The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-05-07
HERETICs AND HER EsIEs.

The general assembly of the Presby
terrain oh urch will meet this month il
Portland, Oregon, and among the mos
interesting questions that will com VI
for discussion and decision is the case O
DIR. Briggs, who is accused Of herasy
His heresy consists in his belief in tn
erracy of the scriptures. 1t is more
than probable that the assembly will
find him guilty. The last general as
sembly held that it had veto power owe
the appointment Of DIR. Briggs to a chail
in the Union Theological seminary ant
showed itself opposed to him. The New
York Presbytery has elected a delegation
to the general assembly decidedly hostile
to DR.. Briggs, and the drift of opinion in
the church seems to be more strongly
against him than it was a year ago.
If the assembly decides against DR.
Briggs it will compel the Union Theolo.
gical seminary to elect whether it will
remain in the Presbyterian fold or not.
The trustees of the seminary, while
granting the right of the assembly to
veto appointments, maintain that in this
case the assembly have no right of veto
or supervision as DR.. Briggs was merely
transferred from one chair to another.
They are resolved to retain DIR. Briggs
and to continue to teach his views.
Thus the Union Theological seminary is
really on trial. and as it stands com
mitted to the soundness of DR.. Briggs
teachings there is every prospect of a
serious rupture in the Presbyterian
church. AS DIR. Briggs views are held
by many of the of the leading divines of
other denominations the question be-
so much more serious to the
church. The probable result of the as
sembly will be that DR.. Briggs and his
adherents will be placed under the ban
the Presbyterian church: they will
and found a new school of Pres.
b%yterianism.
The impending arraignment and prob
able conviction of DR.. Briggs is curious
in n respect. The church is ready to
punish DIR. Briggs for departures from
standards which it rejects itself.
DIR. Briggs is, of course, a hereto, test.
ed by the Westminster Confession, but
are the majority of Presbyterians
heretics when they demand tie revision
Of the Westminster confession to the
point of the rejection of the Confessions
of everlasting punishment for
the great mass of the human race. DIR.
Briggs holds, with the most distinguish
I'D and influential biblical critics of Eng
and, Scotland AMI Germany, that the
was not written by Moses,
out consists of foul Independent records
'f Jewish traditions: that David wrote
a small part of the Psalms; that
OBJ is a Hebrew epic and the Song of
a domestic drama; that Ec-
lesiastes was not written by Solomon,
'ut several centuries later; that Isaiah
'as written by at least two authors, one
t whom lived a century later than
that Daniel was written in the
ime of the M~accabees.
There is nothing new in this so-caIled
Both Luther and Calvin in
ulged in the same kind of biblical criti-
ism. Luther placed the epistle to the
Hebrews, Jude, James and the Apoca-
'pse at the end of his version of the
ible as deserving less respect than other
ortions. Calvin denied that st. Paul
'rote the epistle to the Hebrews and
QUILTED the authenticity of Second
'eter. 1t is certainly no worse for DR..
to deny the authenticity OF Ger,
lin portions of the scriptures than it
as for Luther and Calvin.
1t is somewhat remarkable. too. that
IF. Briggs position has been anticipated
nd indeed shared by Cardinal Newman.
@ argued that we cannot depend solely
pom the bible alone; that God has made
Violations in some other places than in
le bible. While he fully admits. as
PES DIR. Briggs. that the bible is in
'ired, he grants that it is not one book,
at "A great number of writings of vari
is persons. living at various times, put
gether into one; that it has all such
laracteristics as might attach to a book
INSPIRED; that the writer's Of the New
estament never claim to be inspired; that
urteen books of the New Testament are
mentioned at all till from eighty to
years after st. Johns death, and of
e other thirteen five are quoted by but
le writer during the same period. New I
an pointed out that the Epistle to the {
ebrews was not received in the west {
It'll the time Of jerome; that the book G
Esther is not quoted in tho New les {
ment Is not admitted by "two consid- !
able fathers of the church," but we re- |
i've it from tradition. The argument t
Cardinal Newman is that the bible {