The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1892-12-20
THE BRIGGS CASE.
IN INTERE8TING REVIEW OF 4 CASE
NOW ATTRACTING ATTENTION.
DR.. Lee Tolls What 1t is-The Charge Against
the Learned Theo,ogian and How
He Answers Them.

1t was upon the occasion of his induction
into the Edward Robinson chair of Biblical
theology. Before this he had been professor
of Hebrew in the seminary.
His address was extensively circulated at
the time, and aroused much uniavorable
comment in the Presbyterian church. DIR.
Briggs held in this inaugural deiverance
that there were three great sources OF d.
vine authority, the Bible and the church
and the reason. That while men like
James Martineau could not find divine au-
thority in the church, Or the Bible, they
did find God enthroned in their own souls.
That there were those who would refuse
these rati5nalites place in the company
of the faithful. But that such forgot that
that the essential thing was to find God and
divine certainty, and that if these men found
God without the mediation of church and
Bible, it WAS to be remembered that church
and Bible were not ends but means. They
were avenues of God. That unless GODS au-
thority is discerncd in the forms OF the rea-
son, there was no ground upon wmch any
of the heather could ever be saved, Tor
knowing nothing of the Bible or church,
they were left to be enlightened by the
light of the world through the form OF rea-
son or be lost forever.
He contended that Protestant Christian
tv building its faith and life on the divine
authority contained in the scriptures, to
often deprecated the church and the reac
SON He took SpurgeOn as az example OF
the average modern Evangelical, who held
the Protestant position ana assalleu we
church and the reason in the interest OF the
authority of scripture. But III his opinion
the average of the Christian world
would not assign Spurgeon a
higher place in the kingGo OF 600
than TO Martinedu who found GOO through
the reason, or TO Newman who fouho Goa
through the church r.
So the first charge brought against iro-
lessor Briggs is that he teaches that the
reason is 4 fountain of divine authority.
That men may reject the scriptures as the
authOritat tive proclamation OF tho VIII Oh
God, and also reject the way OF salvation
,;;,-ough the meG.; ton and sacrlhce OF the
Son of God, as revealed therein, and yet
be savingly enlightened. 1t is contended by
the prosecution that this is contrary TO the
essential doctrine of the holy scripture,
and to the standards of the Presbyterian
church.
In the same address, Professor Briggs said
that the MI srity of Christians from the
apostolic age, have found God through the
church, that martyrs and saints, fathers ana
schoolmen, the pIotoundest inteilectS, the
saintliest lives have had this experience.
That institutional Christianity has been to
them She presence-chamber of God. That
while it is difficult for many ProtestantS to
regard this experience as any other than
pi0us illusion and delusion, yet what IS to
be said of such men as Newman, who could
not reach certainty. striving never so hard,
through the Bible or the reason, but who
did find divine authority in the institution
Of the church,
So the second charge against Professor
Briggs is mat he teaches that the church IS
a fountain of divine authority, which apart
from holy scripture may and does savIngly
enlighten men. This, the prosecution con-
tends is contrary to the teachings of the
holy scripture, ana the standards or the
Presbyterian church.
Again DIR. Briggs said in the inaugural
speech, delivered in Union Theological SEM
mary, on Janpary 20, 1891, that there
we're errors III tie scriptures that no one
has been able to explain away, and that
The theory that tlcy were not IN the original
text, is sheer assumption upon which no
mind can rest with certainty. And that il
such errors destroyed the Bible, it was al
ready destroyed for historians.
Upon this StatIment is based the third
charge against Professor Briggs, for the
prosecution holds that to teach that errors
may have existed III the original text of the
holy scripture as i came from its authors,
Is contrary to the essential doctrine taught by
the scriptures them selves and to the stan
dardS of the Pres Eyterian church
Upon the same occasion referred to above,
Professor Briggs said that Moses did not
write the Pentateuch. This again the prose
cation holds is liz direct contradiction of
the holy scripture and also against the
standards of the church
In another place in the notable address,
DIR. Briggs gave IL as his opinion that
Isaiah did not write half the book that
bears his name. Tki" furnishes the ground
FOR another charge. for the prosecution holds
this to be contrary to direct statements of
holy scripture and to the standards of the
church. Besides the particular state
mentS mentioned above upon which
charges against Professor Briggs are based.
NE prosecuting committee composed of
George Y. + Birch, ID. D., Joseph ].
Lampc. d D., Robert J. Sample. DID.
J0hn j. Stevenson and John 7. NTcCook
offers III evidence the whole of said inau,
gural address. and all the works of the
sald heV- Charles A Briggs d. D., quoted
therein, III so far as they hear upon the
case, the whole of the holy scriptiIrn ana
the whole OF the standards of the preshy-
terrain church in America. Take it all in
all TINS IS perhaps the most inportant
Dr. Lyman Beecher, while professor u; II,
Lane Theological seminary. vas az
tired for heresy. DR. AIbort
Barnes, pastor in pbiIa
delpma, was also charged with heresv and
trled before ms presbytery. These cases
and led to q split in the PRESBYTERIAN church
But the charges against Professor Briggs
are more specific and various and vide
reaching than were ever brought against
q Presbyterian minister III this countsv
before. Besides more is involved in this
trial, 1t seems that the whole influence of
the Union Theological seminary with IFS
great wealth AID learned faculty, is on the
side Of Professor Briggs. DR.. Philip
Scliaff, tt. Marvin K. Vincent, Professor
Brown. who takes DR. Briggs place as
professor of Hebrew, are oil with DR.
Briggs, and it seems if he is put out of the
Presbyterian church for heresy that the
Union Theological seminary will 90 with
him into separate Presbyterian orcaniZa-
ton, or into the communion of the Episco-
pal church. TO understand Just the status
of this case now. it is well to remember
something of its history.
After the delivery of the inaugural adj
dress by DR. Briggs, a committee was ap-
pointed by the presbytery which met in
May, 1891. to arrange and prepare the
necessary proceedings appropriate in the
case of DR.. Briggs" This committee pre-
scented charges ard specifications against
Professor Briggs at the meeting of his
Preshytery October 5, 1891. These were
served on him at that date, and he was
cited to appear and plead TO the charges
and specifications on November 4. 1891.
On that date DR.. Briggs filed objections
TO the sufrciency of the charges in form
and legal effect The presbytery, after
hearing the objections, dismissed the
case The committee appointed TO
hiring charges and specifications gave notice