New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-02
DR. PHILLIPS BROOKS AND DIR. ia ooS1A'
A HIGH CHURCHMAN'S VIEWS As ~ III"
RIGHTS OF THE DIOCESE OF
MASSACHUSETTS.

, urcu CHURCHMAN'S VIEWS hS ~ IL"
RIGHTS OF THE DIOCESE OF
MASSACHUSETTS.
To the Editor Of The irl D u 9,
Sir: DIR. Da COstas mode OF carrying oll "S "a'
against 4be confirmation Of DR.. Phillips BrookS rs
pno 30 massachusetts, seems TO me TO call Tor some
special remark. ,.,, ~. proohs
with DIR. Heber Newton. as to doctrinal s'a'e"eh'
What OF itY Dr. Newtonthus far Mt least-ls priee'
~ Tho Church in good standing not presented ior
trial much less notorious condemned hereto. 1>"
after his late letter. setting forth his unquahneu ~
ceptance OF the Apostles and Nicene Creeds u nave
not read his books. should have no hesl'a''oh u,
signing the testimonials of DR.. Heber Newton "eic
6e a Bishop elect and were q member OF stanuins
committee Our Church Is comprehensive N'Ai."'
and that means that there Is room tn her communion
for great variety Of opinion on religious niaV'erS
We have three well-knOwn parties, Hgh' 10" anu
Broad I am a High-Churchman-about rs hlsn 40
they make them. Had been a member OF INC n"SS'-
chusets convention should never, under any crcun-
stances have voted for DR.. Brooks. But wheh nc
had been elected should have signed his tesuVia,S
with pleasure rejoicing in the elevation OF one WHO -
recognized on both sides OF the Atlantic Ocean ms a
preacher now without living SUPERIOR ana WHOSE
hgh-toned stainless lie IS Acknowledged by all. AS
long as any one of our dlOceSes wants BroadChuIch
Bishop or a Low Church Bishop, II has right to nan
and the recurring Of the consents OF majority OF the
standing committees and majority OF the BISHOPS
was never meant TO give power 10 a malorE7y 10
squeeze out minority by refusing TO let them nave
the kind OF bishop they wanted. few years ago
they threatened 20 try that game on us "RuaistS as
they called u.s. We did not like il. That time has
passed by But it Is Just mean for us to Try that
policy on the Broad Church. it was for the Broad
and the Low Church to try 1t on u.s. since tose DAYS
too our American Church has set forth the four great
bases for the reunion Of Chrstendom and they nave
been reaihrmed by the entire Anglican Epsc0pate al
the last Lambeth Conference To try now to return to
narrower basis m order TO worry the most distinguished
Bishop-clect whom the American Church has ever
known Is all nonsense.
When asked for explanations ETC., am delighted
that DR.. Brooks had TO give No Bishopelect
ought ever TO give any. II he can honestly make
the answers put in his mouth In the Odna at the time
OF his consecration II Is enough The Church gives to
man the right to put TO him any question beyond
that Especially is it uncaed for In like that
Of Dr. Brooks volumes Of whose sermons are in print
Anonymous letters should be treated in such
matter this, with perfect contemptand all are an
onymous whose writers are not named and known.
To describe such writer merely as friend and cor
respondent or one well known, being personal
friend Of Dr. Brooks and admrer Of his theological
teachings won't do Especially is this when these
anonymous writer's display such an abysmal ignorance
Of the very points In theology which they try to handle
Here IS specimen:
"T1n writer also expresses agreement with the
theology Of Dr. Newton, holding that the belief in the
miraculous birth Of Lord Is in no wise essential
Now who ever heard Of the miraculous birth OF our
lord His birth was not miraculous at all, but
strictly natural in every respect so far as we know
II was His conception that Divine, not His birth
ale was conceived Of the Holy Ghost born OF the
Virgin Mary
Then again says this anonymous correspondent: u
told all this to Phillips Brooks when he called on me-
read him where Newton said that he did not believe
Jesus was mracuously born. and had two parents"
ETC. Here we have the stupid bunder of mracuorsly
bornn repeated. Then follow the words and had two
parents but 1t IS hard to tell what he means by them
OF course our Lord had two parents. One was God
the Holy Ghost and the other the Blessed Virgin
Mary. But does the writer mean that our Lord had
two human parents LIT us see. \ little later the
same laundering writer says: 1 think If the Bishops
knew that he had said that Newton's declared faith
in the human parentage was jusdhable difference In
Interpretation, they could not honestly confirm mm.'
Even this docs not clear II up. We all have De
clarcd faith In the human parentage' Of our Blessed
Lord for he was born Of the Virgin Mary Not one
single phrase OF this anonymous sc1bbler reaches any
poInt except to convict himself of laundering. ana
vel Dr Da Costa prints this anonymous sllpshod
twaddle as II IL were OF solemn theological Importance
II such method Of opposing the conservation OF the
most distinguished priest in the American Church shall
prove successful I shall blush for the American
Church l. H. HOFhNo'
New-YorlI, June I, 1891.