Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1879-07-11
CONGREGATIONAL creeds.


REV. WASHINGTON GLADDEN. IL ANsWER To .
DE. GEO. LEON wALKEE AND IN REVIEW .
OF THE VERMONT CONVENTION.
From the Springfield Republican,
Congrcgationalists have not, think, hith- /
erto professed their acceptance of ''the |
Bible as ttachihg" such and such views. |
They have been content To confess their |
faith in the Bible as the supreme authority |
in religious matters, without STIMULATING be-
foreland that the Bible must he understood
as teaching certain distinctive views. do
not think it is usual for COngregationalists to
say To- inquircrs, 80, yes: We recognize the
Bible rs the standard Of truth; but if you
wish to study the Bible in our company you
must sign an agreement that the Bible means
SO and So
Dexter in his CongregatiOnalism page q
lays down the following as the fundamental
principle" Of Congrcgationalism: The
Biblc-interpreted by sanctiiied common
sense. with all wise helps from nature, from
history, from all knowledge, and especially
from the revealing spirits the only and
sufficient and authoritative guide all matt ers
of Christian faith" This has very differ
ent ring from the utterances of DIR. Walker
and the Vermont Convention.
DR. Walker insists that the Congregational
lists are "a body of religious people who
hold not merely the general doctrine of
Christianity, but the diStiHctite rierS IF a
particular denominations Where are the
documents in which they are recorded:
The only documents to which these words
can be applied are the Savoy Declaration
and the Westminster Confession" The
Boston and Oberlin councils, To which the
Vermont resolution in very specious phrase
refers us, made no statement of the ''distInc-
tive views of Congregationlsts. The Bos-
ton council made Il short statement of ''the
| general doctrines of Christianity" held by
Congregationalists in common with other
| Christians but for information as to what
are the distinctive views of Congregation
alists, it referred lis back to the oldconfession.
| The Savoy declaration, as originally set forth
| by Congregationalists in England and re-
affirmed by all the representative COngre-
| gational bodies in this country, never repu-
dated by any representative Congregational
body, never superseded by any other declara-
| ton of Congregational belief and referred to
by all the great councils that have been held
i'll this country as the standard-this Savoy
declaration is the document. and the only
document, in which the distinctive views
of Congregationalists are distinctly set
forth" The Rev James Brand in a paper
lately read before the Ohio conference, and
strongly Endorsed by that body, pronounces
it historically indisputable that the Savoy
confession of 1863, which in all essential
points of doctrine is identical with the West
minister confession, is the symbol of the
Congregational body in the United States"
Now then. Dr. Walker says that the repu
diation of any substantial part of the dis
tinctive views presented in this document"
is inconsistent with continued claim to the
Congregational name and fellowship. 1t is
high time, then. that DIR. Walker had re-
nounced the Congregational name and fel-
lOwship; for there are great many sub
stantial parts of the system of doctrine
taught in the Savoy confession which he has
repudated. 1t is entirely useless to bubble
over the word substantial" Every man
who knows anything about theology knows
that the theology of that declaration is ut
terly and radically different from that taught
by Prof Park and Prof, Harris and Prof.
Morgan, and preached in Congregational pull
pits of to-day. The central and fundamental
and formative ideas of that old theology are
contradicted and set at naught by the great
majority of modern COngrcgatOnaists. The
great defect of the Savoy declaration" says
Mr.. Brand, is that it does not express the
doctrinal views Of the Congregational body
of to-day lis doctrine of imputatiOn is gen
orally repudiatcd. Its statement of the doc
trinc of DEGREES is prob
ably not accepted to-day by one COngrega-
tiOualist in ten. Its doctrine of
election or 'effcctual calling with its state
ment that elect infants are regenerated, and
its implication that some infants are not cleo
ted, and, therefore, not regenerated, is not
the form Of sound words that any of us
either hold or wish to defend. Growing out
of these there is also the doctrine of a limited
It1HemeHt, which we probably almost all re-
pudiate. These are specimen points where,
in the progress of theological science, there
has been Il manifest departure from the old
symbol" And these points constitute the
very substance Of the old symbol have
Just been making a careful study of work
on the atonement that was cOnfiscated and
burned in Boston as II heretical volume two
centuries ago, and the denials which made
this volume hcretcal DR. Walker has been
repeating all his life while there are plenty
of aifirmations in it, so thoroughly old school
in their character, that if DIR. Walker should
repeat them in his present pulpit, the Center
Church of Hartford would soon be looking
for new minister PynchOn believed in II
limited atoncment. and what he denied is
denied even by Princeton to-day. The
heresies of two hundred years ago were more
rigid than the moStrigid orthodoxy of to-day.
All this shall abundantly prove before long.
The difference between the theology of the
Savoy confession and the theology taught by
: DIR. Walker is vastly greater and more sub
stantial'' than the difference between the
theology of DIR. Walker and that of the men
at whom this resolution is aimed And it is
very natural for them to turn and say, III
= You can be permitted such wide and radical
; departures from the standards 10 which you
refer us, why may not We he allowed TO
differ very little from you? If you can
vault the chasm that separates Cotton Mather
from Edwards A Park, and still be historic
: COngregationalistS, why may we not step
; across the crack that divides Edwards \.
Park from Horace Bushnell, without being
denied the name: You had better STOP
, swallowing your own camels before You
| begin to strain at our gnats."
: WASHINGTON GIADDES.
l Springfield June Il 1879