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

By 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 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 new trial. Before the new presbytery trial, Union’s board met and rescinded the Assembly’s right to veto faculty appointments and ended the 1870 agreement that gave the Presbyterian Church oversight of Union.[3] When the Presbytery of New York convened in November of 1892, it received the amended charges that had increased in number from two to eight. The trial took place in December and the presbytery acquitted Briggs of all charges.[4]

The prosecuting minority appealed the presbytery’s decision to the 1893 General Assembly that met in Washington, D.C. The judicatory was informed of the Union Board of Directors’ decision to terminate the 1870 agreement regarding the Assembly’s powers over the seminary. Both sides in the controversy presented their cases and considerable time was used debating the issues until the vote was taken by roll call late in the evening of May 31. The prosecution had made its case and won the vote: Dr. Briggs was convicted of heresy and then suspended from the ministry in a later General Assembly action.[5] Those holding to the infallible, inerrant, and verbally inspired nature of Scripture had won the initial battle of the war on higher criticism.

I. Introduction to the Transcription of Dr. Warfield’s Manuscript

In 1892, according to a note inscribed in red ink by B. B. Warfield at the top of the manuscript, he informs the reader that the text was composed at Dr. W. H. Green’s request so that he could take it to the impending General Assembly as an expression of Warfield’s views on the Briggs case.[6] Dr. Green was not able to go due to illness, so the document was then given to Dr. R. M. Patterson to take to the Portland, Oregon, meeting of the General Assembly. Dr. Patterson is listed among the attendees, and he served on the Bills and Overtures Committee.[7] There is no evidence in the published General Assembly minutes of Dr. Warfield’s manuscript being used or adopted by the Assembly. At a later date, Professor Warfield gave the manuscript to Dr. Lamar to assist him with his work as a member of the Briggs prosecuting committee. This manuscript is believed to be the only writing by Dr. Warfield that specifically speaks to the trial of C. A. Briggs other than the comments he wrote in the Presbyterian and Reformed Review regarding the 1891 and 1892 meetings of the General Assembly.

The following transcription is taken from the sixteen-sheet manuscript, which is on brittle and deteriorating paper with each sheet measuring 7 1/2 inches by 10 1/2 inches. The manuscript appears to have been composed in a hurry, so inconsistencies of style, punctuation, and construction have been retained to reflect the rough form of the text. Professor Warfield’s use of both single and double underlining as well as his striking through and replacing words have been repeated in the transcript. An advantage of keeping the transcription as close to the original as possible is that it gives the reader a small insight into the thought processes of Dr. Warfield. Brackets have been used when the transcription of a word was uncertain or when damaged text excluded the complete transcription of the words. In a few cases, the sense and meaning of some statements in the manuscript is cryptic, but this is the nature of the rough form of the text. A few clarification comments have been included in the footnotes to assist the reader’s understanding.

II. Warfield Transcription

Proposed paper for the General Assembly to pass in re Dr. Briggs. 

Drawn up May 7th for Dr. Green by B. B. Warfield[8]

This Assembly would not adequately discharge its pastoral office if it failed to note, and to warn the Churches under its care against, certain unguarded[9] doctrinal utterances which have during the past year disturbed the peace of the Church and aroused grave fear lest some who are set to be pastors and teachers among us, may not adequately apprehend the system of doctrine which this church sets forth in her standards as the pure truth of God delivered in His Word, or may not seriously consider the nature of the obligation towards these standards of doctrine under which they voluntarily came when they “sincerely received and adopted the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.” It is the glory of this Church to guard the reasonable liberty of its pastors and teachers in thought and speech, with extreme jealousy; but this Assembly solemnly warns all those under its jurisdiction, not to permit this reasonable liberty to pass into a license, miscalled liberty, which may seek to emancipate itself from the. .. [line of manuscript severely damaged and illegible]. .. or the obligations of conscience.

