The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-05-31
The Briggs Controversy .

|
The Presbyterian general assembly hav-
ing adopted DIR. Pattonis report by an over
whelming majority, it is highly probable
that thJre will be lively times in the Pres
byterian church during the year that will
intervene before the meeting OF the next
general assembly. By the adoption Of the
report the general assembly vetoed the ap-
pointment Of DR.. Briggs TO the chair of
Biblical theology in the Union theological
Seminary. but at the same time it expressed
a doubt whether it had a right to
take any action in the matter, because there
is difference between electing person not
connected with the faculty of the seminary
TO professorship and the transferring Of a
person already a professor in the seminary
from one professorship to another. There
is no doubt OF the right of the general
assembly to veto the appointment of a new
professor, but DR.. Briggs was transferred
from professorship that he had held for
years to that of Biblical theology. In view
of the doubt Of the right Of the general
assembly to interfere in Dr. Briggs case a
committee was appointed to confer with
the trustees Of the seminary relative to the
relations between the seminary and the
general assembly, with instructions to re-
port to the next general assembly.
Under the action Of the general assembly,
therefore, the trustees are free to retain DR..
Briggs for another year at least, and it may
be finally decided that the general assem-
bly,, under its contract with the seminary,
had no right to veto DIR. Briggs appoint
ment. And there is no doubt that the trus-
tees will retain~h him, because the majority of
them approve mis- views with regard to the
Bible, and SO do nearly all of his fellow
professors.
1t is rather remarkable that the general
assembly should have taken up the question
of vetoing DR.. Briggs appointment until it
had first determined whether it had the
right to pass upon it. By its action it has
virtually said that DR.. Briggs is not fit
man to occupy pulpit in the Presbyterian
church, because If he is not fit man TO in
terpret the Bible according to the Presby-
terrain view he is certainly not fit to be a
Presbyterian minister. But it has done
this without knowing whether or not it has
authority to prevent him from interpreting
he Bible in Presbyterian seminary. The
result will be that DR.. Briggs will go on
teaching the Bible in his own way, and the
controversy that has been started by his
views will go on becoming more wide
spread and ated until all the clergymen
and laymen of the church will be partici-
pants in it to o greater or less extent.
It is evident that DIR. Briggs does not in
tend to remain quiet pending his trial be-
fore the local Presbyterian assembly. In
the June number of the Forum he has an
article on Church and Greed, ;" in which he
points out that the issues upon which he Is
being called to account are not confined to
the Presbyterian church. but are command
ing the attention of the most thoughtful
and scholarly men OF other denominations.
And that this is true is evident from the |
utterances from the pulpit Of the different |
denominations in all parts of the country.
A thought that suggests itself in connec- |
ton with the veto Of DR.. Briggs appoint |
ment is this: Why did not the general Assem- |
bly, consider the ACCESSIBILITY of getting rid |
of other professors of the Union Theological |
Seminary. Did not a number of them |
submit series of questions to DR.. Briggs, |
and after receiving his answers say that |
they had no fault to find with his beliefs,
They certainly did, and under the circum- |
stances it is difficult to see how the general |
assembly could have consistently condemned |
DIR. Briggs without condemning them. 1t is |
evident that the next year will be an inter- |
esting one in the history of the Presbyter- |
ian church.