The Indianapolis journal., 1891-03-20
MACQUEARY'S HERESY.
His Conviction Theological Necessity-Great-
er Men Who Hold the Same Views.

His Conviction Theological lNecessity-Great-
er Men Who Hold the Same Views.
If the Rev. Mr.. Macqueary was brought
should escape conviction of heresy by a
court loyal to the faith of the church.
The views of Mr.. Macqueary regarding
the birth of Jesus and the resurrection of
the body were first brought into public
prominence by a letter of Bishop Potter to
church paper. In this letter the Bishop
severely censured o committee Of the
church congress fol, having invited the
Ohio priest to be one of the speakers at it's
last meeting at Philadelphia. The book an
nouncing Mr.. sMacqueary's opinions had
been published. but it had not attracted
wide attention. for it is by no means an ex-
traordinary addition to the theological dis.
cussion. In the main it follows a line OF
argument already familiar to the theolo-
gians, and it contains nothing to startle
them by reason OF its novelty and
denounced the views of Mr.. Mac
queary as destructive of the foundations
of Christian belief, and expressed astonish-
ment at the selection of its author as q
speaker at a great and important church
gathering, the volume became immediately
the subject of adverse criticism in religious
papers and periodicals of every orthodox
branch of the Christian church.
To approve the book was to abandon the
faith of christend0m; and, therefore, the
views was to ignore it altogether, or to pass
1t by as an expression of individual eccen-
tricity not worthy OF serious discussion.
After Bishop Potter had declared himself
against Mr.. Mcqueary so publicly, and
to pursns H eth this policv Of indifference or eva
sion. The trial of tho heretical clergy
man became foregone conclusion, and his
conviction was not less matter of course:
In denying the virgin birth of Jesus and
declaring that the incarnation was along
the lines of natural generation, with Joseph
as his father, Mr.. Macqueary took away
the divine character of the Son of God. He
made of him q mere man inspired by the
Divine Spirit, as any other man might be
inspired. He reduced Him from a proper
among men; teacher of profound and
heavenly wisdom, and an exemplar for all
mankind, but not the Second Person of the
Trinity. Hence his teaching shattered and
removed the very corner-stone of Christian
ity and tho church. If Jssus is not God,
with the Father. Christian theology rests
on fiction and superstition, and not on
eternal and Interchangeable truth; it ranks
with pagan mythology as a creation OF men
and not of God.
Hence, when Bishop Potter directed at
tentIon to the beresy of Mr.. Macqueary, he
forced the issue which has now been decid-
ed at Cleveland against the accused clergy
man. He did even more. BY compelling
that trial he made it logically necessary
with the whole school of Biblical criticism
and Interpretation, of which Mr.. Mac
queary is only a humble disciple. Mr.,
Heber Newton, of this diocese. is not less
conspicuous as ono of it's pupils. OF fsI
more Importance than either is Professor
Briggs, the professor of Biblical theology
in the Presby yterian Theological Seminary
of this city, for he is a really learned man
of wide and increasing influence
throughout the Protestant churches
the court of five before whom Mr.
Macqueary was tried, two clergymen voted
for his acquittal. as against the three who
brought about his conviction. in the view
of this minority, therefore, it is possible fol
a clergyman of the Episcopal church
which lies at the basis of Christian belief
and yet remain unaffected in his standing
in tho church. 1t may be that the
division of the Cleveland court, or three tC
two. represents tho division which exists
touching the vital question at issue. Hthat
be so, and whether it be so or not is it not
tho oblisatio of the majority to 60 ahead
until the church is wholly purgsd OF this
fatal heresyf
follow the course he himself suggested to
Bishop Leonard. and bring the Rev. Hebel
Newton. of his own diocese, to immediate
trial. The line of argument followed by
that clergyman is substantially tho same
as that pursued by Mr.. Macqueary. Like
DrofAssor prio~a ubovn p;chnp pnf%a~ ha.
commended 90 unaccOuntebly, they both
subject the Bible to tho criticism of natura
science and human reason. instead of nc
cepting it's statements as divine truth!
which the more logic of human reason can
not gainsay., Practically, therefore. they
and the whole school TO which they belong
reject the theory of inspiration that fur
nishes the church with the postulates of its
theology. Even if there may be an evolution
of theology in the church. the Fundamental
propositions of the incarnation and the re
demp.ion como from tho Bible alone. With
out the Scriptures recording the life and
teachings of Jesus and his apostles, an(
describing the dealings of God with man
theology would have no basis; and If the
Scriptures are not truth which can be as
sumsd as needing no proof, the church
and it's traditions have nothing on which
to rest.
Yet at this time the authority of the Bibl,
as divine revelation Is rejected or explained
away by large and important part of the
clergy. Poor Mr.. Macqueary Is made a
victim simply because he has followed hil
preceptors, speaking out, perhaps, NOR,
frankly than they the conclusions to which
both they aud he have come. The punish
ment of him singly, while his mas
ters. the great doctors of theology, are lef
, unscathed. would look too mnch like tn,
mere persecution of an individual to b,
worthy of the household of the faith. In
stead of being an exhibition of courage an(
high and uncompromising principle, j
would suggest rather timidity and uncer
tainty of belief and conviction.
The trial of the Rev. Mr. Macquear,
ought logically and consistently to be th,
beginning of . long series of heresy trials