The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-06-19
THEOLOGICAL CoWARDIoE.
Tho Assault OF DR. McGiGert on the New
Testament by lmplIcatIon.

|
Tho Assault OF DR. McGIHert GA the New
Testament by Implication.
To THE EDITOR OF THE sUN-Sir: In these
days, par excellence, of religious skepticism,
any work which turns the light upon the teach
ings OF Jesus and the Now Testament cannot
fail to be of paramount interest to thinking men.
1t is undoubtedly for this reason that so much
attention has been given to the recent work Of
DR.. McGiffert. A letter, therefore. from one
who looks at 1t from q laymsn's point of Wow
may not, perhaps, be unacceptable to many who
who think deeply on this subject.
In common with many others of my friends. 1
have read DR.. McGifert's book very carefully,
and after consulting not only them, but myself.
the general consensus Of opinion seems to DO
that q calm reading and diResting Of his work
show clearly that the author is simply-to
use a slang though q very expressive term
trying ito whip the devil round the stump"
In other words, instead of coming out like a
man and acknowledging his unbelief, he is
evnsive throughout his entire work, mastery as
II is, while his so-cHlled arguments are simply
negative and of no force whatsoever.
For example, no throws doubt, by innuendo,
upon the institution OF tho Lords Supper. yet
he admits that st. Paul instituted it from the
account t of it. do this in remembrance of Me"
as received from tho Lord" How, then, can
DIR. McGiffert, by any manner of means. deny that
Christ instituted it., unless he denies st. Pauls
account as Of no historical value, which he does
not do. On the contrary, he is ever on the side
of the Pauline writings. which OF itself shows
his Inconsistency.
Again, his arguments that the letters to limo
thy and the Hebrews were not written by Paul
are also purely negative. In fact. should this
line of argument be pursued, we might as we'll
discard the whole of the books of the New Tes-
ly to his satisfaction at least. establishing the
fact that they were not written by their reputed
authors.
Indeed, in the whole of his work, while he
seems, by implication at least. TO deny the mi.
raculous conception. and treats Jesus as a man
still speaks of His miraculous birth by infer.
ence. but not by diract statement.
So 1t 10 throughout his entire work. nothing
definite, leaving all to be inferred by the reader,
whom he puts continually in doubt Of his
meaning.
G%iffert's work, no one knows exactly what idea
the author means to convey. The general im.
preston left on the mind Of readers Is that tho
attaching to any of the New Testament writ
ings. and hence designedly leaves them uncer.
been If the author had come out in q straight
forward manner and stated his entire ~unbelief
Inspired. for this is really What his BOOK
amounts to. DR.. Briggs and. Dr., Abbott are
certainly, more consistent, for they in their
writings leave nothing uncertain, saying frankly
their belief.
To SUM up: DR.. McGiffert's cowardice is ap.
parent throughout his entire work: and in view
OF this, what his object is In publishing 1t is not
apparent. 1t is, in fact, neither " fish nor fowl"
While it does not appeal to the orthodox. neither
does 1t appeal to the skeptic. Hence cui bono !
still, as he appears to shrink from coming out
boldly. his work can have no appreciable effect
on the apologetics of The age. 1t will simply
fall on barren ground. AT the same time one
cannot but admit that in his mastery studies OF
st. Paul's work and the general views of the
causes which led up to the establishment on q
firm foundation or the Christian religion, his
work Is of Superlative value.
WILLIAM L. STONE.
MOUNT VERNON, juno IT.