The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-16
DIR. M'GIFFERT TALKS.
The Alleged Hereto Discusses the
Charges Against His Book.

NEW YORK, Feb. 15-Active members
of the Presbyterian Church, resident in
every part of the country, are still writing
letters to members of the New York Pres
bytery asking why some action is not taken
regarding the recent utterances of Prof
Arthur c. McGiffert, of Union Theological
Seminary, and member of New York
Presbytery. The letters in question, a large
number of which have been received, do not
come, 1t is said, from the conservative or
anti-Briggs party in the church. On the
contrary, a great majority of them come
so 1t is claimed, from those who belong to
the liberal or Briggs party and thus it is
not breaking out again of the old trouble
AS proof of this it is shown that a large
number of letters have come lately from
Illinois and Indiana, where the liberal party
is strong. That p9rt of the book on which
heresy charges are based is found on Pages
60 and 20, where the Sacrificial character of
the Lords supper is denied. Professor Nc
Giffert says
There can be no doubt that Jesus ate the
last supper with His disciples, as recorded
IN all three of the synoptic gospels and
that He said of the bread which He broke
and gave to His companions, This is my
body, and of the wine which He gave them
to drink, This is my blood of the covenant
with reference to His approaching death.
But more than this our sources hardly war
rant in asserting positively. 1t was appar-
entity not the institution of memorial
feast that He had in mind so much as the
announcement of his impending death, and
the assurance that it would result not in
evil but in good to His disciples. He had
already told them that He must die, and
that His death would be in reality a means
of blessing to them. He now repeated that
prophecy and promise in vivid and impress
sive symbol. AS the bread was broken and
the wine poured out, must His body be
broken and His blood she'd but not in vain
it was for their sake, and not for theirs
alone but for the sake of many. To read
into this simple and touching act-unpre-
meditated and yet summing up in itself the
whole story of His life of service and of
sacrifice-subtle and abstruse doctrines, is
to do Jesus a great injustice, for it takes
from the scene all it's beautiful naturalness
which is so characteristic of Him and so
perfectly in keeping with His direct and I'M
affected thought and speech.
He was not teaching theology, nor was
He giving yelled utterance to any mys-
terious truth concerning His person and
work. He was simply foretelling His death
and endeavoring to impart to His disciples
something of that divine trust and calm
ness with which He approached it, But
after His death, when His followers ate
bread and drank wine together, they could
not fail to recall the solemn moment in
which Jesus had broken bread in their pres
cree and with a reference to His impending
death had pronounced the bread His body
and the wine His blood, ana, remembering
that scene, their eating and drinking to-
gether must inevitably, whether with or
without command from Him, take on the
character of a memorial feast in which
they looked back to His death and He
looked forward to 1t.
Even if one were to question. as Julicher
does whether Christ actually did institute
a memorial feast which His disciples were
to continue celebrating until His return, it
can hardly be doubted that Paul was re-
producing what he had received from the
1t .frNla hon nn
as saying, This do in remembrance of
me.