New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-05-28
OPINIONS ABOUT THE BRIGGS REPORT.
CRITICISMS OF THE REV. DRs. THOMPSON AND
HERRICK JOHNSON.

HERRICK JOHNSON.
" Detroit, May 81, lSpccial).-TlM following
criticisms were made to-day by eminent elergymen
on the report of the committee of the Assembly
on Theological Seminaries. The Rev. DR.. Charles
l.. Thompson said
was not in the Assembly when the report was
read but have looked over copy OF 1T ana am OF
wise Thing for the General Assembly The report
makes two recommendations first that the General
10 the chair Of Biblical theology in Union seminary
and by dlsapproval the resolution manfestly means
amounts to direct veto think there can DC no
resolution, namely That in the exercise OF it's right
TO veto the General Assembly hereby dlsappreevSes
ministers and ruling elders to confer with the directors
Of the Union seminary in regard to the RELATION and %
report to the next Assembly; What Is implied dst
that second resolution Mer seen 6e Sg GGs
say that while they clear In their judgment that
the has The rsst S e e means
the sppareny sIG fhs d,eyos
of Union Seminary that would lead to different CON
cluson. Fairness requires us also 70 remember that
the Assembly IS Of the parties to the compact that
sembly in the first resolution vetoes the election OF
Professor Briggs and in the second resolution calls or
the appointment of committee TO confer with Union
Seminary to whether they understood eaeh other
~ Now, It is manifest that if the phraseOogy of the
compact is capable Of different construction from that
sadh SSo 50 CONSTITUTES fairness
require that the fer nee as Tsa that and no e
L throws DR.. Briggs out of his chair and
then appoints committee 70 see whether whether
that the Assembly has right to DO it at all Of course
Il + ss d G the 1s' So1 SeeTs e. s
called upon necessarily TO veto at this time believe
the OF r ON eoe 10 e oe 9 TO meet
The spirit not the letter ana o. mat tn s ana Sr
s sss coeeed do is Worth While sanps the letter
the law in its Interpretation. If such committee
been harmony and peace but if the Assembly takes
the action proposed in this report believe we Will
have discod and disagreement the end OF which God
' An Ell effort win be made in the Assembly tomorrow
i is doubtful whether i g sseceSd as that Judge 9s
s so. SDoVa what VI ' course Union seminary
in case this report is adopted but II Professor Briggs
teachings are dangerous this seems TO me 10 be the
course TO give them currency and to gather par,
him There are many things In ss FORM o,
are some things that seem difficult TO harmonic with
accepted Presbyterian doctrines but 40 mot 1e ase
accusation It is perfectly well ano " b fa' eec
a aon IS the Conviction Of the committee that he
unsound. That, by the way, is another objection
Ss no bare ya so the Yo are at liberty infer
II ZEN to me wSon EVEN Stating
he Ogr ground d on which which Il is done "'
Dr. Herrick johnson gave mis- opinion as fol-
lows:
The committee have to my mind given true history
the action OF the Assembly and Of the circumstances
eading TO the present action. think the report Is
correct on the ground IL takes, that the veto
mower must be exercised by the Assembly, exercised
az all regard that 70 be true Interpretation Of tho
latter and spirit Of the law and the circumstances
rnder which n was enacted. The decision rendered
disappearing Of the election Of Dr. Briggs shoud have
heen ACCOMPANIED by exact statement OF the ground
> ~ n for as il now appears. what with the excited
state Of the Church and the variety Of charges
brought against DIR. Briggs; those making these
in having made them They VIII -. find 18th the
S;thont Owing the grounds for the same-one con-
strung s:ns the sharss Of SeTy o another
nsfifyng the charge OF hypocrisy for be has both
been accused of heresy and wide departure from the