Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1879-07-04
The Conversational Discussion.

defenders of their course but it is a ciea
indication of the essential weakness of theil
side of the controversy. that they seem to IN
unable to support in without misstating di
rectly or by implication the position and tn
arguments of the minority. A notable mis-
conception and misstatement of that sort i
contained in an article furnished to the Christ
ian at H0rl, by Rev. J. G. Johnson of Rut
land. Mr. johnson says that in a speech il
the convention Mr.. Brastow explained tn,
distinction between the resolution and hi
proviso by saying:
THE resolution declared TINT the Bib,
must be interpreted as teaching the evangeli
cal doctrines to cntitlc one to the Congrcga
tional fellowship, while the amendmen
would declare that one should not he exclud
ed from that fellowship if he made the Wore
of God his ultimate test OF doctrine, though
it should be his Judgment that the evangeli
cal doctrines did moi stand the test
The New Yorl; H,degoqGeat corrects hi.
surprising misquolalion, as follows:
OF course, Mr. Erastow said H. such thin.
as is here attributed to him. 1t is 4 very grca
Misrepresentation OF the position Of Mr.
Brastow, DR.. Stafford, and the twenty-si,
who voted for the proyisio. They do moi
believe that one who consciously or uncon
sciously gives up the Evangelical doctrines
should be retained in Congregational fellow
ship. Mr.. Brastow's own proposition left IL
a council the decision whether man through
his particular beliefs had - forfeited oul
fellowship; :" and, after reading Il verbatim
Of LiS ppnanba- that la
made no such statement. but rather the con
trary. Speaking in reply Ia Mr.. Johnson,
he said:
Let us make the suppositiun that a man has con
sciously repudaied such portion ui The Evangelical
belief that require, and that he should forfeit
his claim on that ground 10 a fair standing In The
Congregational churches. II may be that he has
forfeited II. II may he that he has repuliated a
substantial portion. II may he 50 How should VT
determine that question: There are those who
think he has. Lei them move IN the matter 10 cal
a council 10 decide the question. Now il seems IL
me that that Is 4 perfectly lair proposition"
Language could not more definitely con-
tradict Mr. Johnson's assertion that Mr.. Bras
tow would not exclude from fellowship those
who admit that they have given up the
evangelical faith He would exclude them,
us would we also, after regular action in the
case. And yet, by some strange confusion,
Mr.. Johnson goes on to say that lit was on
this clear issue that the contest was made -
No contest was made on that issue, except
in the Imagination of men who had persuaded
themselves that somehow orthodoxy needed
to be upheld by resolution. We said last
week that the minority were unaccountably
misapprehended by the resolutionists. Mr.
Johnson's letter makes it clear that such was
the fact.
That fact has appeared also quite clearly
in the communications of Rev. f. T. Hooker
of Castleton to this paper; and in several
articles contributed by Rev George Leon
Walker of Hartford Ct, to the Springfield
Republican, DR. Walker having said in sub
stance that the minority desired to have the
Bible accepted with the Unitarians or the
Universalist's or the Mormon's interpreta-
tion," Rev s |. Brant of Hartford, Vt,
replies in the Republican, that there were
none in the convention more ready TO defend
historic Congregationalism, in its true sense,
than those who found themselves in the min
ority" The amendment. " he AYERS was
offered 10 guard against the possible inter-
probation of the resolution denying the Bible
as the ultimate test of crceds, and as denying
a pastor the right to be tried by a competent
tribunal before he is subjected to censure
If it had been accepted, the resolution thus
guarded could have passed unanimously.
But" proceeds Mr. Briant
THE committee. who knew what the
resolution meant-if anybody did-opposed
the amendment Zone member who accepted
a portion of it at first, rejecting il as soon as
he saw what it really meant; and on the
ground that it would nullfv their resolution
The advocates of the amendment were. there
fore challenged to accept resolution which,
in the meaning of those who offered it. de-
MED the Bible as the ultimate test of creeds
in our Congregational councils, and denied
A man fair hearing before he should he CEN
sured On such an Interpretation, denying
what we believe to be two elementary prin-
ciples of Congrcgationalism. some of us
could not stultify ourselves by voting for
he resolution
In reply to DR. Walkers assertion that one
Of the minority evidently abiding TO Mr.
Brastow) was seeking hy all methods in
he midst of heated debate to defeat its THE
'sN'lti'iI4 -fA- Infant
a On the contrary, they sought by
he only method granted them-the adoption
If the amendment-to secure the passage of
he resolution RHania.o9'.g." He concludes
" saying:
1T is not strange that the brother is anx-
Gus TO rush into print that he may save the
of his choice, but his position re-
minds us of those who thought that by tap
ing the headwatcrs of the L:moille river in
greensboro years ago, they might increase
he water power of the brook that flowed |
through Glover. Their plan succeeded in |
tarting the stream norihward, but after il
vas once started, the trembling of the earth |
lnder their feet warned them 10 run for dear 4
ifc. for the whole pond had cmptied itself /.
nto the channel they had made. In our
opinion with due respect To DIR. Walker
here is about as much of genuine Congrcga-
ionalism left in the Vermont resolution of /
$40, as interpreted ty its dWl0rs, as there /
5 water in Runaway pond"