Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-13
ISSUES TO BE TRIED.
Great Questions Coming Before the
Presbyterian Assembly.

Presbyterian Assembly.
THE BRIGGS CASE REVIEWED.
Both Sides of One Of the Most Important
Church Controversies of Modern Times
Technical Questions Involved The Status
of the Union Theological Seminary.
The annual meeting OF the general assembly
Of the Presbyterian Church in the United States
of America Ito give its full title) will begin in
this city May Is. 1t usually continues in ses-
sion eleven or twelve days. Some matters of
exceptional importance are to come up this
year, which may possibly prolong the meeting.
The most widely known of these are the re-
vision Of the confession of faith. the relation
OF Union Seminary to the assembly and the
case Of Prof. Briggs. The revision of the
Westminster confession, authorized by the as
sembly at Saratoga in 1890, was always opposed
by large party in the church. and has been so
cautiously, not to say hesitatingly, made that
in the present form it has few enthusiastic ad-
vocates. The presbyteries have been voting
and spring and the result will be announced at
the assembly. 1t is generally supposed the
amendments have failed of the necessary votes
The revision does not give the liberal party in
the church the relief which many Of them de-
sired, and their indifference, Joined to the hos
tility Of the conservatives to any change, has
probably defeated the entire movement for this
year. 1t is not likely to consume much OF the
assembly's time. proposal for a new and
briefer creed has been made by many presby-
teries, and this may be discussed at length. but
will probably be determined without great
difficulty.
The other topics referred to-the cases of
Union Seminary and of Prof. Briggs-have alb
sorbed much attention in the last year or two
They are related, but are quite distinct. An
outline of the history of these cases may be Of
interest to the readers OF THE STAR
THE UNION SEMINARY CASE.
The Union Theological Seminary in the city
of New York was founded in 1886. For thirty
four years it was not subject to ecclesiastical
control. Its directors and professors were
Presbyterians and SO was a large proportion
of Its students. When the Presbyterian Church
was divided in 1887 its sympathies were with
tine new school branch. 1t was well differed
and well attended and did an efficient work.
Its perfectly independent position was
changed by its own act in 1870. To understand
the occasion for this act we must remember that
there were theological semnaries which had
been founded and were still governed bv the
general assembly. The assembly elected their
directors and their professors. All these be-
longed to the old school branch Princeton Sem
mary being the most important of them
Princeton had long felt that direct govern
ment by the assembly was inexpedient and was
prepared TO respond to the move made bv Union.
This was, in brief. the proposal to give up a
part Of its autonomy to the general assembly of
the reunited church, provided the assembly
would give up a part of its authority over
Princeton and the other seminaries which the
assembly had itself established. Union Sem
mary. which has always elected its own profess
ors proposed to report to the general assem-
bly, all appointments of professors. agreeing
not to regard any such appointment as a COM
plete election II disapproved by a majority of
the assembly. The condition was that the as
sembly would intrust the election of professors
in its seminaries to their respective boards of
directors, subject, in like manner to the dis
approval of the assembly. The arrangement
was made and continued for more than twenty
years. 1t was, however, subjected to no real
test until 1891. Union Seminary. like the Others
reported regularly all appointments of profess
ors, as well as other matters supposed to be of
interest to the church, but the assembly disap-
proved Of none of them and there was no fric-
ton.
In 1891 the general assembly for the first
time exercised what had come to be known as
the 'veto power" The conflict between the
assembly and Union Seminary began at this
point Union Seminary has declined to recog-
nize the veto, and has formally Withdrawn
from the agreement of 1870. These are facts.
| and yet, stated in this bald way they do not
convey just idea of the situation. The ques-
ton arose in this way: Mr. Charles Butler a
venerable friend of Union Seminary and the
president of its board of directors, established
in 1890 a professorship of biblical theology in
the seminary. After the chair was established
he signified his wish that it should be occupied
by Prof. Charles A. Briggs. who for some sew
enteen years had held the Old Testament chair
in the same institution. The transfer was made
| and in January. 1891, DR. Briggs was inaugu-
rated. His inaugural address contained utter
| ances which to many in the church seemed
heretical. and the assembly, when the transfer
was reported, vetoed it, at the same time APP
| pointing committee to confer with Union
| Seminary ''in regard to the relations of SAID
| seminary to the general assembly," The board
| of directors of the seminary took the ground
that the transfer of Dr. Briggs was a matter of
! internal management; the simple acquiring of
| duties in part new to professor who had been
| long in service; that such a matter must be
| wholly within the control of the directors. and
| that, since the board made 4 clear distinction
between such transfer and an appointment or
! election de novo, the two being under different
regulations according to the constitution of the
seminary. and since the veto power had been
conceded to the assembly only with reference
/ to original appointment. the assembly
right to veto the transfer of DIR. Briggs could
not be conceded. They voted to abide by the
previous action OF transfer ard retain DIR.
Briggs in his professorshIp, having in the
meantime. as they asserted satisfied themselves
that the public clamor against him by party
| in the church was groundless. The assembly S
| committee of conference held. as the assembly
had held. that transfer was appointment
| under the agreement of 1870 and that the veto
was within the right of the assembly. The
conferences held with the directors were fruit
less, and the committee reported TO the assem-
| bly, at Portland in 1892 recommending that the
status quo be recognized. A supplementary