New-York tribune., 1891-05-10
A DUTY or THE CHURCH.

As we have frequently said, no one can quar-
rel with the Christian Church for discipining
those of its members who deny its doctrines
So far as their individual case is concerned, it
is not called upon to consider the abstract truth
of what they urge against the beliefs of the
Church 1t need only take cOgnizance of the
fact that they refuse to believe what the Church,
whether rightly or wrongly demands that her
members shall believe. Where the issue Is thus
clearly defined. the Church would be recreant
to it's duty if it fail5H to vindcate its principles
irrespective of the question whether they might
not be wisely modified or revised.
But when the Church has thus vindicated its
principles as against individual unbelievers, it
becomes its duty to review it's dogmas and ira
ditional beliefs from time TO time in order to
bring them more in harmony with the con-
clusons Of reason and Christian scholarship, and
it is here that il is most seriously at fault. With
in the last thirty years, for instance, Biblical
scholars, not outside of but within the Church,
have dscredted and overthrown many Of
the old traditional beliefs about that Book.
But the Church does not appear to have taken
any official c0gnlzance of the fact. 1t takes no.
steps to revise or modify its old views of the
it still imposes on its members, and all of which
are only important because of the weight that
attaches to its authority. And in general it as
Sumes, not simply that its Creed is a fnality,
but that the great body Of opinions and tradi-
tiOns that have grown up around its Greed is
also lrality, so that to deny the least of
these human opinions and traditions is to deny
the religion of Christ.
Now in adopting this attitude the Church
makes a grieyOuS mistake In every sphere
of human life rights imply obligations and the
right Of the Church t. maintain the integrity
Of its Creed cannot be separated from the OBJ
legation Of the Church to have a Creed which
does not call upon men to believe what thev
know to be untrue. We do not here refer to
matters Of faith which are beyond the domain
of reason, but to matters within the domain of
historical research, as to which scholars of the
present day are amply qualified to Judge.
To refer again to the Bible, it would be well
if all the Christian denominations would adopt
the eminently wise attitude of "The Congrega-
tionaIist," paper which certainly cannot be
accused Of the slightest sympathy with unbe-
lief. 1t says:
The Christian of the Bible and It's contents are
subject 10 revision and recognize the fact that
there Is much real pepexy about the Bible among the
most serious and thoughtful Christians. II they are to
bold the Bible hntellgeny and II they are TO teach il
to intelligent people, they must always be ready to re-
wise their conceptions of II whenever in the progress OF
knowladge an occasion demands To study the Bible I'm
all reasonable ways and with all available means and
to revise conceptions Of It according the results
ls what the Bible itself invites and requires. .
Shall denounce our greatest Biblical scholars even
though they make mistakes they doubtless often do
and expect that Biblical scholarship will flourish and
that the Bible will be earnestly studed In colleges
Shall We shield the Bible from asy light, as We shield