New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-04
Mr.. NACOTFARYS TRIAL.

On "Wednesday of this week the Rev. Howard
MacOucary. prcsbytcr Of the Episcopal Church
in the diocese Of Ohio is 10 he tried for heresy
in Cleveland. before an ecclesiastical court.
II will be remembered that n few months ago
Mr. Mac0ucary published a book in which he
asserted that Christ was not born OF Virgin,
and that His physical body was not raised
from the dead. At tho same time he strongly
asserted his belief in the Divinity OF Christ
and in His resurrection from the dead. The
book at once made sensation in the Episcopal
Church. and was generally denounced, not only
for its statements on these two points. but for
its general tone of rationqIiSm and doubt. The
authors aim was 70 trace the natural evolution
Of man and Christianity and in doing 80 he
felt himself Obliged to throw overheard many
Of the traditional beliefs of the Church
II was hoped by some that Mr.. MacQueary'
who is a Young man. would be frightened by
the storm of Remuneration that broke over his
head and Withdraw the expressions that pro-
yol,od criticism. But he declared that he could
not withdraw what he still believed Then
representative clcrGymen OF all schools OF
thought beSOught him to do what he could 70
avoid the necessity of trial; and Us a result
of this il is understood that an informal con-
ference between some Ohio EpScopalianS ana
Mr. MacQucary was recently held. But It was
found that no compromise was possible ana so
the trial will take place.
Is will be seen, the questions at issue are
..ital in their character. and concern oil the
churches For. in the last analysis, they in
yolyc the attitude of the 'O-callcd Evangelical
denominations toward modern Biblical criticism.
bn A'i,piu birth and
the physical resurrection of the saviour on the
ground that modern Biblical criticism throws
crave doubts on the ccnuincn">~ of III" passages
in the Gospels which relate these * facts. ~"
NAV be- mistaken in this: Biblical criticism may
not have said il, last word about these passages {;
or if il has. Nr M1cpucary may have failed
to interpret il Truly. II that ho So, then he
will have arlaycd against him not only his
Church. but the conclusions of criticism. and he
viii be- summary ruled ont of court.
I;ut in ca.c hc should prove that the >o-caIled
HIGHER criticism Is on his side. the Episcopal
Church will be- compelled 10 decide against the
higher criticism unless il is willing 70 MODIFY
its Creed which declares that Christ was born
Of a Virgin and that lie rose again from the
dead on the third day. Thus far il has never
entirely broken with modern Biblical criticism.
but has quietly adjusted lis -ystcm TO the con
illusions of the critics. That has been how
eyer because no question involving the denial
Of an article in the Creed has ever come M
before II is easy enough for the Church 10
accent the conclusions of critics in regard 70
the six DAYS of creation. or even in regard 10
the non-M0Saic authorship of the Pentdteuch.
But il does not seem possible for it 10 assent
when critics practically eliminate two articles
OF its Creed
On the other hand, the Episcopal Church.
more. perhaps. than any other denom'ration'
desires to observe neutral attitude toward
biblical criticism. Religious opinion and thought
in that Church are undergoing profound
modification and while retaining the funGa-
mental ideas of it's old faith, il is gradually nd
iuStinC itself to the new thought 81 the age.
This has given to its members a liberty Of
opinion which they have learned to prize high
~. And many of item will consider it an
irrcparablc misfortune If this liberty of 0pin-
ion should now be curtailed for the whole
Church by the judgment of diocesan ccccSi-
astiCal court.