The record-union., 1891-06-20
In RELIGIONS REALM.
Expressions from the Various
Religious Newspapers.

The Religious Thought of the Day as
Expressed in the Sectarian Press
Some Matters of Interest to Both
Ministers and Laymen.
OF the rejection of Professor Briggs by
Che General Assembly, the Congregations
Gt3St says: lit was most emphatic decla-
ration OF great church against any and
every question raised concerning the
UVlne and final authority of the Bible as
the word of God. So far we heartily re-
Jolce IN 1t. 1t is a clarion note of the faith
which represents Christianity. Were it
once lost, Christianity itself would pass
away.
but that step is only an initial one in a
movement in which the Presbyterian
denomination is not more concerned than
every other branch of the Protestant
Church. What the issue will be to Pro
lessor Briggs, to Union Seminary, to the
professors in other Presbyterian semina-
RES who have publicly planted themselves
on MS positions, is of secondary import
ance. The question of chief importance
now IS, What does the Intelligent conse-
Grated scholarship of the church find to
| be true concerning the scope and purpose
| OF the Bible whose authority is divine
and final? If this question turns US
back to the statements made by Pro-
| lessor Briggs, we shall be led to ask again
whether his appointment was rejected by
the assembly because of what he has said
or because OF the temper with which he
has spoken. Fortunately the matter is
narrowed to point where every intelIi-
gent reader may form a Judgment for
himself. For Professor Briggs has been
judged simply by his inaugural address,"
The Independent says: 1.-The action of
the assembly is not only an emphatic
one, as indicated by the size of the ma
| JOrlty, put 1t Is unequivocal. It cannot
be misunderstood or misinterpreted. 1t
means that the Supreme Court of the
Presbyterian Church does not regard it
! as safe or proper for DR.. Briggs to become
| Professor of Biblical Theology in Union
Theological Seminary. Under q sense of
! duty TO the young men who are being
trained Tor the ministry in that instItu-
tlon and to the great interests of the
church itself, the assembly says i'll effect
to the Directors: We refuse TO confirm
| otherwise. This refusal, under the terms
OF the agreement between the Assembly
and Seminary, renders the appointment
incomplete. You cannot, therefore, re-
tain Professor Briggs. We have vetoed
hls appointment, and thereby declared
teacher in Union Seminary
What response the directors will
make to this action we de not know The
point that it was a case of transfer and
not of appointment within the meaning
of the agreement the assembly has not
regarded as well taken. Indeed. it was
not strongIy y urged byIany of those who
spoke for Dr. Briggs. 1t was only pre-
sented as possible construction of the
compact, and not really as an argument
for nOn-aCtion by the assembly. The
great majority were satisfied that the
jurisdiction Of the assembly was COM
plete, and the resolutions adopted leave
no alternative for the directors but to
acquiesce in the assembly's Judgment
that Dir. Briggs should not be retained,
or break,the compact and make the sem
mary independent of the Presbyterian
Church. We are inclined to believe that
the decision of the directors will be loyaI
acquiescence. If they are concerned to
keep the seminary in harmony with the
views Of the church, they cannot reason
ably do otherwise. AS our correspond
ent, DR.. Hays, points out, the assembly
has not had the remOtest thought of ap-
proving the appointment. None of the
amendments offered to the resolutions
reported by Dr.. Patton's committee pro-
posed approval III any form. They sim
ply sought to modify and limit and soften
the disapproval which the assembly had
decided TO make. 1t was at no time a
question as to whether the expression
should be one of approval or disapproval.
but as to what should be the terms of dis
approval. If the directors want to know
the mind of the church, therefore, the
resolutions adopted by vote of 440 to so
express 1t clearly, Enthusiastically and en-
phatlcaIIy."
The Observer (Pres.) says: ''Twenty
months ago we demonstrated at length in
this column with Professor Briggs and his
associates in the seminary against his
reckless method of treating Gods Word,
and said that his public expressions were
an incalculable injury to the seminary as
stronghold of Presbyterian faith and
evangelical religion. During the meet
ing of the General Assembly last year in
Saratoga, Professor Briggs higher criti-
cal and other published views were the
subject of wide discussion among persons
from all parts of the country. Infiuen-
tial members remarked that if the Pres
bytery OF New York was equal to the
task OF taking the subject into considera-
ton, the rest of the church would take
the responsibility. We mention these
facts merely to show the unreasonable
ness of those who claim that his case is
prejudged, misunderstood, rushed
through ignOrant1y. On the contrary
the church has borne this burden with
such patience, such consideration, such
charity, that Professor Briggs was en-
cOuraged TO think that it was the charity
that would bear all things, including the
defiant challenges all along the line of his
inaugural address. From that hour his
defense, by himself and his friends has
consisted chiefly in reflections on the in
telllgence and the capacity of the minis
try and the people of the Presbyterian
Church"
The Rev. DIR. H. NJ. Field says, in the
Evangelist (Pres.): "Ihe result raises
many questions. One stage Of the con-
troversy is passed. what will the next be ? !
Is the battle ended, or is it only began?
One thing is clear: that the action of the
assembly has given the case of DR..
Briggs far greater importance than it had
before, as it has raised it from being q
personal matter to being a public one
Many who have not particle of sym
pathy with his peculiar views say that
question is thrown entirely into the shade
by the larger question-what degree of
liberty IS to be permitted in the Presby-
terian Church? If there be an attempt to
put ban upon free discussion, many
will cry out with brave old DR.. Van
Dyke, as he did only a few days before
ms death, If it be a question between
orthodoxy and liberty, give me liberty! !!
DO those who condemn this eminent
Biblical scholar mean to put bounds to
the scholarly study of the Bible? If so,
let them tell us where shall the limit be ? |
These are questions that it is easier to
ask than TO answer. Seeing this in the
future, | must doubt whether the victory
the majority was, / do not see in this any
occasion for exultation, since our victory
does not end a war which may continue
for years, and indeed for whole genera |