ones, but these were subordinate and incidental, so that a condemnation of the doctrine of the inaugural would be more than anything else a condemnation of this affirmation about the Bible.

Thirdly, the feeling roused by the inaugural. The address had caused much disturbance in the church. Sixty-five presbyteries sent memorials to the General Assembly, asking that it be taken into consideration by that body. Dr. Briggs had been put on trial for heresy before his own presbytery.

Fourthly, the indeterminate condition of the creed. The doctrinal standard of American Presbyterianism is undergoing revision. The amendments suggested by the Revision Committee are to be reconsidered by the presbyteries, and afterwards to come before the General Assembly for final approval.

Fifthly, the quiescence, up to the late meeting, of the General Assembly's veto power. No appointment of a theological seminary had been vetoed from the beginning of the compact between the Assembly and the seminaries, in 1870.

These circumstances evidently created a necessity that action of the Assembly so condemning Dr. Briggs's ideas as to express the Assembly's conviction should be taken deliberately, and under a clear understanding of his utterances and of their relation to the doctrines enunciated in the Westminster Confession. The Assembly, regarded as the great representative body and supreme judicial tribunal of the Presbyterian Church, has, we are sure, a profound respect for the character and learning of Professor Briggs. It respects the Union directors, both in their opinion of Dr. Briggs's services, and their belief that their action transferring him from one chair to another is not amenable to the Assembly's jurisdiction. It knows the seriousness and integrity of modern

Biblical scholarship, and is well aware that the concurring judgment of the great majority of modern Biblical scholars in such opinions about the phenomena of the Bible as Dr. Briggs expresses makes a weighty testimony in their favor. It knows that the existing prejudice against Professor Briggs created by a recent utterance is an important reason for acting in his case with scrupulous care for justice. It must feel the necessity of caution in condemning any Presbyterian's belief at a time when the creed is in an unsettled state, and when, therefore, no Presbyterian can know just what he is required to believe. It must feel that its use of ત veto not as yet used, though possessed for twenty years,

is an act of a startling kind, demanding well-considered reasons, - if done on doctrinal grounds, clear conception of the exact relation of the doctrine so rebuked to the creed. We are sure, therefore, that only careful, mature, well-reasoned action in this case, could really represent the General Assembly. Should it take action of a different and inferior character, we should refuse to regard this as really expressing its mind. The case would be as if some calm, wise man were to do a weak, petulant thing. We should refuse to regard it as standing for the man, and ascribe it to some unhappy impulse which had for a moment mastered his judgment.

How did the Assembly act in the case of Professor Briggs? Did it take pains to set accurately before itself the views enunciated in his inaugural, and to weigh carefully their relation to the correlated doctrines of the creed? No, it did not examine his doctrines. It accepted and adopted a report recommending that his appointment be vetoed, and giving no reason for the course recommended, save such as might be implied in the fact that Dr. Briggs had delivered an inaugural address which was "the subject of some criticism." It condemned for its action was a condemnation a faithful and pious teacher of the Bible, without taking the pains to see what his offense was.

Of course individual members of the Assembly had read the inaugural. It had been discussed in many of the presbyteries. But the Assembly as a body, the mightiest body of the Presbyterian Church, having the largest powers and the heaviest responsibilities, the supreme Presbyterian tribunal, was bound to have a knowledge of its own upon which to act in a case deciding upon the orthodoxy of a Presbyterian teacher. That knowledge it did not get. The Assembly did not even inquire what the inaugural taught, much less whether its teaching were contrary to its creed. It took the responsibility of declaring one of its foremost teachers, one who had just affirmed belief in the creed, doctrinally unfit to teach in a Presbyterian seminary, for its action amounts to just this declaration, without saying, or even asking, what doctrine he held. It declared that such Biblical scholarship as he represents cannot be tolerated in a Presbyterian seminary, without asking what the doctrinal bearing of this scholarship is. And it took this action when the unsettled state of its own creed created a special reason for

care in disciplinary action under that symbol. This thing was done by the Presbyterian Assembly, but it surely does not represent that body; it does not have the doctrinal significance which an affirmation serious enough to express the Assembly's conviction would have. The Assembly acted impulsively. It was evidently under a strong prejudice against Dr. Briggs's teaching, so strong as to make it forget even the judicial proprieties of the case.

It does not belong to our discussion to point out the causes of the unjudicial temper of the Assembly, except, perhaps, such as were plainly at work in the late meeting securing the action. One of these we think it right to show, because seeing it helps one to distinguish between the deed of the Assembly and the character of that body. This is the advocacy of President Patton, "the adroit ecclesiastic," as Dr. Prentice calls him in the "Evangelist" of June 11. The speech delivered by Dr. Patton in defense of the report of the committee of which he was chairman contains skillful and specious arguments, which may well have concealed from many of the Assembly the real nature of the step which they were urged and perhaps disposed to take. Such an argument is the plea that members who did not approve of Professor Briggs's ideas were in duty bound to vote for the veto. It is one thing to look on sorrowfully and express regret for a condition of things in regard to which you feel no responsibility, and in respect of which, therefore, you are not called upon to take action. It is another thing when that same condition of things comes before you and appears at the bar of your conscience in such a sense that for you neglect is to be particeps criminis. That is the point. Now we are in just that position. . . . We are here, the presbyteries have sent us here, and the report of Union Theological Seminary has brought this question right up to the bar of every man's conscience, and you cannot evade it, and you dare not avoid it. . . . For us not to express technical disapproval is to express technical approval."

