New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-08
NETWORK DAILY MONDAY lSol-TWELvE PAGEs'

IL is necessary TO certain theory OF reyeiaon, wS
In Its turn Is necessary w certain syS ,.t
be- for no part OF the Bible is consciously related 70 "a
the resi- No real scholar, no inah VI ov 800 oyer
mon-sense VIII think that rrCislsV inspiration or the
danger of insisting ON 1t as necessary W WV
The The thd 4barrlerD to the divine authority when
Professor Briggs Claims for the BiDle Is ,.rotg
e., the nsstence that we must h M ,s ~ CO. then
our certain knowledge that the Bible 10 spS1 hat
limited 10 very little part OF IT, me Pc suSentcity
Of The doubtful books with all the energy OF bo
lessor briggs is very moderate IN his & met write the
pehtateuch or JOB; Ezra did not write Chroh I'LL,
Ezra or Nehemiah jeremiah did not write tne
Int only few OF the Psllms solomon did not wr1te
the song OF songs or Eccesastes ana only p p0T' sn
not write the Episte to the Hebrews, or Peter me
second Epstle OF Peter, or Daniel le doom ~
But tho uncertainties are as fatal W a TeVci".ADi
Of autenticites as the negative certaintes a ;ha
what scholarship worthy Of the name WIZ n pmth
We are certain who wrote Samuel and Kings anu hus
and Esther and Matthew and Mark ana Luxe ana
John and Acts and Ephesans ana the ei rass ~
Epjstes or second ThessalOnians, or the Epsues "
dnn or Jude or the Apocalypsel no one IS eerui a
these things except the grossly ant f"c can we
whose wish is father TO their hcSg Du| arc Us Tins
have Bible OF lnfaDle inspiration We .r,sa o
uncertain who wrote the greater part OF ~ ana heir
Dnggss opponents insist That We cannot. .r S in
Infablc bible Is already gone. Professor Briggs III
sists that we can: This inc aimeien'1 nd "a" am
bound 10 saw that from our Unitarian standpolnt ~
appears that they right and he IS wrong nn9S
are nss u ana h @0i Is not We must have external
evidence for special supernatural revelation" n0nnvno
literature unless there Church supernatnrSy dna
lied TO ndorse it. This the Roman LAY or IN his
tory Professor Briggs infalllDe Bible Is not tne IN
falibe Bible Of his opponents Theirs Is the en'iGS re
book; his IS the doctrine Of faith and the ruic VI
But the doctrine of faith In tho Bible Is variable
doctrine 1t is thing In the Prophets and anotnT T
I'm oh
another in the New. 1t is thing In Paul ana
another thing in James And the rule Of practice
varies quite as much Does Professor Briggs believe,
because the Bible says that poor men should drown
marry il You can live the ascetic life No; he be
eves that much of the Bible Is inspired ior US ao
appeals TO our and intelligence; so much, no
more But this is the Unitarian, nationalist position.
And Is very difficult If not quite imp3sSdoI: mako 70 fSe
Declaration that he made in taking his new chair OF
Biblical Theology believe Che scriptures OF the ola
and New Testaments to be mot merely to s con n
faith and practice nor Is 10 any easier conc 10
with ne feWyRSi Of he s eeaa sSeG EDR
and Sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Con
fesson as containing the system Of doctrine taught IN
Newtons teaching How creeds should be read 1t Is
that we should read anything out OF them we please
of the resduum as we like. But cannot think that
this is to receive them solemnly and sincerely" II
hi, had been the way OF history, IL might nave Decn
much Letter for mems bodies and their sonls Inc
former would not have been racked ana Pured ana o
The very essence Of creed is its demand for literal
conformity. And hence the moral damage OF the
creeds both long and short They have Invited bonna
less ingenuity OF Interpretation ana Dee inc OcssG
of much nsncerity. We have one OF three words IN
the preamble to the constitution of National Uni,
tartan Conference, and some say 1t means one tg anu
an article 10 say what it does mean and what 1t doesn't
and now there is some difference Of opinion as 70 ics
the c5m4Itte e'' on Revision has done on the
Westminster Confession. II is like a new new
p ST on law TSh tht takes All On the BABIES s
let in free hereafter whlGh VIII make as all faS
mature mat fS Rad dd S
the doctrine Of Biblical inspiration is made much
broad views as those Of Professor Briggs This VIII
make the price Of theological sincerity higher tna9
some professors their uncomfortable chairs. A..
Professor Briggs finds fourth "barrlern 70 the
not partcuarlze, because if he began he would not
an inerrant English Bible. Every scholar knows that
must be different In many thousand parcuars t i0
il we had tho original documents, they would be
lnerrant IS again pure assumption There IS nothing
least degree There is much in the Bible as 1t stands
that Is erroneous, and which Is so deeply implicated
be found tomorrow, It would be no better Of TaGe,
for example, the 10s3 references IN TIE New Iesta
the the old Testament Hebrew, but to the septuagnt
translation of 1t which was made, we are assured by
Hebrew and never learned Greek" But the way in
which the New Testament writer's use the Old for
their nerrancy than the translation which they use.
Wonderful IS the fdtuity of men who claim inerrancy
similar CHARACTER Nowhere is Professor Briggs more
clearly safe within the limits Of conservative ertl
lie might have made his statement twenty times as
strong and still have been within these limits
those which the revised Confession proposes 70 make
stronger than eyer-mlracles ana minute pfedcIlUr
part Of his critical work. 1t subjects the miracles 70
the stress Of his Speculative I'VE the s vaaoSs Of
The laws of nature or intended as such by their
recorders. Here we must think that his opponents
endeayor to force from the Bible confession Of our
personal opinions or modern speculauonS. INC BlDle
But that Is no reason why we s SH1Gid accept
fessor Brlggss treatment Of prophecy stands over
against his treatment OF miracles as almost en9re
recalling Ills messages of woe" there is general
acceptance OF the teaches Of Professor Kuenen whose
Prophets and Prophecy In Israeli Is the best OF all
the hooks that have been written that matter
The moral earnestness and increasing spirituality Of
Testament Christianity and this Professor Briggs has
failed to show, the limitations Of his tme perhaps
THUS in the critical part of his discourse, Professor
Briggs appears not one who has almost attained 70
who is diligently following after Tnem. II he Is ever
rash 1t IS in allowing too much to the traditional view
his declaration that the Grant unauthentic Bible IS the
lnfaible Word OF God. This general statement viewed
I'm the light of his particular criticism, impresses us
as mere logomachy. The words mean one thing ana
appear to mean another. They appear 70 mean tnat
mean that so much OF it is nfaible as appeals IRE
sisbly 10 our and conscience But to say tae
truth and be every man OF us Pope. That so mucn
is inspired which thus irresstiby appeals TO US we
might willingly allow. taking 1t for all axiom that
whatever is inspiring is inspired But this is tIe OF
all books not OF the Bible only. Professor Briggs,
nfter he has demolished the various barriers goes
on to use the Bible differing, not only IN degree
but in kind from all other books. and ne ialls 70
Justify his course In doing this. Between the former
and the latter parts OF his address great gulf Is
liked which somehow he crosses easily, bun ,n we
nannot see how and he springs no arch nor swings
any pendent floor by which we may follow mn, out
In the latter part Of ms ad ,rNSb ne he viii teach his
pupils from his newly constituted chair II ne IS not
rrned ont OF it, lie dstT gnishcs his BIBLICAL theoloEA
@ r. tnmafic thenlogY OF the CHURCHES and the