The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-07-26
pRESBYTERTAy RATfON4LTSM.
Mr.. MncQucnry Analyses Dr. Brires's
Opinion., and Gladly Grccts the New
Renaissance OF Faith and Religion.

| DIR. Briggs's opinions can establish his ortho-
doxy. 1t certainly will DO established; for not
! only has his inaugural address been rcpuh-
| ltshed with notes and explanations. but the
| Forum for June and tho North .incrican Re-
| rcT for July both contain elaborate dcFencos
| OF his position We are, therefore. in possess
sion OF sufficient authoritative dota from
which to obtain a rloar apprehension OF his
| views. Deing in full sympathy with DIR.
| Erigrs's main rurroso. l am anxious
to do him ample justice IN this arti-
| clio. | nhhor tho methods employo
against him. and condemn them as silly,
| irrational. and un-Christian. Dr. Briggs
shoul have the support OF every cnrnest
lover OF truth. religion. and liberty OF thought
and speech. But there are probably many
such persons who focl that he is occupying a
moro or less ambiguous position. They nro
convinced that he is ut bottom n nationalist.
notwithsta standing his constant assertion OF the
supremacy OF tho Holy Scriptures over reason.
and they would like to hear him speak loss
apoogetlcny than he docs. But whatever
DR.. briggs himself is. 1t may easily be shown
that his views ire those % the nationalist.
His opponents are perfectly clear on this point.
and It is his rationaiSm that ollonds them.
The spirit and method OF their attacks uron
him are abominable. but they do not err In
thor apprehension OF his opinions. Let me
examine those opinions in detail. rs explained
30 fully by the Doctor himself
First: lie is an enthusiastic advocate OF tho
higher criticism 4" OF tho Scriptures. and
this criticism is nothing II not rationalstic
1t treats the Bible Just rs 1t does the Vedas,
| tho Avesta. or any other document. 1t In
Guires. Who wrote the books OF the bible.
when we're they written, are they true?
In other words, reason sits in Judgment on
Scripture and accepts or rejects It's various
parts Rccor ling as they do or do not com mend
them elves to this judge. DR.. Briggs not only
! adopts tho methods OF tho higher criticism.
but he accepts many OF its most advanced
conclusions. Thus. he says: IT may be re-
garded rs the certain result OF the science OF
the higher criticism that Moses did not write
tho Pcntateuch or job: Ezra did not write
| Chronicles. Ezra. or Nehemiah: Jeremiah did
not write the Kings or Lamentations; David
did not write tho rsalter. but only n
few OF the Psalms: Solomon did not
write the Song OF Songs or Eccleslastss, and
only portion OF tho Proverbs: Isaiah did not
write half Of tho book that bears his name.
written by authors whose names or connec-
ton with ,hsr writings are lost in oblivion"
pronouneei rn'onalists II Germany my and
lnC and. Thoy clearly show which way DR..
Briggs is facing; what his method OF Biblical
secondly: Pr. Briggs ,vehamently rejects the
theory Of the verbal inspi. alton of tho
modern invention OF dogmuticinns. His
mosi,Hn on hi, subject I .owo'eF is most
sess 10 lueso u" With "ns ne Eysry
body knows, of course. that thought may
various sorts Of words and lanruanes. "TRe
woris OF Scrim,nre" says pr Brjsgs, may be
ore !" xssss sss oen m ms
lead instead "i illustrating. and SO. think
these exp,essons do not eXpross scnse Try
Tips ssss pn4 he tn1nEhs as sors Soms
IDEA ON this subject Words simply are ut.
,erei thoughts, nn!, although the printed
aslly eNpress; II. ihouGImis or they are erro-
are valued by the verbal inspirntionists and by
others simply. and only because they express
IoTrsW. creek, and LATIN . words rds are are
the only words that could convey inspired
s en' ih ha. as mater i If fat they DO
words then they, and their contents" what
ever that word may mean Is used by Dr.
lliris:s nre con radirted. and therefore false
They ars perfectly right in maintaining that
soon rs it is admitted that its words may be
g, ron"ons Int its sense true: for each one may
scns, he chooses am per. ectiy aware S that that
various theories 81 inspiration are held by even
ee, .,n theol1snns:: and therefore Dr.
theory as anyi o Is else. But 1t is also certain
that Il the inspiration Of the Scriptures is so
Of theories about it may be franod it ceases to
h 1 Of m ch practical value. Tho plain truth IS
Igeth"de Of historical criticism and holding
In, tho Divine sprips in in has rot
themselves in the dilemma OF trying to uphold
III uE quo character of our sacred writings.
when in lact. they are Of n piece with other re.
- M. nm AZ nj "a nf
iHGEilnG with theories OF Inspiration they
shoG! say sImr!y: The question is not; pr.
are they trnnt ltthey nre true. then they are
nuthp i'nnvo:if thy ,qr, false. then they are
nS r nsn nSs Gsr %ta sG parts
ARE ,ruo. what faisotm This IL the only
'cHnil ro1 ii for h nrigTs schHI
juniors; Those error, are in the ,tcIreMmstan-
statement OF fact: tho second is simply DR..
brgs,s on';r;on, and hence the Two state
corlIng 70 one author not only is tho sense OF
Holy writ different. or Mt least distinct; from
one has ever bcc con bic to explain away S''n ~
1t is logically concluded that m authority
Gontanins many err1r, T. no divine .apthGrity:
is the nfallible authority in faith and morals.
hu! the srnse OF his words must be distin-
though Lo has made many mistakes. he is yet
On unlue,si1naole authorI'y " such scch,
lSlfS WONlu DC tTeeleu Win SnerrS. linen
DR.. Briggs, harins admitted that there nre
numerous errors IN the Scrintures. must,
cid" Tor himself whcrhor those errors affect
IN substance OF revelation or only its circum.
aninls nm CONVINCED that the Bible errs
n 10 the Urpr o eros are so
uninsured writers. and , hence its unilne
n rs thnt the predictions Of the PROPHETS
history, and the great body of The Messianic
hredic'ion has not only never never been full
ren-on that its own inc has passed forever.
is not such prediction I'm important part OF
llonhocyf Are not such prophets placed by
their mistakes on level with such dreamers
NJ Snvonurola wlsf And can 1t be nationally
Waintained that such errors are unesscntial.
de- not affect tho truth Of reyclai iont think
not pr. briggs says truly that II Noah, Ahra-
snch biblical characters lived n9w ''wo would
not l"caive such men into our families" md we
might feel obi ged Ia send them 10 prison. lost
they should lei,s the community with their
taken up with enlogies OF these disr.putable
characters! Are they not importantI Slavery.
pulygamv, and wars OF determination. nre
sanctioned by tho Bible. and surely those pas
ca, rat a