Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 66:2 (Fall 2004)
Article: A Manuscript By B. B. Warfield Concerning The Trial Of Charles A. Briggs
Author: Barry G. Waugh

WTJ 66:2 (Fall 2004) p. 401

A Manuscript By B. B. Warfield
Concerning The Trial Of Charles A. Briggs

Barry Waugh

[Barry G. Waugh is an independent historian and graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, Pa., who dedicates this article to Arthur W. Kuschke, Jr., in appreciation for his many years of service to Westminster Seminary.]

As the nineteenth century drew to its concluding years, the influence of the theories of German higher textual criticism was increasing in American seminaries. This growing influence faced opposition by those holding to inerrancy and the plenary inspiration of Scripture. The growing conflict contributed to the prosecution of Charles Augustus Briggs for heresy in the early years of the nineteenth century’s final decade. Dr. Briggs had been teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York since 1874, when he was transferred in 1890 to the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology. Dr. Briggs’s inaugural address was titled “The Authority of Holy Scripture” and was delivered on January 20, 1891. The speech declared that “the reason, the church, and the Bible” were three complementary sources of authoritative, divine guidance for the Christian. His ideas were made more readily available to the public with the publication of his inaugural speech later in 1891, and, as knowledge of his views increased, opposition to his professorship increased as well.1 His threefold view of authoritative revelation was believed, by those opposing Dr. Briggs’s views, to contribute to his denial of the plenary inspiration and infallibility of Scripture.

When the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian Church met in 1891, issues pertinent to Dr. Briggs and Union Seminary came before the judicatory by means of overtures from sixty-three presbyteries. As a result of these overtures, the General Assembly resolved—by a substantial margin—to veto the appointment. Union responded to the Assembly’s decision when its Board of Directors decided to retain Professor Briggs in his new position despite the General Assembly’s veto.2 Division of the opposing sides increased as adjudication progressed.

In the October 1891 meeting of New York Presbytery, Professor Briggs’s opposition pursued their convictions regarding his views and charged him with

WTJ 66:2 (Fall 2004) p. 402

teaching that conflicted with the Westminster Standards and Scripture. Dr. Briggs responded to the charges before his presbytery, which then dismissed the charges. The minority appealed this decision to the 1892 General Assembly, which sustained the appeal and remanded the case to the Presbytery of New York for a ne...