The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-02-15
Another Inhdel Theoloeian.

The denial of any sacramental charac-
ter and of any mystery In the Holy Sup
per, made by the Rev. DR.. McGIFFERT OF
Union Theological Seminary, introduces
into the Presbyterian Church heresy not
less fragrant han hat with which DIR.
BRIGGS of the same school stirred the
whole world Of Protestant orthodoxy. II
the natural and scientific method adopted
by DIR. MCGIFFERT In treating this particu.
lar tenet OF Christian faith is applied to
the system of Christian theology generally,
the whole must fall to the ground.
According to the book Of DR.. MoGIFFERT,
containing this indubitable heresy, tho
Lords Supper, or the Sacrament Of the
Holy Communion, was In its origin simply
a social meal, and In the mind Of JESUS,
apparently, was not even the institution
Of a memorial feast, but was q method
chosen by Him to announce symbolically
His "~impending DEATH" and to assure his
disciples that sit would result not in evil
but in good" to them. ITO read into this
simple and touching act, unprecedented,
yet summing up in itself the whole story
OF His life of service and of sacrifice,
subtle and abstruse doctrines, is" says
DR.. MCGIFFERT, "a great injustice, for
II takes from the scene all its beautiful
naturalness, which is 80 characteristic Of
Him and so perfectly in keeping with His
direct and unaffected thought and speech"
The circumstance that after the actual
death of JESUS, His disciples preserved tho
supper as a memorial feast, in which they
looked back to His death rs He had looked
forward to It," is regarded by DR.. MoGIF-
FERT as simply a natural proceeding ex-
pressive of their sense Of bereavement.
1t cannot be denied that this explana-
tion of the initiation of the Last Supper,
with its development into a memorial
feast and q sacramental Communion of
the deepest and holiest mystery. is IN.
tirely reasonable. II the circumstance
are considered and measured without
any theological bias, or without regard
to the authority Of the Church. A his.
torIan who entered upon the examination
Of the subject without any religious pre-
conceptions as to it or any religious spirit
whatever, would treat the Supper In the
same way, or as a historical event occur
ring among simple people, and without any
occult Significance.
Such a method Of treatment, however, does
violence to all Christian theology from the
earliest ages Of the Church, and 1t conflicts
directly with the Westminster Confession,
the standard Of doctrine of the Presby-
terrain Church. 1t is the critical and not
the religious method, and If applied to
Christianity as a whole would leave moth
ing of it except a body of ethical teachings,
from which all supernatural character had
been excluded. The Last Supper would
have no more sacramental quality than
the last words of SOCRATES to his dis
ciples when he took the hemlock, or a
natural proceeding, which, however i'm
pressive it might have been, had nothing
of the character of a deep religious mystery.
Thus one by one, Presbyterian theolo.
gians of distinction and wide influence In
shaping the opinions Of the Presbyterian
ministry, are knocking down the pillars of
the Christian faith. They are reducing
Christianity to a purely natural level, and
subjecting it to the requirements of scien.
tifc demonstration like the veriest inidel.
They are eliminating faith wholly and dis.
carding all Church authority. They de.
mand that there shall be scientific proof !;
and that means practically the rejection of
supernaturalism. They will have no mys-
teries. They must see and know or they
will not believe; and what is that except
pure agnosticism2
The spirit of skepticism in the past vent
ed itself in reproaches against the Church
made by outside infdelity; but the skepti-
cism of the present is in the Church itself.
1t is not now VoLNEY and Tom PAINE who
are assailing the stronghold of religious
orthodoxy; 1t is DR.. BRIGGS and DR.. Nc
GIFFERT, its appointed defenders, who are
surrendering the citadel to in6delity.