St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1879-06-27
REV. DIR. LEON WALKERS THUMBsCREw
ON THE REPUBLICAN,.
To the Editor of the Republican

can and a lover OF Harness III repreSen-
tation, have regretted several of your
on what you are pleased to
call the congregational thumbscrewn
of the Vermont resolution. / am un-
willing to ascribe in territorial unfairness
to these utterances but nevertheless
can but deem them to be unfair in their
practical impression.
What has the Vermont convention
doneq 1t has said, speaking in its own
behalf as a distinctly denominatiOnal
body, that for the existence of that par
ticular kind of fellowship which exists
among the members of the COngrega-
tional fraternity, it recognizes Congre-
gational standards and usages as OBJ
ligatOry. 1t does not affirm that Chris
tian fellowship may not be cordially
extended to Christian people and Chris
tian bodies who do not accept its own
usages and creeds; but it affirms that
nonainatiOndI fellowship ought to be
governed by them.
Now where is the hardship of that
declaration? You do not blame Bap-
fists for declining to extend denOmlRG-
tiOnaI fellowship to those who believe
in infant sprinkling. You do not blame
Romanists for limiting denOminGtiOndt
recognition to those who accept the pa
pal authority. You would, indeed,
rightly censure them both for denying
Christian recognition to many who did
not agree with either in their distinc-
tive views; but when it comes to
marking out the limits of their own
denominational boundaries, you do not
refuse the Baptsts the right to draw
the line at complete immersion OF the
Catholic at the infaliblity of the pope.
These are matters of internal applica-
ton and belong of right to every con-
federation of people, whether ball
club or church denomination.
The COngregationalists are a body of
religious people who hold not merely
the general doctrines of Christianity,
but the distinctive views OF a particular
denomination. These distinctive views
may be erroneous indeed, but they are
theirs. They are set forth in documents
which have been again and again as
sented to by the representative assem-
blies of Congregationalism. They are
known in history as distinctly as Meth
Odism or Romanism is known. Why,
then, may not COngregatiOnalists say
that an acceptance of these views is to
be expected of all who would be known
as Congregationalists Why may they
not say that the reputation of any sub
stantial part of these views is incOnsis-
tent with continued claim to that kind
of fellowship which belongs to members
of it's own body If the members of a
ball club do not like the articles under
which they are associated, the proper
course for an obiectOr would seem to
he to join a club which he did like.
And if the ministers of denomination
do not acquiesce in the principles of
the denomination, it would seem equal
ly proper to join one with whose prin-
ciples they can agree. Their going
forth from any such denomination need
neither ''indicate nor require sever
ance of Christian affection and fellow
ship; but it would mark the termina-
| tlOu of tIIdV ~t'UIfaI uOHvurinoUiO"''i tel
association which had, by a reputation
of the common bond, been terminated
in spirit before. .....
These views of the proper require
ments and limitations of fdenOminatiOnal
} ties appear so obvious that there seems
no way of avoiding their binding force,
but by the denial of the existence OF
any denOminatiOnal character at all to
COngregatiOnalism. The honorable es-
cape from recognition of the claims
of corporate principles is declaration
that no such principles exist.
This has been, therefore, the adven-
!, turous endeavor of some people who
wish to be known as COngregatiOnalists
and yet not hold Congregational doe
trines. 1t is an enterprise, however, il
which they put themselves at war witt
facts and history. COngregationalist'
: have a definite body of belief and
usages, and it is hard to see why they
t have not right to it !; or why the Yer
mont convention had not right to say
that Congregationalists may reasonably
be expected to be what they profess
To deny them the right to define tn,
: limits of their own fellowship as /;
S denomination, while according it to al
: other bodies of Christians beside seem
e emiuently unfair, not to say absurd.
: But your reference to the action o
: the Vermont convention in what yol
: call "voting down a declaration tina
t they recognize the Bible as the ultimate
|, standard of doctrine" is as unfair ant
y more specious. All Christians,-th
o Vermont Congregationalists and tn
It ROmanists not excepted hold the Bi
: BILE to be the ultimate standard O
: religious belief. That is the doctrin
It of the Vatican as much as it is of Meth
a odism. The difficulty is that all de
S nominations interpret the Bible differ
: emily. The Unitarian accepts the Bible
: but not with the Trinitarian's interpre
g tation. You do not blame him becaus
e he does not. The ROmanist accepts th
y Bible, but not with the Protestant's in
If terpretation. You do not censure hiI
: because of that. Why Congregational
J. lists should accept the Bible with th
If Unitarian's, or the Universalist's, or tn
MormOn's Interpretation, it is dltflcu
10 see. Why they should be blame
for not doing so it is hard to cor
lecture. ....sl--.
r. The conscientious difference of me
in interpreting the Bible, is the Origi
3 of denOminational differences. BaI
lie lists, COngregatiOnalists, Episcepalian
" Romanists, Unitarians, all put differer
4 constructions on certain important pa'
as sages of Scriptures, but each aver th;
at Scripture is their guide. To discrim
i'd nate the boundaries of denominations
l- fellowship, therefore, some particul;
ly method of Interpretation must be a.
es cepted. The Baptists are not censure
of for saying, "We accept the Bible /
I'd teaching such and such views.n WI
ne should COngregatiOnalists be?
it The Vermont convention declared
" accepted the paramount authority
s, the Word of God, and believed tn
c. that word taught the doctrines as s
n, forth in the Congregational symbol
ic What propriety in requesting them
IT. say, only, ave accept that Word, !" in
| ,,h;nb ohIioofac fhair