Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-13
ISSUES TO BE TRIED.



had been then We could never be sure of any
thing in the Bible, and at the best, God would
nave sanctioned untruth. 1t is replied that the
most truthful of men sometimes make mis-
takes and that God, perhaps, did not always
prevent His truthful servants from making I'M
important mistakes in writing the Bible; that,
at any rate, all the Bibles we now have contain
mistakes OF one kind or another, some Of which
textual criticism and improved TRANSACTIONS
seek to remove-and yet our imperfectly copied
and imperfectly translated Bibles serve the
purpose Of the Bible, and therefore the practical
danger does not seem very greatin surprising that
the original autographs had some such errors;
and besides that no living man or woman has
ever seen the original autographs, nor have we
any exact description of them. and that a
dogma about them is therefore not wise.
Finally, they think they show that the
Bible and the confession do not make any
declaration at all about inerrancy Of the origl-
nal autographs.
"As to the writings of Moses and Isaiah, the
questions might seem to belong to the domain
Of scholarship rather than that of dogma. But
the conservatives say that since unless the books
Of the Bible were written by inspired men. they
cannot have been inspired. it is dangerous to
substitute unknown authors (who possibly were
not inspired flor well-known men like Moses
and Isaiah. But their chief argument is that
Christ speaks of Moses and Isaiah as authors Of
the books additionally assigned to them and
that those who deny this authorship impeach
the testimony Of Christ. 1t is answered that
many books of the Bible are anonymous. and
yet prove their divine power by their effects,
and that 1t may be the same with the writings
ascribed to Moses and Isaiah. 1t is answered.
further, that the authority Of Christ is to be
revered above all other, but that one of the
very questions at issue is whether His authority
is committed to these traditional opinions
about authorship; ii is agued that there are
other and better interpretations of His words
han. H. H.
especially in view of the powerful in
ternal arguments against assigning the
whole Pentateuch to Moses or to Isaiah the
whole book called by his name. They also try
to show that the Scriptures do not elsewhere
prove the contrary of DIR. Briggs opinion on
this point and remind US that the confession
SAYS nothing on the subject.
Progressive sanctifcation after death is
thought dangerous by the conservatives, as
tending toward regeneration after death or
toward purgatory, and it is declared to be in
conflict with Bible and confession. The subject
Is recognized. however, as at once less vital and
more obscure than the more familiar doctrines
are. DIR. Briggs contends vigorously that it is
in harmony with Scripture and with the trend
Of the church's teaching. and that even if it
were opposed by any statement of the Presby-
terrain standards, which he does not admit, the
matter is not essential to the system of doctrine
to which alone he is bound by the ordination
vow.
eff the legal objections already recited should
be overcome by the assembly, these theological
questions would then come up for decision.
We are afraid the body will by that time not be
in a very Judicial frame of mind. And which
ever way the decision should fall. there would
be very good and very learned men on the other
side.
FORMER CONTROVERSIES.
at certainly does seem to US a great pity
that Christian men and ministers for whom
there is an abundance of useful work in the
world cannot agree to differ about these intri-
cate questions Of theology and scholarship. We
cannot help thinking that the time will come
when they will do SO in the Presbyterian Church
as elsewhere. And ii might make some Of the
more Jealous ones cautious if they would recall
how the controversies Of other years have
passed away, old breaches been healed and
much accusation and commotiou proved, after
the lapse of q little time, to have been unneces-
sary. In 1885 and 1886 Presbyterians were ex-
cited about Albert Barnes He was acquitted
Of heresy by his presbytery, condemned by the
synod. but finally acquitted by the general as
sembly. The Presbyterian Church split over
the issues then made and Mr.. Barnes went with
the new school. But in 1870. when the church
reupited, members of both branches took pains
to honor him in his advanced age. About the same
time DR.. Lyman Beecher was arraigned in Ohio.
But he, too, was at length acquitted and died
in high esteem. To laymen's ewes it does look
as if similar results might follow the present
excitement. Twenty or thirty years hence it
might be safe to predict very stalwart conserva-
tives will be found who. il DR.. Briggs should,
to their present satisfaction, be now con-
demned, will be very sorry the church made
such a mistake, and who, If to their present
disappointment his acquittal should now be
sustained, will then be sincerely and intelli-
gently glad"
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CASE.
What is printed above comes, as stated, from
a source friendly to DR.. Briggs and can be re-
garded as presenting his case, much as it will
be presented if it comes to trial on its merits
before the general assembly. The STAR has
endeavored to secure a statement which would
present the other side with equal force and in
telligence. and for the purpose solicited from
wel-known minister and an eminent student of
theology. who has carefully considered the case
and accepts what is known as the ''anti-Briggs"
view. a statement Of the points involved. The
statement thus obtained is as follows:
"This case is not one affecting personal char
acter and should therefore be discussed and
decided in a calm paternal spirit, without pas.
sion or personalities. The real and vital ques-
ton before the church is: Do the official teach
ings Of Prof. Briggs of Union Seminary har-
monte with the teachings Of the standards Of
the Presbyterian Church, of which he Is an ac-
credited minister? In the investigation Of the
question various side issues have come into
prominence. But the great fact remains I'M
deniable, the Presbyterian Church in the
United States Of America is now determining
the very point on which DR.. Briggs asked the
judgment Of the church, viz: Do the teachings
OF DIR. Briggs differ SO materially from the
constitution OF the church that the general
assembly cannot any longer indorse, authorize
and pay for them?
For more than two years the church has been
engaged, patiently, prayerfully and in a con-
stitutional way, in an honest effort to reach q
final and authoritative decision in this case.
Every intelligent Presbyterian knows that
sooner or later the judgment of the entire Pres
byterian Church through its highest and last
court, the general assembly, must be and will
be rendered.
IN THE NAME OF THE WHOLE CHURCH
There has never been but one trial Not
the committee of prosecution, not the presby-
terry Of New York, not the Portland assembly,
but the Presbyterian Church in the United
States has charged Prof. Briggs with teachings
that contradict essential truths of the Scrip
lures and the constitution of the Presbyterian
Church.
This indictment from beginning to end runs
in the name Of the whole church, and the trial
is not complete and final until the mind of the
whole church has been expressed in judicial
decision. guilty" or mot guilty.
A person accused may appear many times
and before different courts of the church, but
there is only one trial, and all sacred rights of
appeal are thrown around the humblest mem
L., -.