The record-union., 1891-06-27

asked of each in turn, How will this
man do?' We do not impugn the motive
of one who is an Israelite indeed, in
whom there is no guile. He only fol-
lowed with unsuspecting simplicity the
path laid out for him. But what we
should like to know, and what the public
would like to know, is, Who prepared
that list? AS we have had so many
learned commentaries on the Book of
Genesis, will some one who understands
all mysteries give us the genesis of that
amazing committee? For, however inno-
Gently the appointment was made, it was,
Judged by all parliamentary law, one of
the most flagrant acts ever perpetrated in
public body"
The COngregationa6St says: ''As was
to be expected, the directors of Union
Theological Seminary have met the veto
of the General Assembly against the
transfer of Professor Briggs by affirming
their purpose To adhere to their former
action, and to maintain him in the chair
III which they have installed him. OF the
twenty-siX directors twenty-three We're
present at their meeting last Friday, and
only two voted against the resolution to
adhere TO their position. They have had
legal opinions from Hon. William Allen
Butler and Judge Noah X. Davis affirm
ing their right to independent action in
the matter. 1t is difficult to see how the
directors could consistently have done
otherwise. They had appointed Pro-
fessor Briggs to his position when well
informed as to his views. They had de-
clared their purpose to sustain him
against public criticism. To have ac-
cepted the action Of the assembly would
have been to confess Judgment on them
selves. AS it stands, Princeton repre-
sents one side in the controversy and
Union Seminary the other. Professor
Brigg' appointment was vetoed under the
leadership pofacOmmittee with Princeton's s
President at its head, appointed by a
Moderator who is Princeton's most noted
professor. But one battle seldom ends a
campaign. 1t would not be strange to
find the situation reversed in future
Assembly"
The Independent says: 'By this action
the directors say, in effect: % That the
judgment of the General Assembly, as to
its right to veto the appointment Of Pro-
fessor Briggs is wrong; ~ that the views
OF the directors are such as would be APP
proved by the civil courts 81 that as
there is difference of Judgment between
the assembly and the directors, the iudg-
ment of the assembly must give way,
and the judgment of the directors must
be maintained a. that Professor Briggs
will be retained by the seminary, not
withstanding the disapproval of the Cen
eral Assembly; o. that the seminary is
prepared to take the consequences of this
act, and Will, if pressed, assume an inde-
pendent attitude.
'"This action of the directors seems to
US not only to fling defiance at the
General Assembly, but to intimate to
the committee appointed by the as
Sembly to confer with them concerning
the relations of the seminary and the
n nIN- hot hni dc l.,
up and closed TO any further consid-
erations on the point at issue 1t
seems to us both hasty and disrespectful,
and it VIII be difficult in the face Of it to
avoid an irreconcilable breach between
the seminary and the sssembly."
The Christian Union says: "What will
be the result of the issue thus formed it is
impossible to foretell. It is undoubtedly
in the main revival of the old division
between old school and new school. The
questions at issue are not, indeed, the
same; but, speaking generally, it may be
safely assumed that the old school
churches Will oppose, and the new school
churches will welcome, the freest discus
sion of the contents Of the bible, and the
application to the investigation Of it's or
igin Of the canons OF literary criticism
applied in the investigation of other
ancient literatures. Ii q considerable
body in the Presbyterian Church at
tempts to prohibit such free Investigation
a division in the church Will be inevi-
table. The same process which would
drive DR.. Briggs from his theological
chair would close against the Bible stu
dent the works of Cheyne, Driver and
George Adam Smith, in England and
those not merely of Wellhausen and Ditt-
mar, but even of Delitzsch, in Germany.
There is too much intelligent love of intel
laffllal lINprtV tho p1.GG ,-tn
to make this possible achievement.
President Patton, either in one Of his
| General Assembly speeches or in an in
terview, we forget which, is reported to
have intimated that the Union Theolog-
ical Seminary might resort to the law.
But it is evident that if the law is APP
pealed TO at all, 1t will be not by, but
| against the seminary, on behalf of those
who, in the name of the assembly desire
to control it. If no such appeal is made,
the controversy may end here, Union
Theological Seminary regaining its indie
pendence, and relinquishing to it's COM
petitor, Princeton, whatever advantage
may attach to an organic connection with
the General Assembly. We are of the
opinion that this will be more than
cOunterbalanced by the Independence
regained. Young men who desire to
equip themselves for leadership in the
Church of Christ will be likely to come,
regardless of their denominationai
predictions, in increasing numbers to
Union, not because this is the only semi
nary where free Investigating of all dis
puted questions in Biblical literature and
theology is encouraged, but because,
thanks to its critics, il is Just now the
seminary of this description most widely
advertiSed.n
The Observer (Pres.) says: "There is
not the slightest probability that the heart
of the church has been mistaken in re-
cOiling from the blows struck at the roots
of its faith in the entire purport of
the teachings of Professor Briggs The
Directors Of Union Theological Seminary
may have the legal right to retain him as
teacher, but they cannot make the
church accept him as an instructor or a
father"
The Interior (Pres.) said, in advance of
the action of the Union Theological Semi
nary Board: There is a compact be-
tween Union and the assembly. By it's
terms Union voluntarily and of its own
motion conferred upon the assembly, the
right of veto on professional elections
This right has now been exercised, and
Union is not directed by men who
would dishonorably violate a con-
tract because is happened to work
adversely to their Interests. There
is question as to the assembly's right
TO exercise a veto under the peculiar
condition of the facts of this particular
case. Possibly that question may be
tested. But Union will pursue no dis
honorable course. The seminary will
stand by its agreement, and doubtless
also stand by the full measure of its
rights under the agreement. If
right with undue rigor, Union will
lose nothing by il. If q rival seminary