New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-01

Dada, Ala, May 81 1891.
MISREPRESENTATION FOR THE ChuhCh'
THE TRIAL OF DR.. BROOKS AND DR.. NEWTON
VIEWED AS A NECESSITY.
To the Editor Of The Tribune
sir: read with acute satisfaction your able edi-
orials in Yesterdays issue in which you discuss inc
questions OF Drs. Brocs, Newton and Briggs You are
entirely right when you that fundamentally they al
involve the point. But while, not being familiar
with Presbyteriansm, am incompetent to discuss the
Briggs question, will you permit to say that Dr.
Parkhursts argument-and 1t Is most creditabe one
in your issue OF this morning does not touch tile cases
of Dr. Brooks and Dr. Newton in the Episcopal Church
These two cases are not on the merits at ILL There IS
between those gentlemen and Episcopal polty-no
matter OF Interpretation Of private Judgment al ALL
We must OF course, the world Is constituted pardon
something to the personal prominence OF the two gehe
men arraigned. But 1t not for that the matter
would hardly attract attention. 1t not Dr. Brooks
who knocks at the door of the House of Bishops surely
no Epscopalan would take the trouble 10 debate the
expedency Of making a bishop out OF man VINO dio
not believe in bishops in their efficacy or authority
1t would be much simpler to refrain from the lung ana
expensive routine Of eectng and rafying and conse'
Grating bishops and whenever bishop was wanted luss
take from the Methodiss, If all that EpiScopaans
wanted in bishop was gentleman and man OF ad-
to make man who not Mason. OF who did not
believe in Freemasonry. a master OF lodgel Dr.
Brooks does not believe in the Pigment, II you please
Of apostolic succession. Very WELL But some Others
believe in it, Are those who believe In 1t TO ADMIT
into their brotherhood man who says he does notl
l have heard good Eplscopalians-even bisiops-aamt
that there may be reasonable doubts OF the unbroken
succession which claim and even query II q break
In that succession made any real difference in the efficacy
OF the episcopal Office But that there Is an order In
the Church which claims the apostolic succession Is
fact and II DR.. Brooks thinks 1T mistake, ana yet
seeks admission into the order, is 1t not capital to the
order that be not admitted entirely apart as TO any
opinion to whether the order is valuable or mott
AS to Dr. Newton, the case is about IDENTICAL. Inc
ceremonies the ritual and rites OF the Episcopal Church
are meaningless and vapld shanls unless they vpny
and symbolic doctrines and beliefs How can DE-
Newton be allowed to perform these ceremonies anu
pronounce this ritual and administer these rtes he
does not believe in the doctrines has doubts or prvaIe
interpretations beliefs? In both these cases
the simple question is OF self preservation ana can
be passed upon by Jury OF Freemasons quite as wen
as by Jury of priests House OF Bishops. ana
there can be but the verdctf there is to be any
Episcopal Church in the future-whoevcr pronouhces IT,
The friends OF the reverend gentlemen, however,
stand upon the word Interpretation, and they ask uat
the reverend gentlemen be heard to any length desired
as to their Interpretation" Of their doctrines ana pc
the Freemasons sten and for how long, to candidate
for Worshpful Master of lodge who had an interDre
atlOn OF Masonry by which he felt that lie cond accep'
the honors while preaching down the virtues OF ue
office which had been rendered hlm2 The Episcopal
Church IS something or nothing. And in the question
whether Dr. Brooks sha be one OF us bishops anu a.
Newton remain OF its priests, has slinpy 10 ae
eide whether it is something or nothing Iere Is no
middle ground, and everybody, Episcopa1an or not,
knows 1t perfectly we'll That the brusque alternative
has found focus in the cases OF two prominent men
hmm
has its awkward consequences but IS all the better for
the Episcopal Church If we must rehear the question
are pulpts and rostluus and platforms III plenty LOT
the advanced" preachers, and for improvements upon
old doctrines, and upon Tire lights when modern sciences
has thrown-as il is forcibly aegedupon earlier be-
efs. And there CONGREGATIONS with ample ex-
lights and improved doctrines. But the Episcopal
Church, equally with the institution Of FIeemaSonry
exist That the outside critics OF either do not
the necessity applaud individuality "lnterpIea-
ton" and private judgment" is as apart from the
matter between the conflicting interests rs me opinion
Of the Republic Of Nice in La Fontanes fable was
matter or indifference to the policy oil the hugdom Vi
doubt If there be anything an Epscopallan detests
or breads more hs iHa1 h b9 i2r fone and
public sympathy for the accused while the Churoh-at
cs e VoI nothing al all The applause of tile market
place, fortune and a call to liberal pulpit with
penteous eXcheqpo and the constant eSaoes o '4 ne
the defendant. while the Churcha the best and utmost
ii can possibly eXpect-must occupy the Illuminating
position Of submitting its already established claims lof
the cogency OF which it is itself perfectly satised) to
relearing-to the criticism Of aliens and the comment
of outsiders II must be dragged TO petition for an IN
dorsement o. that which it does not admit needs IN
dorsement 1t Is nothing less than stultihoaton But
unless diplomacy can dispose OF DR.. BROOKS ana Dr.
Newton this qualification and this humiliation ac what
the Episcopal Church, well as other ecceSlasticsl
hodies sometimes forced shoulder by its own ci,
dren and such being the nature OF things II IS Wen
that the situation be faced. No human INSTITUTION Is
free from the enlargement Of personal sense OF an
individuals own importance. The Episcopal Churcn'
then must deliberately try Messrs. Brooks ana Newton,
and patiently permitat its own cost-these gentlemen
and their eloquent friends anc able counsel TO tApot
themselves to any length and to make speeches. as
lImItess as the scope OF developments and mundane
progress-and trust its integrity fearlessly 10 the result
perish in incOmDetencv and ATRgfi1iuR R. LUMLEY.
New-York May 25 1891.