San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1893-05-30
A HERESY q
r E
TAKES EXCEPTIONS TO AN EDI-
TORIAL IN THE LIGHT.
His Letter and the Reply Cover
the Case and Speak for
Themselves.

Editor San Antonio LIGHT:
Your issue of May Doth contains
an editorial on the Briggs case the
reasoning in which, while it is not
uncommon nowadays, believe
to be fallacious and dangerous.
You speak of the "persecutiOn" of
DR.. Briggs, as though some great
wrong had been done him, such as
used to be inflicted in medieval
times. We have become so enthu-
siastic on the subject of the relig-
ious liberty of the individual that
we forget the religious lib
erty of churches or religious organ
izations. The question is this:
Have number of persons holding
a certain belief the right to associ-
ate themselves in a church or re-
ligious body, to build up their edu-
cational and ecclesiastical interests
and then to protect themselves
from the intrusion of individuals
who do not hold to their belief:
Suppose for instance, | were to join
the Jews. They have their syna-
gogues into which they have put
much money, they have their rabbi
whom they pay, they have their
financial interests. Then suppose,
becoming a member Of their
congregation | were to. begin to
teach the doctrine of Jesus, in
which they do not believed, and to
try to use their costly establish
ment to disseminate Christianity,
would they have any right to pro-
tect themselves against me? Or
have religious organizations no
religious liberty to hold and teach
what they please with none to
modest them? Is religious liberty
for the individual only? DR.. Briggs
does not hold the accepted teach
ing of the Presbyterian church.
This is very manifest. 1t is true
there are those who sympathize
with him in doctrine and there are
others who are "peace at any price,"
but the historical doctrine of the
Presbyterian masses is something
very different. Have they a right
to this doctrine and to have it
taught? What right has DR.. Briggs
or any one else to force himself
into denomination and teach doc
trine contrary to it's standards? |
say that he has none, and all this
independent of the correctness or
incOrrectness of any doctrine.
The general Assembly is the
highest court of the Presbyterian
church. If it decides that Brigg-
ism is the standard of Presbyter-
ianism then it becomes the plain
du ty of Presbyterians who do not
hold it to step down and out. But
if the decision be Observation-Disclosures
then it is equally clear that it is
his christian duty to go elsewhere,
and no longer to disturb the Pres
byterian world. The principle of
religious liberty requires this
course. The world is call before
him where to choose" and if there
is no religious body holding his
views he is at perfect liberty to
organize one. But he ought not
to try to play the game of the bird
that does not build a nest of its
own, but steals one that another
has built and drives out it's occu-
pant. The sO-called "liberap has
no more right to claim the use of
orthodox religious establishments
to disseminate his views than the
orthodox would have to force him
self into a "liberal" organization
and teach his own theological
ideas.
This is the question: Have re-
ligiOus organizations any rights
that theological adventures are
bound to respect?
II. c. MOFFAT.
HOUSTON, Texas, May 26, 1898.
To the above the LIGHT replies:
That the question that Mr.. Moffat
raises as to the rights of religious