New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-01
ASSiILING THEIR OUN OPTTR.

No careful observer can fail to note the almost
entire absence of esprit de corps among the
clergy. The discussion now going IA oyer the
sermons of Dr.. Lyman Abbott furnishes many
striking instances Of this. The questions raised
by these sermons relate wholly 40 the interpre,a-
ton of the Bible. They are questions on which
hOnest-minded Christians may differ, and do diff
fer. because, owing to the<lack Of evidence. no
certain answer to them is possible. One would
suppose that under such circumstances when
ministers of the Gospel find themselves disagree
ing they would respect each others opinions, and
recognize the fact that m absolute uniformity
of view is not possible even for the clergy: hut
that is far from being the case Such epithets
as pulpit Clown enemy of Cod" "would-be
destroyer of the Bible" "inf1cl, shallow sci
ost" and foe of Christianity" are hurled back
and forth by the clergy with as much freedom
as though they were set of unprinclpled ward
politicians instead of honest and hlgh-minded
Christian gentlemen. as they presumably are
Even Mr.. Moody declared recently thar those
clergymen who do not adopt his view of Jonah
and the whale are doing the devils work But
then it may be urged in regard TO Mr.. Moody
that he is not a clergyman.
Much might be said of this tendency of the
clergy 10 impute TO each other base motives
and apply opprObrious epithets 10 each other on
the score of its indccency and bad manners
But we would prefer if possible. that one of
their own number should deliver the needed
homly on that text, though unfortunately. the
men who have the most right to deliver it natu-
rally shrink from the role of critic because they
dislike to say anything except good of their
ministerial brethren And there are obvious
reasons why a sermon on clerical manners from
the other class of cergymen-ihose who speak
evil of their brehren-would fail to do much
good Aside from the question of manners. how
ever the tendency Of the clergy to assail and
crlticise each other is an interesting waymark of
the times In the Middle Ages. and. indeed, until
within a comparatively recent period. the clerical
order was looked upon Il sacred caste, and
its claim TO the possession of special power and
insight was conceded without question as part
of the divine order'of the world. In those days
the clergy naturally stood by each other and
were ready at all times. to defend the privileges
of their order. The esprit de corps of the pro-
fession was as highly developed as is that of
the army or navy to-day.
But modern civilization is sweeping all those
old ideas of clerical caste aside. Outside of the
denomination of which he is a minister no spe-
cal sanctity or authority is attached TO any be-
liefs opinions that a clergyman may hold.
People agree with him just far as they think
him right, and do not hesitate to disagree with
him when they think him wrong. The fact that
he is a Clergyman cuts no figure in the matter
at all. The clergy-many Of them, at least
bewail this breaking down of the old traditions
concerning the cloth; and yet, curiously
enough. they are unconsciously helping along
this secular tendency of the age by showing the
world that they are ready, ut a moments notice,
to declare on the housetops that they do not be-
lieve in each other. How can the great outside
world be expected to defer TO the opinions and
ex-cathedra judgments of clergymen just be-
cause they are clergymen. when they denounce
each other every day in the week as traorous
infidels and dishonest men? 1t is Il remarkable
outcome OF the age-long contest between cleri-
calism and secularism that the clergy them
selves are thus contributing so much to their
own overthrow as a privileged order.