New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-04-26
MR.. NEWTON ARRAIGNED.
ru.pcrs pPEFeRRED AGAINST HIM.

of his owl denomination not to pass Judgment upo"
them until the sermons hal been revised ana pun
lished in book form. As the Voinme app'arru uur-
inc, Liant il did not receive at that time tho care
fuI examination which has of late been bestowed
mon il bv the clergy of the Episcopal Church.
II was not until yesterday that any official step
was taken to bring Mr. Newton before the bar OF
the Church TO answer for some OF the sfatemenS
which he had made in his sermons. three clergy
men. the Rev. Dr. Samue Buel, OF the General Theo-
logical Seminary: the Rev DIR. b. f. De Costa, OF
the Church of st. John the Evangelist and the Rev
DR.. Randolph H. McKim, of the Church of the Holy
Trinity IN Harlem. called upon Bishop Potter
Yesterday afternoon and made Dresentment OF
charges against Mr.. Newton. This was done in &C
cordance with canon OF the church which pro-
yides that a clergyman may DO arraigned upon
proper presehtment for trial for various offences,
one of which Is a violation OF hist ordination vows
in teaching strange and erroneous doctrine. Inc
presentment was vommnous, aud as iiishop fotter
took 1t in his hand he said that 1T woue receive MS
| immediate attention He could not, no WeYcr, state
when he would be- able TO ma 20 decision IN regard
to the matter. The committee then Withdrew.
The course of procedure in such in the Prot
! estant Episcopal Church is as follows: The Bishop
may dismiss the If he thinks the charges unsus-
tanned. If not. the matter is submitted to Jury Oh
| FIVE men. who are appointed bv the Bishop ana the
| accused clergyman together. Counsel may be en-
| ployed by both slides il it is so desired.
WHAT THE CHARGES ARE.
| In reply to the inquiries of TRIBUNE reporter
| who called at his home No. IL West Onc-hundred-
and -thr ,icth-st. last evening the Rev. Dr. McKim
| said:
| 1.-THE presentment Of Mr.. Newton has of course
| been made in accordance with the oanons OF tho
| Church covering such cases. There are several
charges and they are OF o serious nature Had this
| not been the case presentment would have been
| made. The first charge is violation of tho seventh
| article OF tho constitution, which requires every
candidate for the ministry to sign thls dsoarat'9 on
| / do believe the Holy Scripture OF the oI
and New Testaments TO DO the worn Oh
God This declaration of belief Mr. New
| ton, having twice signed now REJECTS,
affirming ihat the Bible is not the word of God, but
oulv con aims it thereby opening tho way LOT me
! wholesale rejection of various books or the blDie
| and leaving every man TO determine Tor himself
how much Of tho Bible he shall accrpt-a position
winch IN in direct conflict 18th the formuaries and
| standards of the Church.
| canon. holding and teaching publicly aud az
vsedly, doctrine contrary to that held by the
Protestant Episcopal Church There are sew
! eral specifications made under this charge: that
| Mr. Newton has taught doctrine SUB
versive Of the supremacy OF the Holy
/ Scriptures as a rule OF religious faltn ana
moral DUTY; that no has virtually denied the DlyIn-
| iiy OF Christ and His incarnation by the HOW
Ghost, the Virgin Mary; that ne mas ulscfenleu
| the mn acles of the OLD aud New Tesaments that
he has erroneOusy stated the doctrine OF the Holy
| Ghost; that lac has denied the Second Advent OF
| Christ.
| The third charge is that Mr. Newton has been
guilty of acts which involve breach Of bus ord ma
| ton vow.: First, that III which, when ordained TO
| the daconate he declared his 'uufeigned belief IN
all the Can0ncal s riplureS Of the Old and New
| Testament; second, thar IN which he promised TO
/ instruct the people committed TO his charge out of
the Canonica Scriptures, and that in which he
furthrr promised always 50 10 minister the doctrine
| OF Chris this Church hath received tho sane ;
| third that IN which he PROMISED 10 be ready win
| ali faith aud diligence 10 Danish and drive away
from the Church al erroneous and strange doctrines
| contrary 10 Gods word.
