The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-12-02

epired Word OF COP. and therefore lie beyond
the domain OF human criticism. That is
the religious faith. and DR.. BRIGGS assails
It.. He contends that the Bible Is proper
subject for human criticism, that IL is full
OF manifest errors. and hence he denies
TINT IL is the Word " Cop. for COP could
speak the truth only.
For instance. DIR. BRIGGS said this the
other day in arguing one OF his objections:
81 interpret Holy Scriptures sery differently from
many OF you In many passsgss That really 10 the
bottom Of 1t in all this agitation and trouble in the
Presbyterian Church-that there Is new exeVess.
which Is thorough ana scientific, which is taking the
place OF the older superficial nni shallow inerpretA
i,on OF Holy scripture"
How can there be scientific eSegesis"
OF tho Scriptures il they are the perfect
Word Of Con? Human science has nothing
to do with them IL they are the only source
OF Divine truth. 1t can only adjust itself
in accordance with them. and 80 far as 1t
departs from them 1t is false. II COP Is their
author. The Word OF GOD must be final.
If tho Bible alone Ia that Word. the one abb
sorbing pursuit Of all men should be to find
out what the Bible teaches and records. To
apply to the Book any test OF merely hui
man science lie rank impiety, the creature
becoming the critic OF his Creator. II GOD
speaks In the Bible. men can only listen and
believe.
The issue between DR.. BRIGGS and the
Presbyterian Church is 80 sharp and radi-
CAL therefore. that we are surprised that
he does not meet it without setting up
technical objections to the mere procedure
The trial does not involve his life or liberty
hl, III al Sort n
ciple only. and what that principle is every
body understands thoroughly. II he Is con-
vcted. It will mean merely that the New
York Presbytery decides the fact that his
teachings as to the "sclentltlc exegesis" OF
the Scriptures are contrary to the Presbyte-
rian standards: and unquestionably in spirit
at least. IL not In statement, they are thus
contradictory. Whether. then. the mere
formalitles Of the trial are absolutely cor
rect Is an insignificant matter. However
faulty the charges may be framed. they
present with sufficient accuracy and clear
ness the Issue raised by DR.. BRIGGS. Can
he teach the fallibility Of the Bible without
offence to tho Presbyterian belief in its In
falllbility2
II he escapes conviction by a technicality
or by the subtlety Of his defence. his case
will not be settled. II he is convicted.
neither the truth nor the falsity Of his
views will be established. It will only be
determined that they are OF variance with
the standard belief Of Presbyterianism. His
true and honest course. accordingly. would
be to explain them as clearly and simply as
possible. so that all men and not merely
technical theologians could understand
them. It Is not disgraceful to man to be
convicted of loyalty to his convictions. but
it Is disgraceful for him not to have the
courage Of his convictions. DR.. BR1dGs's
trial before the New York Presbytery Is Of
importance to him only as an opportunity
to lay his exact Views before the jury Of the
whole public. Whether his teachings are
heretical or not is an Insignificant ques-
ton. The question Is whether they are
true or not.