New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-20
PROFESSOR MGIFFERT'S CASE.

All true friends Of the Presbyterian Church
will Join in the hope that n trial Of Professor
Arthur C. McCiffert for heresy may be deemed
unnecessary. For. however it might result. 1t
would harm the Church. DR. Mciiffert is a
Presbyterian clergyman and professor OF
church history In the Union Theological SEMI
nary, and has recently written an able ana
brilliant book entitled, "A History of Christian
ity In the Apostolic Age With much that Is
contained In this book neither PresbyterianS
nor Christians generally can find any fault. The
aim, and the sole aim. Of its author Is to draw
an absolutely true picture Of Apostolic Chris
tianity by a careful minute and unbiased study
Of the New Testament and other records of the
Apostolic age. And the result. on the whole. Is
a book at once helpful. stimulating and inform
ing The Christian Church is to-day vitality In
terested in Just such work as Professor McGu-
fert has performed in this volume. 1t Is re-
examining t3 munments and archives In the
light Of new knowledge and modern thought, In
order to test how far its old traditional inter
probation Of them is consistent with the facts.
In doing this II is only doing what the Church
has, in one way or another, done In every age.
and wha: It must always continue 10 do II It's
formularies and beliefs are 10 be anything more
than the archaic suryivals OF dead past. The
real foes Of Christianity are not its loyal sons
who ask What mean We by this serviceT' but
those who mistakenly fear that even TO ask
such q question may lay low the superstructure
of the Church
It Is reported, however, that many Presby
terians have protested against what Professor
McGnert has said about the institution OF the
Lords Supper, and IA result Of these protests
the New York Presbytery may he asked to put
the Union professor on trial for heresy. Tho
passage Of which special complaint is made Is
as follows:
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 which is shed for many" and
that He did Il with a reference to His approach
ing death. But more than this our sources hard
ly warrant in asserting positively. 1t vas APP
parently, not the institution Of n memorial feast
that He he'd in mind much the announce
ment OF His impending death. and the assurance
that 1t would result. not In evil but in good to
His disciples.
1t is asserted that that is direct contradc-
ton Of the PresSy Confession Of Faith,
which declares that the Lords Supper Is n
memorial feast, In which 'rhey that worthlly
communicate do therein feed upon the
body ana Dl00Q or tnrlSt, not hllcr Il corporal
"or carnal but in spiritual. manner"
In regard to the point here raised II would
be rash for any one except a skilled Prcsby-
terrain theologan 10 pronounce judgment And
the indications are that even the Presbyterian
thcologians would not be altogether agreed in
their conclusions. 1t will be urged In favor of
Professor McGiffcrt that he is writing as his
torian and not ms O theologian. and that If no
has stated correctly the historical facts as 70
the institution Of the Lords Supper the Con-
fpsson OF Faith must be construed IN the light
OF the historical facts. The Gospel Of John does
not report the institution Of the Lords Supper
at all And Of the three synoptic Gospels, Luke
have said. This do in remembrance Of me-"
These words however are omitted In many Of
the best manuscripts. and they regarded as
an Interpolation by Westcott and Hart. whose
text Of the Greek Testament is preferred 10
that OF all others by scholars. In view Of these
facts. Professor Mc(iiffert declares that cit Is
mot absolutely certain that Jesus himself actu-
ally Instituted such a supper and directed His
disciples 10 eat and drink In remembrance OF
Him" AS historian, It will seem to most
people that his conclusion may be fairly de-
duced from the premises. But he Is also
PRESBYTERIAN minister and whether In making
this historical deduction he may not have en-
tangled himself In the meshes OF the Prcsby
terrain Confession Of Faith is tho question that
now confronts the Church.