In particular this Assembly would not adequately fulfill the duty laid upon it by the

Form of Government

ch. XII. Sect. V, “of reproving, warning, or bearing testimony against error in doctrine. .. in any church, presbytery, or synod,” did it not without further delay solemnly bear its testimony against certain errors of doctrine contained in and promulgated by a discourse delivered by the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., on the occasion of his inauguration to the Edward Robinson Professorship of Biblical Theology, at the Union Theological Seminary at New York. In view of the fact that the General Assembly, on the 29th day of May 1891 resolved, “That in the exercise of its right to veto the appointment of professors in the Union Theological Seminary, it hereby disapproves of the appointment of the Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., to the Edward Robinson Professorship of Biblical Theology in that seminary, by transfer from another chair in the same seminary”; and in view of the fact that not only has this disapproval been disregarded and the said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in despite of it, continued to discharge the functions of the said professorship. But the said Rev. C. A. Briggs D.D., has also persevered in circulating the above mentioned inaugural address, and is republishing its teachings in oral addresses and printed articles and books; this Assembly is constrained by the duty it owes to the churches under its watch and care, solemnly to testify against a series of doctrines announced in the said inaugural address and in other writings of the said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., or in the judgment of this Assembly contrary to the Scriptures and to the doctrinal standards of this church. Wherefore this Assembly condemns him and warns all those who hold office within the bounds of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against circulating them. For the further protection of the churches under its charge, this Assembly made specific mention of the following erroneous teachings of the said inaugural address and other writings of the said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., as errors of the class mentioned in the

Book of Discipline

ch. VI. sect, iv, which “strike at the vitals of religion,” to wit: their erroneous teachings as to the necessity and the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, as to the original state of man, as to the state of man after death, and as set forth in the following exhibit:—

I. Of the Holy Scripture

The said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in the said inaugural address and other writings, teaches a doctrine of Holy Scripture contrary to and inconsistent with the doctrine taught in the standards of this Church and in the scriptures on which the said standards are founded, as is partly exhibited in the proof-texts adjoined thereunto; to wit:—

1. The said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., contrary to and inconsistently with the doctrine of this church concerning the necessity of the revealed will of God declared in the Scriptures, teaches that the forms of the reason may also savingly enlighten men, (A) not only when they are entirely ignorant of the revealed will of God declared in the Holy Scriptures, but also (B), even when they know and reject both the Holy Scriptures as the authoritative proclamation of the will of God, and the one only way of salvation through the mediation and sacrifice of the Son of God, which is revealed therein.

(A) “Another means used by God to make Himself known is the forms of the Reason, using Reason in a broad sense to embrace the metaphysical categories, the conscience and the religious feeling. Here, in the Holy of Holies of human nature, God presents Himself to those who seek Him.. .. There are few who are able to rise by reflection into the higher consciousness of God.. .. Such men have appeared in all ages of the world” (Inaugural Address, p. 26). “Unless God’s authority is discerned in the forms of the Reason, there is no ground upon which any of the heathen could ever have been saved, for they know nothing of the Bible or Church. If they are not savingly enlightened by the Light of the Word in the forms of the Reason, the whole heathen world is lost forever” (Inaugural Address, 2nd Ed. pp. 88-89).

(B) “Martineau could not find divine authority in the Church or the Bible, but he did find God enthroned in his own soul. There are those who would refuse these Rationalists a place in the company of the faithful” (Inaugural Address, p. 27). “Men are influenced by their temperaments and environments[10] which of the three ways of access to God they may pursue” (Do p. 28).[11] “If it be heresy to say that rationalists like Martineau have found God in the reason, and Roman Catholics like Newman have found God in the Church, I rejoice in such heresy, and I do not hesitate to say that I have less doubt of the salvation of Martineau or Newman than I have of the Modern Pharisees who would exclude such noble men—so pure, so proud, the ornaments of Great Britain and the prophets of the age,—from the Kingdom of God” (New York Herald, May 11th, 1891).

