New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-04-17
some years. But II has not succeeded. and 1t
seems doubtful If this one will fare any better,
at least in the present temper Of Parliament.
NEW THEOLOGICAL STORM CENTRE.

There are some Indications that the theo'
logical storm centre in Professionalism Is TO he
shifted from the Bible TO the supernatural basis
Of Christianity which appeals to the Bible for
its authority. This is natural and inevitable.
So long as Protestants accepted the Bible with.
out question as divine and nfallible record
of truth not otherwise ascertainable by man
there could be no controversy over any of its
declarations. even when they transcribed hui.
man reason. Not merely its miracles but the
whole supernatural background on which its
message to man rested were TO be taken as
facts. no more to he questioned than a propo-
siton of Euclid. In this way. until recently.
nearly ill Christians accepted the story Of the
Garden Of Eden. the fall Of man. the mracu-
Ious birth Of Jesus and the institution Of the
Lords Supper as supernatural means or
grace There could be no dispute about these
things They were recorded in the Bible, and
the Bible was the direct and explicit revelation
Of truth by God
But this view Of the Bible Is no longer held
by large number Of Protestants in many Of
the churches They say that the Bible is not
infallible and that 1t contains erroneous state
ments as to certain facts Of history. They
strive TO minimize the miraculous and super
natural elements In the Bible. even where they
do not actually reject them Tho tendency of
modern Biblical criticism and investigation Is
to make the Bible essentially a human book
containing. 1t Is true record of Gods dealings
with men. and teaching divine system of
morality, but subject to human investigation
and judgment ms to its origin and text. We
are not speaking here Of the inidel critics of
the Bible. but Of men in the orthodox Churches
like Professors Driver and Cheync. in England;
Marcus Dodds and George Adam Smith. in Scot
land. and Professors Briggs and McGifert, in
this country. These and other men who might
10 named are not all equally radical in their
views. but they are all equally committed 10
the position that the old traditional beliefs con
corning the Bible may be- and indeed must
be. reviewed and corrected And In spite OF
the popular condemnation Of their attitude they
bringing large number Of Christians over
To their way Of thinking.
One Of the significant results Of this change
of attitude concerning the Bible IS the dispose
ton in some quarters to hold the dogma Of the
virgin birth Of Jesus as question open 10 fur
Their investigation though we believe no ortho-
doX clergyman In good standing has yet actu-
ally rejected It. II Is within the possibilities.
however that the rejection will come later.
a logical result of the free criticism OF the
Bible now so prevalent. But perhaps an even
more significant outcome Of this questioning
attitude toward the supernatural Is ih~ view
Of the Lords supper for which Professor Me-
Gfcrt is now being criticised He declares that
the Synoptic Gospels know nothing Of the in
stitrton Of the Lords Supper as a sacrament
70 In IL. h, a., sh,-c
And in n review Of the question In The Tnde-
pendent" Professor Briggs says II do not
''hesltatc to take my stand with these critic.
"and my colleague. Or. Mc,;iffert on this ques-
zion" In other words. he rests his belief in
the memorial character Of the Lords Supper
not On the quoted words OF Jesus in the Gospel
Of Luke, which. in common with Westcott.
Hort and many other critics. no regards as an
interpolation. but on the testimony Of Paul IN
the Epistle 20 the Corinthians and upon the
earliest Christian traditional practice" But
he goes on 10 explain that Paul's account Of the
institution of the Lords Supper was probably
derived from an oral tradition which com
binei the words Of Jesus on two different oc-
casIons. Therefore hn decides thar Jesus first
Instituted The Lords Supper simply as n sacrl-
fetal feast OF the New Covenant. celebrated once
for Al on the night OF The betrayal. and that IL
was afterward connected with the Passover
meal, involving an annual celebration AT Easter.
and was still later connected with the sacri-
fetal meals OF the ordinary peace-ofrcrngs.
It may be said that this view does not an
tagonze the dogma OF the perpetual memorial
sacrifice Of the Lords Supper. That IS true.
But 1t deprives II Of the authority given TO II
by Christs own words and rests II simply on
an oral tradition. II will he competent, there
fore. for some other critic, arguing from the
same premises. 10 reject wholly the dogma on
ihc ground that this ancient oral tradition on
which II rests IL not binding on Christians
to-day.