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

Meantime the seminary directors made re-
port to the Portland assembly presenting the
situation from their point of view, and urging
the reasons why they felt compelled to abide
oy their original action. In addition TO this
they presented a memorial to the assembly, in
"hich. on the ground of general expediency
In view OF the turmoil occasioned in the church
py the exercise of the veto power by the assem-
bly,, and OF the provisions of the PRESBYTERIAN
system for securing the orthodoxy of all its min
listers, including professors as well as pastors,
ihey requested the assembly to unite with them
IN dlssolvlng the agreement of 1870. The
assembly. however. reaffirmed the action taken
AT Detroit, refused the request of the seminary
directors. adopted the proposal for arbitration
closer relations" between the assembly and
the seminaries.
THE SEMINARY SIDE OF IT.
The present situation is summed up by one
OF the friends Of the seminary as follows:
The Union Seminary directors regarded
the veto of 1891 a usurpation of the assem-
o., OF rights not coded to it by the seminary.
lhey consider the agreement of 1870 to be an
arrangement terminable at any time by either
party, TO have none Of the features of a BUSH
ness contract, since the seminary received no
valuable consideration. and had been moved to
cede the veto right to the assembly purely from
wan w TIC OAllcT etl1lndrles. ana the de-
sire 10 promote peace and brotherly feeling,
They had now become convinced that il was
hekpedlent 10 continue the arrangement: thew
were also assured by their legal advisers that il
was illegal, as involving a cession of rights
vested by the charter in the board of directors
alone. Accordingly they voted, October. 1892,
10 resclnd the act OF cession and cancel the
agreement. There was, therefore. no occasion
Tor them to nominate arbitrators or to meet
The new committee of conference"
80 the matter now stands, and these facts
Will be reported to the assembly in Washing
ton. Ii is evident that there is a rea, difference
OF opinion as to the scope of the agreement Of
1870, but this difference of opinion ia sharp
ened by the fact that the seminarys interpre-
tatlon results IN keeping DIR. Briggs in his pro-
fessorship. The seminary is financially indie
pendent; its roll of students shows little il any,
decline In numbers; its graduates are in de-
mand as pastors. and it is difficult to see how
the assembly can in any way enforce its opinion
against the seminary, even if it should desire
to do SO. Moreover, the directors of the
seminary are men of the highest standing as
Christian gentlemen. and the rough attacks
made upon them by those who quite fail 10
appreciate their situation and their sense of
responsibility for the discharge of their trust
certainly appear to a candid outsider far from
becoming Perhaps the very impotence of the
assembly to do any real injury to the seminary
makes feeling more bitter. Whatever is done,
the result will probably make some important
changes of kind or d. gree in the relations be-
tween all the Presbyterian seminaries and the
highest ecclesiastical body of the Presbyterian
Church"
THE CASE OF DIR. BRIGGS.
So it will be seen the directors of Union
Seminary regard the seminary question as set
tied; but the case of Dr. Briggs is not at all
settled in any view of it. The following is a
brief sketch of IL, written for The STAR by a
distinguished theologisn who is on what is
known as the Briggs side" of the case:
''Dr. Briggs has been a professor in the Union
Seminary since 1874. He is a man of high
character. great learning and boundless energy.
1t Was mainly through him that the Presbyte-
ridn Rerie,o was founded in 1850. and be
for ten years its editor in conjunction
with DR.. A A Hodge and DIR. F. L.
Patton. During that period it was recog-
nized that there were different schools OF
thought in the Presbyterian Church, and the
Rerie,o was intended to represent them all.
Dr. Briggs represented the progressive school
and presented In its pages many of the opin-
ions which have been attacked of late. These
opinions received not the Endorsement of his
conservative colleagues in the editorial board
but their sanction as proper for publication
and as representing a legitimate type of Pres
byterian doctrine. The non-progressives and
reactionaries, however, naturally came to lool
upon him with suspicion In 1880, hi:
connection with the Presbyterian Reuies,
having ceased, and that quarterly having
been discontinued. a new Rerietc took its place
wholly dominated by the conservatives. Fol
the time the only channel for the expression OF
the liberal views in theological discussion was
through newspapers, pamphlets and books
The revision debate was stirring the church
DR.. Briggs. though always advocating q new
creed by preference, threw himself vigorously
into the revision movement and irritated the
conservatives still more. He published about
the same time book entitled "whither?" in
which he took the ground that the church
under the lead of popular theologians, had
drifted away from the historical and proper
meaning of its confession OF faith. and that the
true course lay in returning to the broader
views of the Westminster diyines and making
these a starting point for further advance in
theology. He wrote unsparingly and enraeed
some Of the popular theolosians and their
friends and followers.
THE FAMOUS INAUGURAL ADDRESS
"Thus everything was ripe for an assault
upon him when the inaugural address was de-
liyered in January, 1891, on the occasion o.
his transfer to the new chair of biblical the
ology in Union Seminary. This address was
on the authority of Holy Scripture, and in.
cluded a bold plea for progress in theology
with the Scriptures, as distinguished from mere
human system OF doctrine. as the foundation,
The outburst of criticism that greeted this ad-
dress from conservative quarters cannot be I'm.
derstood without remembering the various hos.
tile elements which had been gradually arravinc
themselves against the author. There was sin.
cere apprehension that the foundations of faith
would be weakened: there was opposition 70
the revision movement-none the less intense
that it seemed at that time to te defeated: there
was personal zeal in behalf of traditional opin.
ions which had been attacked and in behalf of
respected teachers who had held those opinions
there resentment for supposed personal
slights-as in the rejection of articles offered
to the Presbyterian Rerie,r: there was
the dread of losing power and authority
in the church. voices of many different qualities
combined in the chorus of condemnation. One
outcome of the popular clamor was the veto OF
the assembly. but this was for our present pur.
POSES incidental only. The popular clamor
had embroidered jealous men in the presbvtery
of New York to move for a committee of in.
quiry into the inaugural address without wait
ing for the veto. The movement was unex.
pected. 1t carried. The committee reported
recommending Judicial process against DR.
Briggs on the ground of the address. Ate,
hot debate. and in the temporary absence OF
many of the liberal members of the presbytery
the Recommendation was adopted. A com
mittee. substantially the same with that recon-
mending process. was appointed to arrange the
necessary proceedings. This was in early Nav
1891. The end of May brought the veto of thu
assembly. The case in presbytery was inter
rupted by the summer. In October it wa,
brought up, and the committee made forma
IL