All which is contradictory to the doctrine of the Scriptures as set forth in the standards of this Church, or of the necessity of God’s revealed will for salvation; as follows:—

(A) “Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will which is necessary unto salvation. .. Which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary” (Confession of Faith I. 1. (Compare C. of F. X. 4).—”The very light of nature in many of the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only, do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their Salvation.”— Larger Catechism . Q. 2.—”The word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.”— Shorter Catechism. Q. 2.—”They who having never heard the Gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the laws of that religion which they profess: neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Savior only of his body the Church.”— Larger Catechism. Q. 60.

(B) “Much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be said in any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious and to be detested.” Confession of Faith. X. iv. (Cf. Larger Catechism Q. 2 and Q. 60., Shorter Catechism. Q. 2. given above).

2. The said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., contrary to and inconsistently with the doctrine of this church concerning the plenary inspiration, infallible truth and divine authority of Holy Scripture as the Word of God, teaches (A) that the Biblical books are not throughout inspired, and not only that (B) they are not free from errors, even in their original documents, but also that (C) many of the statements of fact therein contained are not true, portions of their histories are unhistorical and much of their prediction has not been and cannot be fulfilled.

(A) “The time has come when the shibboleth of the older apologetic, ‘The Bible is the Word of God,’ was against—’The Bible contains the Word of God’ should be abandoned.” “Hence the author is correct in his statement. .. ‘But in the higher or more distinctly religious meaning of the word, it is not the biblical books throughout,—it is only the Word of God which is in the Biblical books,—that can be spoken of as inspired (p. 372). Whatever does not belong to that divine organism is purely, formal and circumstantial and not inspired”—(The Presbyterian Review for 1884, pp. 381, 384).—”It may be that this providential superintendence gives infallible guidance in every particular; and it may be that it differs but little, if at all, from the providential superintendence of the fathers and schoolmen and theologians of the Christian Church.”—(Inaugural Address, p. 35). “Our ordination statement binds us to the infallibility of Holy Scripture in all matters of faith and practice.. .. But it does not bind us to the infallibility of any statement of Holy Scripture that is outside the range of faith and practice.”—(The Bible, the Church and the Reason, p. 92).—”It is the shibboleth of some modern writers that the Scriptures are the word of God.”—(Do., p. 100).

(B) “It is sheer assumption to claim that the original documents were inerrant. No one can be persuaded to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, except by a priori considerations from the elaboration of the doctrine of verbal inspiration.” (Whither?, p. 68).—”It seems to me that no candid mind without invincible dogmatic preconceptions prepossessions, can doubt that there is an error of citation in Matt, xxvii. 9, that goes back to the original autographs”—(Whither?, p. 72) “I shall venture to affirm that so far as I can see, there are errors in the Scriptures that no one has been able to explain away; and the theory that they were not in the original text is sheer assumption, upon which no mind can rest with certainty. If such errors destroy the authority of the Bible, it is already destroyed for historians”—(Inaugural Address, p. 35). “In Biblical Study and Whither? I limited myself to two errors of citation.. .. Conservative men shall hesitate before they force the entries in self-defense to make a catalogue of errors in the Bible” (Do. 2nd Ed. p. 95). “They knew that there were errors of citation and of chronology and of geographical statement in the text of Scripture”—(The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, p. 96).—”In every department of Biblical study we come upon errors.” (Do. p. 105).—”Yes, there are errors. There is no doubt about that.. .. It is altogether probable that they were also in the original autographs”—(Do. p. 115). (C) “We recognize that there are errors in Holy Scripture, in science, in geography, and in history, as well as in the sacred books of the East. We admit that there are crude conceptions and gross immoralities recorded in the lower stages of divine revelation in the Old Testament. We acknowledge that the writers of Holy Scripture were in a measure influenced by the religious ideas of the religions with which they were brought into contact.. .. If in these respects our Holy Scriptures show in a measure the defects of the sacred books of the East, we should cease our polemic against these books, lest the same unreasonable polemic should be made against Holy Scripture by the adherents of these other religions.”—(The Bible, the Church and the Reason, p. 72-73).—”There are many histories which are as truthful as the histories given in the Bible. There are many ancient histories, not in our Bible, which compare favorably with the Chronicler.”—(Do. p. 206).—”Many of these predictions of the Old Testament have been reversed by history. The great body of the Messianic prediction has not only never been fulfilled, but cannot now be fulfilled, for the reason that its own time has passed for ever” (Inaugural Address, p. 38).

