The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-10-12

deferred remarks of the Rev. Mr.. Forbes OF
New York on DR.. Hawks substitute TO the resolu-
ton OF Mr.. Memnnger, as amended by the Rev.
Mr.. Young Of South CaTol,na.l ,o
WEDNESDAY,, Oct y, 1874.
The Rev Mr.. FORBES of New York, was otpo-
sed to all the different propositions presented, be-
cause they assumed the existence OF errors IN the
doctrines OF the church In reference TO the exls-
tence Of which not u particle OF proof had been
laid before the house. Al first, gentlemen seemed
willing to advert to the source from whence these
supposed errors had their origin but since we have
been told to trace their origin IN the Oxford Tracts,
and then the gentlemen from Va. followed with
some sixty odd speculatlons He had never. how
ever, met with single individual who held any
to be direct perversion of the doctrines supported
by the tracts He did not profess himself an advo.
cate OF those tratt.as tar as they threw any useful
light the formuares of the church, he felt CRATE
full to their authors but far they went hey ond
them, he threw them OH, and they could have no
authority with him. So great was the perverslon
of The true doctrines of these writings, that he was,
with Difference acned to believe that the gentle
man from Virginia had never read them, but that
his knowledge OF them was conhned to an article
which appeared some two or three years ago in the
had read, and which contained something like it.
1t really seemed if this had accidentally fallen in
his way, and he had used its perversions without
ever having perused the original tracts
gentleman from Ohio, CDR. Brooke.) He had In,
stanced the error Of Tradition. Nov he confessed
that he knew and recognized it MOI, as 1t had been
averred as a coordinate rule of faith, and yet he
had to acknowledge that he came from what was
called and considered ssthe infected district" on
this subjact-he recognized the Bible alone as the
rule Of faith. Not that we should reject tradition;
and to show its value he would illustrate his po-
stion by assuming parallel case. Suppose, some
one hundred years hence, the doctrines of the
Episcopal Church should be called in question
they would have our Book Of Common Prayer
still in existence, but yet opposite. opinions on
points of doctrine might be deduced from II. Now,
if they could obtain in addition TOT the Prayer Book,
the Sermons OF the present day, and after perusns
them should find that while our eCclesastlcs dlsa
gree many minor points, they all agree on great
general questions, would not those then inquiring
from past standards say that those points OF general
Episcopal Church in 1874? Most assuredy, and
as they would receive benefit from what would be
tradition then, we find the use of tradition now.
The gentleman from OHIO ha. also referred to
the doctrine Of justification by Faith, but had con-
fused it with the doctrines OF the Romsh Church.
| If he could not see the difference, others could
But, for the sake Of argument, he was willing 10
admit that serious difficulties existed in the
Church; let us then come to the question of the
proposed remedy. All the resolutions before us
agree in one particular, which is that the whole
subject should be sent up to the House OF Bishops
for their cody counsel and advice upon II. That
opinion necessarily could come to US only in two
ways, either by pastoral letter, or by an express
declaration OF opinion on the construction OF GEL
tain religious articles The first course was trie
Faith, at the last General Convention, and the
pastoral letter met with general commentator,
and was universally acquesced IN because II did not
60 into any very minute details. 1t was like putting
81. Paul and ST James into the same eplste. The
| House of Bishops, II again called upon would be
necessilated, by the very nature OF the question,
to send US their answer again IN the same way;
But he would ask, is it desired that articles
of religion should be altered9 ls II required that
| the House OF Bishops should give new definition
| on any of the subjects mentioned? II is supposed
Il H.. al L. I'D -.
articles, 30 tar they go. What is desired, then,
Is expansion OF such articles; going more into
detail, a giving more full and exact defini-
lions suited 70 the exseneies, Of the times
| the Remish doctrine o. devel0pement. And we
place ourselves in this situation, that while we re-
Iuse to bow TO the decision OF great Council OF
/ the Church, where all Chrisendom asst mbed
| and represented. we are at the same TING willing
| to believe whatever General Convention Of the
Protestant Episcopal Church IN the United States
may speak, and bow to its decision. We are will
ing to give them the authority to develope doc
trines for US and allow them TO assume power
| which is denied to a General Council OF the whole
Church. He affirmed that if the House of Bishops
| should give the desired opinion, 1t would be
of no value or force, unless II amounted pre-
| clsely to what we have now IN our posses
sion. The churches Of Antioch, Jerusalem
and Rome, we are told, nave erred; we are
| Of the United States of America may err, and set
up a standard different from its creed and il il
may err, il certainly never was more liable TO do go
than now. When there is conflict OF opinion
| throughout the entire chrlslian world. shaking,
| as il were, OF the foundations-a re-exs mnation
Of first prnciples-is it time to disturb the aTtl-
Giles Of onr church? Are we, In the midst otgreat
prevailing excitement, TO ask our House OF Bishops
10 express mnutely their opinions on the most dit
| ficut matters the world was ever distracted with
| now, too, when the clamor Is loud from without
| and within the pale of the church il Is obvious,
at such time, our judgments were never more
likely to err. And now suppose the opinion that the
House Of Bishops should give was erroneous, and
should initiate against the doctrines of the Nicene
/ Creed-what would be Its fate Suppose for ex-
ample, in developing the doctrine of Justification
by Faith, il should be brought into the article ofthe
creed 81 believe in baptism for the remission OF
sins" which is the highest authority! And insup-
i to be misunderstood he believed in justification
by faith, but he believed that Article could be SO
defined as to initiate against an Article OF the Nj
| Gene Creed Would the decree OF this Conven.
lhority for any such standard OF belief which was
contrary TO the Creed Of the Church, or to one or
all Of the essential articles Of the Christian faith
/ The reason why our Creeds are so tmphatically
made the guides Of faith, is that they are but tx
panslons Of the baptismsl creed Of our Lord: "Go
We into all the world and make disciples OF all ma,
lions, baptising them in the name Of the Father and
Of the Son and OF the Holy Ghost last so
Tenn charge OF our Divine Master before his
| sion to heaven the Apostles Creed is only more
expansive form, and the Ncene creed in its turn,
more expansive SILL, ana tnen tnere was
| the Athanasean Greed still more full
| Is there a member OF our Church who does mol
believe implicitly in every article contained IN the
creedt He heard it the other day in the course oil
Of argument suggested to the descent into hell,
that it was not an essential of the faith. The be.
lief in this essential all ese ii is connect
ed with the incarnation Of the Son Of God. 1t was
as man that He was born, suffered death, was
buried, assembled into hell, rose again from the
dead and descended into heaven. These are s
Intimately connected, however, with that great cen
| Of God. He that would not believe the descent
into hell" held not in It's integrity The true Catho
| lie faith. He would sooner, then, part with his
upon to relinquish any one article Of the creeds
i The opinion OF this General Convention could moi
| excuse il. The Rev. gentleman further asserted
that the House Of Bishops would ind II utterly I'm
possible to settle the matters to them in the
way proposed; they therefore would not attempt it.