Bridging the Gulf

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Feb 11, 1904

Bridging the Gulf

A SHORT time ago Dr. Charles A. Briggs, professor of Biblical theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York, read a paper before the Church Club of that city, which has attracted much attention. Dr. Briggs is a leading exponent of the “Higher Criticism,” and his utterances exert a molding influence over the minds of many who hold advanced views in theology. We quote three paragraphs from his paper, as printed in The Independent (New York), which indicate clearly the Romeward trend of the “Higher Criticism:”

The question is often asked, How may we bridge the gulf between Protestantism and Rome? It can not be done on the level of past controversies or of present differences. How has the East River been bridged? At first two huge towers are built on each side of the river, then a slender wire is stretched from the top of these towers; this wire gives place to cables, then a foot bridge is made at this great elevation. Then months of labor are necessary from this higher level before there can be constructed at the lower level the great highway which combines the two sides in permanent union. So will it be with the church. We must rise above the present low level of doctrine and institution into higher and more comprehensive positions, and then some reformer, called of God, will discern some simple principle which will become the first line across the chasm, and then the bridge will follow in due time.

The antitheses of the sixteenth century [the period of the great Reformation] are to a great extent antitheses of one-sidedness, which the modern world has outgrown. The world has moved since then. The world has learned many things. We have new views of God's universe. We have new scientific methods. We have an entirely different psychology and philosophy. Our education is much more scientific, much more thorough, much more accurate, much more searching, much more comprehensive. . . .

We are now in the twentieth century, not the sixteenth. The situation has entirely changed. Rome no longer defends Tetzel, or the abuses which provoked the Reformation in Germany. Rome has been chastened by the discipline of history. Every shred of temporal power has been stripped from the papacy. No country is in any peril of papal usurpation. It is true that in St. Peter’s on great functions one hears the roar from assembled pilgrims and clerics, “Viva il Papa Re” [Long live the papacy]. But this is a theatrical display, a mere outburst of popular enthusiasm, having no reality in it. It is safe to say that if the Catholic Church of the sixteenth century had been what the Roman Catholic Church is to-day, there would have been no such rupture of the church as took place in the great Reformation. Doubtless many serious differences have since emerged, which must be removed ere union is possible. But the original differences no longer exist, in any practical form. Why should we live on forever in the shadow of past controversies, and raise up dead issues as obstructions to the reunion of Christianity and its progress in the modern world?

The “Higher Critics” have already removed, so far as they have been able to do so, one of the main differences between the Reformers and the papal theologians; in fact, the fundamental difference. In the celebrated protest of April 19, 1529, and as “the essential part of the protest,” we find these statements:—

There is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God.

… We are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only Word, such as it is contained in the Biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us.

But the “new views of God’s universe,” the “new scientific methods,” and the “entirely different psychology and philosophy” of the “Higher Criticism”

have nullified this protest, and have gone back to the papal platform of the Bible and tradition. This is openly declared in the paper from which we have quoted. Here is the statement: “Biblical criticism has made it certain that you can not build Christianity on the Holy Scriptures alone. It is necessary also to determine the Christian inheritance in unrecorded apostolic tradition.” It thus appears that much of the preliminary work in preparing the way for bridging the gulf between Protestantism and Rome has already been done. It would appear as if the “Higher Critics” had already built the huge towers on the Protestant side of the river of separation. And yet The Independent makes this editorial comment: “Bishop Potter, we are glad to know, finds nothing schismatic in Professor Briggs’s address.”

This open bid for a union with Rome is very significant. It is a sign of the times. Nearly twenty years ago the following instruction was given for the benefit of the remnant church, through the spirit of prophecy: “When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with Spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan, and that the end is near.”—“Testimony for the Church,” No. 32, page 207. These words are almost startling, when read in connection with the quotations which appear in this article. The long-looked-for crisis is just at hand. How great is the need for the clear and positive teaching of the threefold message of Revelation 14! Let nothing turn us aside from this work.