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


To the Editor Of the Free Press and Times
My attention has been called to an edito-
rial in your paper of the first instant, in
which You copy from the New York Inde-
pendent trust you will give equal pull
licity to brief reply.
The statement which embodies the charge
of disappearing though unintentionally
the minority at our late convention, is as
follows: Mr. Johnson says that in
spec CHI in the Convention Mr. BTastow cN-
planned the distinction between the resolu-
tion and his pr0vso by saying, and here
are given my ,ror,is which express my 0pih-
ion of the position of the minority.
Nothing hut most careless reading could
account Tor the statement that ! was assum-
ing to give Mr.. Brastows words | may he
charged with incorreclncSs in my opinion. !
have not wrongly quoted Mr.. BrastOw for |
did not quote him at all
But in face of all that has been
said. think rightly defined the
position of the minority. What has
been the question which we have
discussed through the year, and acted upon
in the adoption of the resolution at the Con
vention? Was it the supreme authority of
\ Inc scripture Ill VI llllI Ilul HIS
never been in dispute. No one denies it.
| When in the heat OF discussion il was said
that rejection of the amendment put the ma
| jority in thai attitude, they interrupted the
| speaker with loud contradictions. When the
amendment was supposed to have this mean
ing it was accepted, though it was said to be
unnecessary, as the resolution declared the
same idea In my opinion, doubtless in the
| opinion of the majority, in the opinion oil
outside observers. the question we have dis
cIIssed during the year, and finally acted
upon, is this Is the Congregational fellow
ship Limited to those who accept and
maintain the evangelical doctrines The
offer and rejection of an amendment does
not affect this fact.
JAS. Gibson JOHNSON.
We have not seen Mr.. Johnson's commu-
nication to the Christian at Work from
which the IadepsndsRt quoted; and we are
sorry if any incorrect quotations from his
article has found currency through our col
umns. We wonld not willingly or knowing
ly misreprcsent his position or that of the
majority. in the slightest particular. We
think, however, that he misconceives the po-
sition of the minority That misconception
is forcibly set forth by Rev. L. o. BrastOw
in the following communication to the Ne,r
York independent:
"BURLISGToS, June 2Sth, 1879.
''7'o the Editor Of the Indep endeEt:
The Vermont Resolutionists are strangely
perverting the significance of the amendment
which they rejected and are misrepresent-
ing the position of the opposition. You
| oil L. e., fac apl inatly
characterized it. But will you permit few
words additional to what you have already
said? a. The amendment is self-interpret-
ing. There is no ambiguity about it. No
pious fraud. No trap Only extraordl-
nary suspicion could find anything occult, OF
.specious,' or 'insidious' in it. But fol-
some strange prepOssession it could not have
been misinterpreted as it was. Co 1t con
tains three principles of Congregationallsm
hitherto universally accepted: (d) Recogni-
ton of the Bible as ultimate appeal in test
of doctrine. o. Recognition of Il limited
right of private judgment. CO. Recognition
of the competence of councils TO fix tho
limit of that right. To deny these principles
is TO deny not only the foundation OF Con
gregationalisnl, but of Professionalism. And
yet in connection with the resolution they
were thought to be 'insidiolIs' 60 Not t
NDTu Ill INT
sons statement that the issue before the Con
vention was the Evar gelical or non-Evan
gelical basis of our fellowship. Only the
grossest misinterpretation can force it topre
sent that issue a. J Not II word was said IN
erpLanatiOn Of the amendment that sanction:
that statement. The words are all recorded
US uttered, and there is no trace OF sucl
implication in them. tj.) Instead al
acting upon the amendment, as mel
of his intelligence would he expected to do
the resolutionlsts acted upon percfrttd IN
terpretdtiOH of its erpGmdtiOH. They tille'
their words of explanation from the content
of their own imaginations. 1t was this pre-
possession that determined the action OF In
Convention. o. The opposition were VIII
ing to vote for the resolution il protected by
the amendment. II was only because TIT
supporters of the resolution seemed to sane
.. ton an unfavorable Interpretation of 1t BY
rejecting the amendment that some OF tn,
opposition felt obligedto vote against it. A
it was, about half of the supporters o.
the amendment voted for the resolution. G..
. In presenting the amendment, distinctly
stated that We accept The Bible as interpreted
By the evangelical doctrines. In doing this,
accepted the evangelical basis of our fellow
ship. 81 To say that the Bible tests al
doctrine is not to say that we may use II t
r retute the evangelical doctrines, and still b.
retained in fellowship. This is an unwar
rantaDle Inference. 81 The last part o
= the amendment interprets the first. In
| limit Of private Judgment in the use of Scrip
, lures is fixed by decision of councils. 90.
i The rejection Of the amendment brought thl
= issue before the Convention: Is creed o
Scripture the test of doctrine: This was ant
is denied; hut challenged that question be
fore the Convention, and do it again d
not suppose that the resOlutionlsts woul'
deliberately deny that the Bible Is tn
ultimate appeal in all questions OF doc
! trine; hut | do understand them To hav
deliberately voted that they will not 50 de
i clare, and that not on the ground that it wa
l needless, because implied in the resolution
but on the ground that the amendment, Tt
r cognizing that principle, 'nullities the resolr
tion,' 'overthrows it,. is a complete reversG
/. of our doctrinal basis, is throwing us bac
: upon the Bible without any interpretatio
whatever flow they will accept the Bib
! as ultimate appeal when such appeal NULL
) ties, in their Judgment, declaration IN III
interest of the creeds of our representative
assemblies is matter for them to settle.
Il. O. BRAsTow.'
Mr. johnson asks, What has been the ques
ton discussed through the year? If we I'm
derstand it, it was whether it was expedent
. and in accordance with Congregational poIt.
! and usage, to issue a general invitation Il
pastors suspected of some variation from tn
Congregational consensus to try themselves
condemn themselves, and walk out Of tn
denomination under stigma OF lack OF per
i sonal honor and Christian character. Tina
, question disappeared when the historic re
solution" was dropped.
If we were asked, What is now the cues
ton? We should have TO say that, so far Il
we can see, no distinctly defined issue nov
divides the parties to the previous controver
sy. There is no doubt at all that the major
ity hold to the Bible AS above all humai
standards, though they in effect declared tia
they would not say 50 when asked to d" l
by one of the minority. The mass OF then
believe. too, beyond doubt, that there ha
been change in the common belief of Con
rresatinnaists, in the past, on some point
of doctrine They probably Il" not belev
that the final end of progress in religion
thought and Interpretation has now beef
reached They could not one Of them for
: mulate II creed which he would he Willing
to get up rs comprehending all the importan
doctrines, 50 distinctly set forth that tn
slightest variation, or non-acceptancc, q
suspense of Judgment, in regard To- any on
of them, should eject man from Congrrg'l
tional fellowship, however cody, drv"ut an'
successful he might be Ms Christian minis
ter. The mass OF them We believe, woul'
admit that every case ot suspected heres.
should be considered hy proper council
which should take action in view of all In
circumstances of the case.
On the other hand, the minority tic no
hold, and OF course have moi declared, tina
that one should not I've excluded from Con
urrgatioual fellowship though II should ~