New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-07-27
VIEWS ON THE BIBLE DISCUSSION.
DR. BRIGGS SPRINGS TO THE DEFENCE OF DIR.
HARPER AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM
OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The Rev. Or. Charles A. Briggs, Of the Union
Theological Seminary, in talking TO Tribune reporter
Yesterday in reference 10 the recent discussions at
ChautauQua of the controversy between DR.. Harper,
Of Yale College, and the Rev. DR.. Mendenhall, The
Editor Of The Methodist Review on the subject of
the Higher Criticism of the Bible" said Higher
criticism of a subject IS method of knowledge by
which We test all truth in relation to the subject.
Every department Of knowledge has its critics who
test t. Now II the Bible is what 1t claims TO be and
what we believe it be 1t will stand all criticism
But can the people stand 1t" is asked. Those
whose faith Is firmly rooted will be benefited by 1t
rather than otherwise. 1t may be stumbling block
TO the ignorant and those of weak faith, but 1t will
become the duty of the strong to build up the weak
AS said in a recent article in THE Conglogationast
the Higher Criticism IS painful operation 10 most
American Christians. Its destructive power Is most
evident to them. 1t threatens cherished opinions, IL
DESTROYS ancient convictions It forces denomination
of the foundations of faith and life. But do not see
how this agony can be avoided 1t belongs to the
crisis through which our generation is passing. 1t is
one of the birth throcs Of and better age OF the
world Higher Criticism gives men what they need,
saves from the fate Of Robert Elsmere ana MAKES
them strong and heroic Christians
When did the idea of Higher Criticism OF the
Scriptures originate in this country"
1T began with an article which / wrote In The
PRESBYTERIAN Review in 1881, on The Right, Duty
and Limits of Bible Criticism This called forth
series OF articles lasting for years in the oppo-
sition being the Princeton professors, Hodge, Green
Warfeld and Patton. On the side with me were the
Hebrew professors, Beecher Ii. p. Smith and Curtis
This discussion was the basis Of the pres
emf dIcussion between Professor Harper, of Yale,
and Dr. Green, Of Princeton, and now, just at
soon as the conservatives see DR.. Green and Dr.
Tarper at work, they begin TO attack DR.. Harper In
what | consider unfair way. IL is as conserVa
tive that Dr. Mendenhall comes to the front ana ac-
cuses Dr. Harper Of be!ns nationalist declare,
doubt if some men know what a nationalist Is. IL
is ABSURD
"vlot about your controversy with DR.. Crosby y
Dr crosby and | have recently had discussion
nm tbfs very subject which caused by the letter
IN The Congregationast which have already
onoted.a and as he spoke he showed the reporter
some newspaper clippings
The first cue was the reply Of DIR. Crosby TO the
letter mentioned and in it he said The trouble VIA
the Higher Criticism Of which Dr. Briggs Is inc cnci
American exponent that it declares that the state
mens OF scripture are false and then tells us not to
he disturbed because the human evidence Is weakened
and the traditional evidence destroyed"
In his r,py to this DR.. Briggs said: Il affirm that
have never by word PEN directly or indirectly, oe,
clared that the statements OF scripture are raise. ii
10 Crosnv has read my writings with any attention,
Le must know that bold TO the Westminster dOctrlae
~ The scripture without any exception whatever 10
~ ~ s,atementS Dr. Crosby makes extraordinary
statement when no says, inc iiIghef Ontcism oe.
10 ,rai knnwn fact that the Higher Criticism or
literary criticism IS one of the departments of Biblical
ssnu9 h,e and a. such Is simply method knowl-
edge All biblical scholars must npm he very naInrs
~ nc shall not deny that there critics who
declare that the statements OF scripture are FALSE pnt
~ arc also dOgmatc dvin,S and pastors of Christian
n-,chcs who nahe the same erroneous declaration
Tbi declaration has essential connection with the
nlsnSr me- for The errors of It's students than knife
a. {or the damage 1t may do in unskiliul hands,