The action of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, held at Washington during the latter part of May, is of such importance that it well merits a notice in these pages. For the question raised was not one which affected the denomination as such, but the whole professing church. It was a question touching the very foundations of Christianity, and therefore the importance of the answer to that question reached out beyond the bounds of the denomination.

It should be a matter of unfeigned and hearty thanksgiving that so clear, unequivocal and decisive a result should have been reached. It was a contest where were ranged on the one side learning, influence, wealth and the prestige of a victory in the Presbytery of New York; on the other side was the conviction that the Word of God was more precious than the best man had to offer, and its integrity, all-sufficiency, and infallibility must be maintained at all costs.

The question came before the General Assembly in the form of an appeal from the minority of the Presbytery where Dr. Briggs had been tried and acquitted, largely with the help of those who, though differing from him, would for the sake of peace, retain him in the church. A very significant feature was the effort of Dr. Briggs to get the assembly to refuse to entertain this appeal. And this point was argued with all the subtlety of a lawyer. The reasons urged were purely technical, and even the adherents of the professor would be forced to admit that he did it merely to gain time. If the appeal were thrown out and the case sent back to the Synod, another year would be gained in which to sow diligently the seeds of infidelity broadcast in the church. But what can be said for the uprightness of one who would thus seek as a man of the world, while admitting the facts of the case-that he held and taught the doctrines as charged-to deliberately prevent, on technical ground, a decision being reached on them? But there was a determination on the part of many that this state of things should continue no longer; and while desiring to be perfectly fair to Professor Briggs they would yield no longer to delay. So the case was brought up for trial

Professor Briggs was charged with holding and teaching doctrines contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church and (what is far more important) to the word of God. These doctrines may be grouped under three general heads.

I. As to the Scriptures:he denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch ; that David wrote many of the psalms ascribed to him, or Isaiah the latter part of the prophecy called by his name. In short, he tore apart, mutilated and remodeled according to his own theory the greater part of the Old Testament. History, ordinances and commandments were in this way altered to suit his theory and the dates of the Mosaic writings, which according to him Moses never saw, changed to the time of Ezra.

Growing out of this mutilation of the form of Scripture was a denial of its verbal inspiration. Indeed this was a necessary conclusion from such premises. For his theory of authorship was formed on supposed conflicting statements in the books-one or both of which must have been incorrect. The Bible according to him was not infallible in all things -only, as the Romanists claim for the Pope, in matters of faith and practice. The jots and tittles were full of blemishes and errors, according to him; and Christ's words, that the Scriptures cannot be broken, were virtually contradicted.
It is needless to dwell on the effect of all this. It is infidelity pure and simple, no matter how concealed for the time by a seeming piety and desire for the truth. It begins with taking away the foundations of the faith, by denying that" all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The evil done by the holders of such views cannot be estimated. Christ said of Moses, "He wrote of Me," these men say he did not-some one else wrote. Christ said, "but if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe my words? "-a question which might well be pressed home upon those who in the pride of higher criticism are fast becoming deniers of Christ; for it will come to that.

II The second doctrine was that which co-ordinated the Bible, reason and the Church as fountains of divine authority. Some men found God through the Bible and the doctrines of grace; others, differently constituted found him through the church, its authority and ordinances; (Cardinal Newman was given as an illustration of this class;) and others found God neither through the Bible nor through the church but through reason. Christ is left out. His words '' No man can come unto the Father but by Me," are not true. "Canst thou by searching find out God? " is answered in the affirmative, and indeed every landmark of Christianity is removed.

If Cardinal Newman found true peace in his soul it was through the Word of God, even if dimly seen, and not through the authority of the church of Rome. And so with every other man. We can readily understand how one who begins by invalidating Scripture can go on to associate with it, as of equal authority, the professing church and man's finite reason.

III. The third doctrine was that of progressive sanctification after death. Professor Briggs held that at death the work of sanctification, begun by regeneration, went on until it was completed at the resurrection. The close resemblance to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory strikes one. Coupled with it he has, by misinterpreting the passage which speaks of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison, given some general idea that such men as Paul are now employed in the work of enlightening those who die not fully sanctified, and this work goes on to the resurrection ! We must ask, Does this man call such teaching Christianity? Where is the all-sufficient completely finished work of Christ? Where the blessed truth of regeneration, with its impartation of a pure -a divine life? Where the death of the old man by the cross? Ah where are any of the soul-emancipating truths if such teaching-a mere refined and cultured heathenism with some Christian names-is to be substituted for the Word of God? We readily admit that knowledge will increase and that there will be growth and progress to all eternity, but that is not what is meant by this teaching.

It was then for the assembly to decide whether one who held and taught such doctrines could be considered a Christian minister, a safe guide from those who contemplated entering the ministry. By an overwhelming vote they decided that he could not; and he was declared suspended. Let all who love God's truth rejoice that in days of looseness and worldliness there remains firmness enough to stand thus; that neither fears of disruption, nor the impressiveness of learning and wealth could make men forget their loyalty to Christ and His Word.

But, the question forces itself upon us,-if we have the inspired Word of God what are we going to do with it? Shall not the answer be, We will not merely stand for it, but we will search it as never before. We will test it and draw from its inexhaustible resources things new and old ? We will let its light shine and let it speak for itself before the world. Above all we will let it rule us. The Lord grant that those who have been faithful to stand for it, and all His dear people, may be able to give some such answer.