| mo fonrtb charge embraces several offences
| committed under one or another OF the previous
| heats; FRS, representing the religion OF tho
Jews OlythelSic ana idOla, tOus-ln fact, rs y
| form of nature worship; second false representa-
ton of the mission and teaching of the Old Icsta-
ment prophets; tmrl' REPRESENTING Cnrlstlahi'y ~
| the outcome of natural historic evolution ana not
| "a direct revelation from GOd-in other words, re-
iecting lis sup rnatural character ~ always held IN
the Church tOurtn rejecting the predlciye char
octer of prophecy aud Thus Impcachng the authority
and denying the testimony OF our Loro Jesus
| Christ.
| MR. NEwToS'5 OFFENCE GRAVE SCANDAL.
| these doctrines, thus publicly and deliberately
set forth by Mr. Newton. are in the judgment OF the
| preseutor, destructive of the foundation upon
VIII ca the Protestant Episcopal Church IL built.
They ~sail the eta lei of the Christian faith. They
duce Cbristianity 10 transient phase Of natural
| religion They cnthrone the doctrine of Evolution
| above that of Christ Himself And the
| publication of such opinions by clergy
! man OF the Church. FROM pulpit aud press
| under circumstances of the greatest nOtOr'eiy,
| ma become rave scandal throughout tho Church.
TO pn = by such an offence without Tebuke or pro-
fest would be to betrdy tue faith once delivered to
The sainfs' 10 encOurIG' m our ministry Inc most
| dangorous forms of unbellef TO put stumbling
| block IN the way OF thousands of the Churcbs
| children, and to expose Our standards ana formu-
larus 10 the scOrn AID derIson OF ChtistendoIn.
| The DrescntoTs dlsclaim all desire 10 narrow tao
rec ,gnizpd comprche nsvoness of the Churcn. Ihev
nrr not acting tine IN crest ut any party They
do not challenge the rIghs o. any party III tho
Church. Ill gh or Low or Broad But theY insist lhdt
| ar NtWtOns doctrines, taken as a WhOr. nave
never Drct recognized - legitimate ~ the Church.
Iney are quite beyond the limits Ol any OF IT'S HIS
torical par,los Iucy ara do ,truCtIVo OF the basis
common e. them all For these reasons The pro-
seniors have ieIt IN duty bound to un Iertake the
PAINFUL task of arranging Mr Newton before the
ccccsidstIca! authority OF tho diocese Their action
IS moi AN attack upon nm pelsOnIlY, out meas
uro at defence In benaI Oh the CAuTeh
whose doctrines he has dciidntiy assiIied. Tho
responsibility Tor the conflict ANA controversy
which may result nom TINS acton OF theirs must
resi- with hun who has by his erroneous ahd
s,range doctrines, contrary 10 Coils Word' Dir
tu,De1 the peace and broken the uniy OF the
Church. .,,.
10 themselves or rs TO Nc. Newton lwhoso zeal ana
puIity of character thoy do not question: can De
allowed to stand in the way OF the performance OF
see It, ii they have msjuug-d Mr.. Newton's
real srnm Is; If they have aiken the true con
seoueucrs OF mis- teachng II they have boon uncOn-
| sclously bIasscd in ,heir judgment; IT they have
| conceived erroneous view OF their duty IN the
premise they trust they Will be ionnd ready 10
ackpowle ledge their error when 1t shall be shown.
After making chs statement, DIR. MchIm said
that his views were tho views of both the ReV. DIS
Buel and De, osta. The committee had agreed ia
allow much oil the pieseutlnenI 10 DO puOlSneu
as he had gwen to the reporter
|
| THE CIGAR MAKERS STRIKE