New-York tribune., 1884-01-27
MIR. NEUrovs CHOICE or METHODS

| II.
The Rev. Mr.. Ncwton's sermons and lectures
ON the Bible continue to excite controversy and
discussion. In his own communion he is con-
| dcmned by those who believe that the great
religious need of the age is positive preaching
and that the chief drawback to the progress of
! Christianity is a negative and elastic theology.
! \ prominent clergyman preaching a week ago
! in Brooklyn did not hesitate to pronounce Mr..
! Newton insane and iutimateI that this was the
| deliberate Judgment of those who knew the
man and had studied the Biblical criticism of
! the day Undoubtedly there are many clergy
men in and out of that religious body who
believe that the Christian cause would be
materially strengthened if this OutspOkcn critic
were t-icd for heresy and dcposed from the
ministry. On the other hand Mr.. Newton finds
apOlOgists among the Broad Churchmcn, who
without identifying themselves too closely with
his theological views are jealous Of the liberty
they themselves enjoy of believing and preach
ing Christian truth notneccssarily as it has come
down to them from the Fathers of the Church,
but as it is reasoned out. explained and rendered
more Ineligible by the art of modern crit-
cism.
This diversity of views respecting Mr.. New
tons theology does not stand in the way of
general agreement in regard to his method Of
opening and conducting the discuss sion. That
method is condemned alike by Christian min
listers aud laymen. DR.. Rylance expressed it
forcibly in talk with TRIBUNE reporter
quoted in yesterdays issue. The pulpit he
said, is not the place from which to launch
" these questions, the audience being without
I" the training and the data TO appreciate as Il
=" whole the discussion and the field of higher crit
icism.' Mr.. Ncwton's argument would naturally
have been addressed to an audience familiar
with the principles and canons of Biblical crii-
cism. Instead of advertising a course of sermons
on the errors of the Bible, he might have written
a book for the patient study and the deliberate
judgment of theoogians. When it be
came clear that his logic was unanswerable
and that his conclusions were a help rather than
a hindrance to an enlightened faith, it would
have been time to open the subject for popular
discussion.
What is the criticism upon Mr.. Newton's
utterances offered by clergymen of liberal
views, who in many respects are in sympathy
with him Ii is briefly this that he has ac-
Ceptcd hypothesis which have been proposed |
by ingenious scholars, but have not been
proved that in eliminating what he considers |
mythical elements and legendary traditions, he |
has assumed the validity and gcnuineness Of |
myths and legends the historical value of |
which has not yet been asccrtaned and that in
mingling fact and theory he
has exceeded the positive knowledge OF tho
most erudite Biblical criticism of the day. We
believe these structures upon Mr.. Ncwton's
teachings to be well founded. In addressing u
critical audience capable of discriminating
between what was true and what was only
hypothetical or problcmatic, no would have
acted with discretion. Ia exploiting his biblical