 All which is contradictory to the doctrine of this church the Scriptures as set forth in the standards of this Church, as follows:—

(A) “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments,. .. All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.”—(Confession of Faith, I.ii.)—”The Old Testament in Hebrew. .. and the New Testament in Greek,. .. being individually immediately inspired by God.”—(Do. I. viii.) “The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God.”—(Larger Catechism, Q. 3). “The Scriptures. .. are the very word of God.” (Do. Q. 4). (B) [a few missing words due to damage]. .. “God, (who is truth itself) the author thereof.”—Confession of Faith I. iv.—”The infallible truth. .. thereof”—(Do. I. v.)—”A Christian man believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God speaking therein”—(Do. XIV ii.)

II. Of the Original State of Man

The said Rev. G. A. Briggs, D.D., in the said inaugural address, teaches a doctrine of the original state of man contrary to and inconsistent with the doctrine taught in the standards of this Church and in the Scriptures on which the said standards are founded.—to wit:—

The said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., contrary to and inconsistently with the doctrine of this Church concerning the original state of man, teaches that man was created without positive righteousness and holiness, and only innocent and sinless.

“Protestant theologians have exaggerated the original righteousness. .. the original man was innocent and sinless, but not possessed of that righteous and moral excellence that comes only by discipline and heavenly training.”—(Inaugural Address, p. 50.)

Which is contradictory to the doctrine of the Scripture as set forth in the standards of this Church, as to the original righteousness and holiness of man; as follows:—

“God. .. created man. .. endued with knowledge, righteousness and true holiness”—Confession of Faith IV ii:—”After God had created all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.” (Larger Catechism, Q. 17.—Cf. Shorter Catechism Q. 10)[12]

III. Of the State of Man after Death

1. The said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in the appendix to the second edition of the said inaugural address and in other writings teaches a doctrine of the state of man after death, contrary to and inconsistent with the doctrine taught in the Standards of this Church, and in the Scriptures on which the said Standards are founded; to wit:—

The said Rev. C. A. Briggs, D.D., contrary to and inconsistently with the doctrine of this Church concerning the state of man after death, teaches that the souls of believers are not at their death made perfect in holiness but enter the middle state imperfectly purified and in order to be cleansed from remainders of sin. “The Intermediate State is therefore for all believers without exception a state for their sanctification. They are there trained in the school of Christ, and are prepared for the Christian perfection which they must attain—ere the judgment day”—(Inaugural Address, 2nd ed., p. 101). “Sanctification has two sides—a negative and a positive—mortification and vivification; the former is manward, the latter is Godward. Believers who enter the Middle State, enter guiltless;. .. But they are still the same persons, with all the gifts and graces and also the same[13] habits of mind, disposition, and temper they had when they left the world. Death destroys the body. It does not change the moral and religious nature of man. It is unpsychological and unethical to suppose that the character of the disembodied spirit will all be changed in the moment of death.. .. Sin, as our Savior teaches, has its source in the heart—in the higher and immortal part of man. It is the work of sanctification to overcome sin in the higher nature. We may justly hold that the evil that may linger in the higher moral nature of believers after death will be suppressed and mortified with an energy of humiliation, confession, repentance, and determination that will be more powerful than ever before, as the redeemed man strives with all his might to be well-pleasing to Christ.” (Do. pp. 107-108).[14]

Which is contradictory to the doctrine of the Scriptures as set forth in the standards of this Church as to the state of believers immediately after death, as follows:

“The Souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness.”—Shorter Catechism, Q. 37.—”The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness”—Larger Catechism, Q. 86.—”After death. .. the souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness”—Confession of Faith xxxii.i.

