New-York tribune., 1884-01-13
TIE USE AND ABUSE or TIE PULPIT.

TIRE USE And ABUSE or TIE PULPIT.
A Church is an organization the chief ends OF
which are the maintenance of some form OF
religious worship and the teaching OF religious
doctrines. Every Church has its own special
beliefs, and it is the aim of each denomination
to secure such observance and exposition in the
pulpit as are best calculated to maintain,
fortify and extend tho views held by the
organization The wisdom of this policy. and
its Justice, are self-evident. The policy is
enforced by the primary law Of self-preserya-
ton. And ecclesiastical history from the
beginning until now shows that those Churches
which have adhered most unswervingly to this
course, and have most resolutcly refused TO
allow any infractiOn of the rule of loyalty and
consistency, have retained their reign and
influence the longest. No society Of any kind
can permit the main objects of its existence to
be attacked from within it, save at the lisk of
disintegration. A house divided against itself
cannot stand, in short and for this reason the
criticism of the Rev. Heber Newton, which has
become so emphatic and trenchant is justified
by his position. 1t is not at all necessary to
enter upon a consideration of Mr. NewtOn's
views as set forth from the pulpit. All that 1t
is requisite to point out is the fact that the
utterance of those views cannot be made to
consist with any rational theory of his duty as
an Episcopal clergyman.
There is no room for controversy on this
head. No man is bound to undertake the
exposition and advocacy of any particular
doctrine. But having undertaken such eXposi-
ton and advocacy, he is thencefOrward under
obligations not to assail those doctrines under
cover of his official position as their authorized
teacher and defender. The Rev. IIeber Newton
appears to have changed his beliefs radically
since he was ordained. 1t seems that he no
longer regards as true many fundamental
articles of the creed of the Episcopal Church
He has undergone an intellectual revolution,
and he finds himself unable to preach the things
which he formerly did, and which belong to the
due fulflment of his clerical functions But
because Mr.. Newton has ceased to be able to
set forth the Episcopal doctrine orthodoxy
it does not follow that he is entitled to use an
Episcopal pulpit for the dissemination OF his
new views. On the contrary, in so much as
those new views are contrary to Episcopal doc
trne, in so far is he bound to refrain from stat
ing them in the pulpit. He is under no COM
pulsion to remain in the pulpit, but he is
under much obligation not to abuse his position
if he elects to remain in it; and it Is an abuse
of his position to preach doctrines which the
Church of which he is a member regards as
false and mischievOus.
preacher belonging to no religious orgdni-
zation might change his pulpit teachings as
often rs he pleased, provided his congregation
were contented. But an Episcopal clergyman
is not thus independent. He is under solemn
pledges. He has received commission which
binds him to do thus and so, and he has no
more right to violate its conditions than
soldier has to transfer his allegiance. These
remarks are indeed truisms, but they are
called for because the Rev. Heber Newton
does not appear to appreciate the utter unten-
ability of the course he has adopted. And
that he hOuld not comprehend this Is indeed
by far the most surprising fact in the case.
The world is open TO Mr.. Newton. lie is free
to say what he thinks without let or hind
rance in any other situation than the one he now
occupies Elsewhere his views would of course
be open to criticism as much as now, but else
where he could not be chargcable, as he GER
tainly is at present, with what resembles in
sensibility to the plain duties of his Office. In
a word, if he cannot any longer believe what
the Episcopal Church believes, or teach what
it teaches, he ought to resign his pulpit.
Continuance in his attitude of hostility to his
own Church must compel that Church to take
measures for his removal, and may destroy
whatever influence he might have had as lay
man by suggesting his incapacity to draw an
obvious moral distinction.
-----