The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-22
JUSTICE TO OR. BRIGGS.

SEATTLE. Dec. %, 1852
To THE EDITOR: A degirs that fair play may
be accorded to DR.. Briggs constrasns me 10 take
exception TO your editori.i of sunday with ref
e.ence to "Ihe Trial of d. Briggs"
II You viii parton me f:r so stating l believe
that you therein assumed as true what DIR.
Briggs expressly and unea uivocably denies ani
what his opponents have az yet by no means
proven true: that you have made this assump-
ton your main premise and the foundation OF
ali your remarks, and tnss in consequence your
conclusion and YOU rather cutting reflections
are unwarranted and do sne Rev. DR.. Briggs a
grave injustice.
In stating that '.Dr. Briggs gives coordinate
authority to revelation, ts the reason and the
church" you are taking FOR granted what the
prosecuting Committee acne says or infess, and
thus, as it were. conde m1ing you man unheard,
and this Is what / object 20. IT Is true that Dr.
Briggs said In his inaugural address that 'sthere
are historica ~ three crest fountains of divine
authority-the Bible, the church and the res.
son." but On his trial he explained this Us fol-
lows: 81 did not say anu l did not give any
one the right to infer fron anything whatever
in the inaugural address, Or in any OF my
writings, that ] co-ord mated the Billie, the
church and the reason. 1hs reason Is . great
foultain OF divine authoaty. and yet not an in
failioie rule OF faith and practice. The church
is a great fountain Of dis inc authority, aud yet
not an infallibls rule of faith and practice. The
Bible is a great fountain ei divine authority. and
1t 10 also the only infal!iDle rule OF faith and
practice. ! affirm that L have never anywhere,
or at any time. made any statement or taught
any doctrine that in the kighiest degree impairs
what l have ever regardea as d cardinal doctrine,
that the Holy Scr ptures are the only infallibie
rule of faith and praeties."
What DR.. Briggs has ali along suffered from
most severely has been It's rather unfortunate
and infeitcitous manner of expressing himself,
and from the taking of phrases from the ip-
augural address. the cui1ng of words from 1t
here and there, misre presentiug and misinter-
preting them. and sending them by means OF
the newspapers broadcass throughout the land.
But now and here, in the above exact quotation
from DR.. Briggs own words. we perceive his
views az they are and the man a. he ir. shall
1t then be said, in view 81 his statement that
1.-THE Holy scriptures are che only infaliible rule
OF faith and practice" that "Dr. Briggs, II he
had been as honest and logical a thinker and as
honest q man az Cardinal Newman. would have
adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine that the
church alone is the repository of divine truthf'
The views of the two men are Worldwide.
Nor Is there any similarly OF position between
that OF DIR. Briggs and the Rev. Mr.. MacQueary,
the latter apparently beng q nationalist pure
and simple, while the former, SO far as has been
shown, IL not . dispei!evsr in the miracles of
the Scriptures. like memsers of the nationalist
school.
Why then should Dr.. Briggs be characterized
a. lacking "a proper sense Of honor and as be-
' LA q 6SktiCth0A UCCdusG A0 oiu
not retire f rom the Presbyterian church before
the hand OF accusation Was raised against him?
IL It mis- duty to leave tie church" because the
conservative element In the New York pres
bytery regards certain OF his views and teach
ings Al dangerous aud hsreticsl even, while on
the other hard the ent5a directorate OF the
Union Theological seminary almost to Q man
stands by him and his Views, and when such
universally beloved and esteemed men a. the
late lamented Rev. Dr.. Howard Crosby and
Rev. d. Henry Van Dyke. of New York city,
and countless others declared that DR.. Briggs
could never be convicted OF heresy solely be-
cause OF the much nalixsed inaugural address
at said Union Theological seminary? But your
editorial claims that, whether the accused 'is
right or in error in his opinions and convictions,
he is certainly nota Presbyterian, and the manly
thing for him to do would be to leave the
church which he has ceased to have any right
to belong, SO long as thas church continues to
stand Oh the Westminster Confession as the sole
and absolute expression of its essential faith
and doctrine
Now whether or not THIS Prot. Briggs with all
his views is in accord with the
Confession is the very Point at issue, and in
your editorial he is p~rejuiged and condemned
be orehaud. Oh. Shedd, one of the opponents
OF Dr.. Briggs, said at TIE first trial in New
York: '.There is a great difference of opinion
In this presbytery in regsrd to the orthodoxy or
heterodoxy OF that discourse. Many believe
that 1t 10 orthodox, and Gould be squared to the
Westminster standard; and there II q respecta-
bic quantity that do not believe that it is ortho-
dox." DR.. Briggs himself stated that he sin
cerely believed he had taught nothing that was
opposed to the cardinal doctrines of the Con-
fession, and he is a man whose personal char
acter and veracity are very highly thought of
in the East aud, indeed, everywhere that he is
known.
Enough has been said, I hope, to relieve DR..
Briggs somewhat Of the charges and insinua-
tions made against him. Whatever may be the
result OF the present ,rias or, later, the one be-
fore the General Assembly, the doctor cannot
justly DO accused Of tnsiscerity or unmanliness
or as one lacking nobility: Of spirit or courage OF
conviction. 1t IL possible that DR.. Briggs is not
a. bad a. he 10 painted. IRVING T. COLE.