2. The said Rev. C. A. Briggs D.D. contrary to and inconsistent with the doctrine of this Church concerning the sate of man after death, teaches that all the conscious operations of grace may be and are experienced by men after death, so that the faithful is presented in the next world not only to those who die in infancy and other incapables, but also to many who die heathen, and they may and do then receive it with justifying faith, and are justified and sanctified.

“Another fault of the Protestant theology is in its limitation of the process of redemption to this world, and its neglect of those vast periods of time which have elapsed for most men in the Middle State between death and resurrection. .. we look with hope and joy for the continuation of the processes of grace and the wonders of redemption in the company of the blessed, to which the faithful are all hastening.”—(Inaugural Address p. 53-54). “The salvation which is begun here by regeneration, is carried on there. For the vast majority of our race who die in infancy or have lived beyond the range of the means of grace, their salvation begun in this life by regeneration, is carried on in the Intermediate State with the exercise of personal faith in Christ, when they know these for the first. .. not till then are they justified, for there can be no justification without faith for them any more man for others, etc.”—(Magazine of Christian Literature, Dec, 1889, pp. 110, 111.)

 Which is contradictory to the doctrine of the Scriptures, set forth in our standards that justification and sanctification are benefits which the effectually called partake of in this life; as follows:—

“They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which, in this life, do either accompany or flow from them.” Shorter Catechism, Q. 32. (Contrast, Q. 37 which recites the benefits which believers receive at death.) Cf. Larger Catechism, Q. 69, compared with Qs. 83 and 86.[15]

III. Conclusion

The manuscript transcribed here is not particularly profound, of great constitutional technicality, nor theologically deep, but it is simple and to the point. B. B. Warfield expressed his opinion on the heresy case by demonstrating that Professor Briggs had violated his ordination vows by failing to uphold the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. Each of the three points of Briggs’s teaching addressed by Dr. Warfield is refuted with quotes from the Presbyterian Church’s constitutional standards including the Form of Government and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and catechisms. When ministers entered the Presbyterian ministry, they vowed to uphold the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and Warfield believed that his short document showed the fundamental errors of Briggs’s theology by demonstrating his failure to uphold the church’s scripturally deduced secondary standards. At one point in the transcribed manuscript Warfield made a faux pas: he wrote “this church,” which he lined-through and replaced by “the Scriptures.” This exemplifies his concern that the source of Presbyterian theology was not the church but the Word of God as interpreted by the Presbyterian constitutional sources. According to Warfield, Briggs’s errors were clear and contrary to the accepted doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, and although Warfield’s views expressed in this document were brief and simple, they were sufficient for conviction. For Warfield, it was the responsibility of the Presbyterian Church’s General Assembly to deal with Dr. Briggs in an expedient manner and to hold him to his ordination vows.

One of B. B. Warfield’s associates, Dr. John DeWitt, commented that, if C. A. Briggs was in error, why did the Presbyterian Church wait until 1892 to confront him regarding his views? His interpretations were not recent developments and his understanding of infallibility and rejection of plenary inspiration had been taught to seminary students for several years.[16] Professor DeWitt’s question is relevant to other controversial issues that have occurred in the Presbyterian Church over the years. It is not only an injustice to the one brought to trial, but to those who have been influenced by the errant teachings to allow the continued instruction of false doctrine. Maybe this is a portion of what Dr. Warfield wanted posterity to understand concerning the Briggs case. The controversy over the doctrine of Scripture would not end with Dr. Briggs but would become the foundational issue for the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the early twentieth century, as well as feed the flames of controversy and division through successive decades and into the contemporary scene.