This is very plausible. But a vote to confirm would not have been an expression of approval of Dr. Briggs, but of the opinion that under the circumstances it would be better for all parties for the Assembly not to

veto.

One important circumstance was, as Dr. Patton admitted, the shortness of the time required for consideration. Why not defer action until the matter can be thoroughly considered? Because, says Dr. Patton, if we do not act now we shall very likely lose the veto in this case. Probably it lapses with this meeting. It is now or never. Very well, it might be replied by an honest opponent of Briggs, I will not act unjudicially lest by refusing to do so I lose the power of acting at all. I will refuse to veto in haste, for the act, if done at all, should be done calmly and deliberately. This would not be "technical approval." Besides, the power of expressing disapproval of Dr. Briggs's views would probably not be lost with the veto. For as Dr. Patton himself says in another part of his speech,

it is highly probable that his orthodoxy will come before the General Assembly in the course of appeal from the decision of his presbytery respecting his soundness in the faith.

The summons to choose between approval and disapproval seems to us, in view of these considerations, to be misleading. Not less so is the argument urged in behalf of the recommendation to veto without giving reasons. "Professor Briggs is on trial for heresy before his own presbytery, and to give doctrinal reasons for vetoing would prejudice his judges in that court," as if a condemnation without alleged reason would not influence their minds, and as if the General Assembly should condemn an accused man without fairly trying his case, in order that he might have a fair trial before his local presbytery.

But further on we find Dr. Patton saying that the fact of Dr. Briggs being arraigned by his presbytery is a reason for the veto. The Assembly, that is, should pronounce his doctrine heretical, because the local presbytery has undertaken to prove it to be such. These do not seem to us to be the arguments of a candid mind. To be sure, Dr. Patton urges that a professor may be so heretical that it is the duty of the General Assembly to veto his appointment to teach in a Presbyterian seminary, while not heretical enough to deserve discipline as a Presbyterian minister. But this is an assertion which needs proof. Does the Assembly insist on any other test of orthodoxy for professors than loyalty to Presbyterian standards? What less than this is required for ministers ?

Dr. Patton, in the latter part of his speech, tried to show that certain affirmations of the inaugural were the utterances of an unorthodox mind. This was unfair, considering that he had not taken, and was asking the Assembly not to take, the responsibility of making a specific charge of heresy. Worse than this was his insinuation against Dr. Briggs's character. It was as follows:

"I say we have done this in the interest of kindness to Dr. Briggs. I would be unwilling for this Assembly to pass a resolution in the very body of which there should be a stigma of a constitutional kind that would affirm that because of Dr. Briggs's idiosyncrasies he should not be a professor in the seminary. Why, a man's idiosyncrasies go with him through life, and I do not know but they go into the middle state, and I am unwilling to say that Dr. Briggs is not fit and should not be a professor in any seminary. No, I am not willing to say that he is unfit to be a professor in Union Seminary."

Here is a prominent and powerful man, who has brought before the Assembly, and is urging the Assembly to adopt, a report recommending that an honored teacher, who is absent, be removed from his post without assigned reasons, and he says, in substance, to the Assembly, it was in kindness to Dr. Briggs that I did not put anything into the report about his personality. So he tries to avail himself of such personal prejudice against Professor Briggs as may lie in the minds of any members of the Assembly, and to give those members excuse for yielding to such preju

dice, at the same time avoiding for himself and them the responsibility of an accusation. And this man in this very speech loudly professes friendship for Professor Briggs. It seems impossible that he should carry into another meeting of the General Assembly so much moral influence as he may have exerted in this one.

Such arguments and suggestions as these, urged by a clever speaker and one holding a high place, could not but be effective with a body which came together fresh from heated controversy, many of its members in sympathy with the doctrinal views and ecclesiastical tendencies of the speaker. The Assembly voted, by a vast majority, to condemn, without asking what it was condemning, and why. In so voting it laid aside its judicial character, notwithstanding it was in the very act claiming judicial powers. For it laid claim to such powers in deciding upon the terms of the compact made in 1870 with Union Seminary. It also assumed them substantially if not formally in its veto. When the Assembly shall resume its true character, its calmer action will indirectly reflect upon, and we hope directly reverse, its late impulsive course.

But not so soon will the influence of the Presbyterian Church, in testifying to Christian truth, recover from the injury it has received at the hands of its great representative body and judicial tribunal.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

A GENERAL VIEW OF MISSIONS. SECOND SERIES.

X. INDIA.

INDIA, as a field of missionary activity, is almost the antipodes of its mighty northern neighbor. China, among great powers, is the most absolutely complete national unity in the world. There are doubtless wide physical, mental, and moral differences between the inhabitants of its different provinces. Especially, there is said to be, as might be supposed, a marked superiority of the northern over the southern Chinese. But all differences are as nothing compared with the absolute unity of the national consciousness. The Middle Kingdom, as it extended northward and southward, absorbing or reabsorbing into itself one after another of the principalities into which early China fell apart, carried with it so complete a sway (the more absolute because prevailing by its intrinsic congruity) of its ethical, literary, civil, social, ceremonial system, that, when it had finally expanded into China, there was seen a form of national life far too entirely mundane, indeed, to be ideally noble, but more completely digested than perhaps any other that has ever existed. There was almost complete unity of race, for the border tribes which have now and again conquered the realm were homogeneous, not heterogeneous, and assimilated themselves without a thought of oppugnancy. Nowhere, then, has any wide social system ever been seen in which every force was so fully correlated to every other, in which there has been so little civil waste. Of higher civilizations there have been many; but surely