When B. B. Warfield was inaugurated to the chair of New Testament Exegesis and Literature at Western Seminary in 1880, his inaugural address spoke to the verbal inspiration of Scripture and the influences of higher criticism. The question he proposed to answer was, “Is the church doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the New Testament endangered by the assured results of modern Biblical criticism?” In his development, he contended that the preservation of plenary inspiration is essential for believing the Scriptures reliable. This speech established that the doctrine of Scripture would be one of his continuing and most addressed issues in his corpus. The doctrine of Scripture, as developed in the Westminster Standards, was essential to his critique of Charles Briggs’s views.[17] As B. B. Warfield confronted the views of C. A. Briggs, he once again returned to the subject of his inaugural lecture at Western Seminary and confirmed that the results of modern Biblical criticism could contribute to denying the plenary inspiration of Scripture.

Notes

1. C. A. Briggs, The Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York (New York: Printed for the Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1891), this is the first edition of the speech; see also, Briggs, The Authority of Holy Scripture, An Inaugural Address (2d ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), which has additional material.
2. Max G. Rogers, “Charles Augustus Briggs,” in Dictionary of Heresy Trials in American Christianity (ed. George H. Shriver; Westport: Greenwood Press, 1997), 49.
3. Rogers, Heresy Trials, 51; this action was presented to the General Assembly as part of its annual report, Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (New Series 16; 105th General Assembly; New York: Presbyterian Board of Publication/Philadelphia: Office of the General Assembly, 1893), 158.
4. Rogers, Heresy Trials, 51–52, 53.
5. Minutes, 1893, 70–140; pp. 164-65 have the final judgment.
6. William Henry Green (1825–1900) was Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary and the retiring moderator. He began teaching in 1851 and continued on the faculty until his death. See Richard B. Gaffin, “Green, William Henry (1825–1900),” in Dictionary of the Presbyterian and Reformed Tradition in America (ed. D. G. Hart and Mark A. Noll; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999).
7. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (New Series 15; 104th General Assembly; New York: Presbyterian Board of Publication/Philadelphia: Office of the General Assembly, 1892), 8, 13. Robert Mayne Patterson was a member of the Chester Presbytery of the Synod of Pennsylvania.
8. The manuscript is item 6, in vol. 2, of B. B. Warfield’s four volume set of materials on the Briggs case. These volumes are designated SCC# 2429 and are available at the Princeton Theological Seminary Luce Library Archives. The manuscript is used by the permission of Robert Benedetto, Director of Archives and Special Collections.
9. The use of “unguarded” here is based on the transcriber’s belief that Warfield’s penned “ungaurded” was an error and he intended “unguarded.”
10. The sentence would be clearer with “as to” inserted between “environments” and “which.”
11. 11 “Do” is a nineteenth-century equivalent of the modern “ibid.”
12. In the original manuscript Dr. Warfield used a portion of the answer to question 17, but since some of his quotation has been lost due to damage, the whole of the answer to question 17 has been given here.
13. At this point in the margin of the manuscript Dr. Warfield wrote: In Mag. of Christian Literature. Dec. 1889, p. 114: “Evil.”
14. At this point in the margin of the manuscript is written: “N.B. In Dr. Briggs’ Response to the Charges, re. p. 15, he denies, not that he has taught that the redeemed enter the Middle State sinful, but not he has taught that they enter it guilty and sinful.”
15. The ending is abrupt, but the last line of the manuscript is followed by about one-third sheet of blank paper, so it appears that this is how he ended his thoughts.
16. John DeWitt, “The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 15 (July 1893): 470-76.
17. Discourses Occasioned by the Inauguration of Benj. B. Warfield, D.D. to the Chair of New Testament Exegesis and Literature, in Western Theological Seminary, Delivered on the Evening of Tuesday, April 20th, 1880, in the North Presbyterian Church, Allegheny, Pa. (Pittsburgh: Nevin Brothers, 1880).