Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-02-27
The Protest Of Congregational Ministers.
A STATEMENT.

The Protest Of Congregational Ministers.
A STATEMENT
To the Editor Of the Free Press and Times;
In the FREE PREss Of the nth inst.
writer who conceals his personality behind
the signature Freedom in Righteousness
and Love-" makes certain statements con
cerning the Protest published in your col
umna few weeks ago, and concerning the
circumstances under which it was offered to
you. viii YOU allow me sufficient space for
a reply to SO much Of this article as reflects
upon my own utterances?
IF. r. L. writes The protest as first
refused by the Chronicle was quite different
the italics are not his from that publish
ed in the FREE Press" The protest, when
printed in your columns, was introduced by
a note from me- saying that it had been re-
fused by the Chronicle. The obvious i'm
plica,ion of Z" Freedom, Righteousness,
and Love" is, that my statement that the
document given you had been first refused
by the Chronicle, was false. Quite differ
ent' indicates a very great difference. The
phrase precludes the supposition Of even
Substantial agreement between the two
objects of comparison.
In reply | wish to state that my original
statement was exactly true, and that the
statement of F.. II. L." is not correct.
His statement has such basis of partial
fact as gives to it some harmful color Of
truth. The protest, us originally sent TO the
Chronicle, was somewhat different from that
printed in your columns. The fact, how
ever, is that the CHronicle received a copy of
the revised protest, in the exact form in
which it was published by You, and, with
comments on the character of the changes
made acknowledged its receipt in the same
letter that conveyed to me the first intelli-
gence of the editors refusal to publish.
In view of the fact that your correspond
ent must have received from the office of
the Chronicle the information on which he
founds his incorrect statement, must beg the
editor of that journal to impart TO such per-
sons as enjoy his confidence, either more or
less of the facts which involve the personal
reputation of the authors of communica-
tions entrusted to him.
In my former note had no purpose to
reflect on the management of the Chronicle.
| simply wished to give, as Thought ought,
the reason for publishing an address to the
Congregational churches of Vermont in Il
paper other than that which exists to serve
as a medium of communication between the
ministers and churches of the State.
Your correspondent indulges in censurc
of that portion of the Protest, already bear
ing the true signatures of ten men,-which
has not as yet been given to the public.
What he charges may he true for a single
man of generally good repute may be dere-
lict at times towards the requirements Of
Freedom and Righteousness and Love. So
also may ten men or even larger number.
| But may reasonably, | think, ask the pub
lie TO reject the judgment Of Il nameless
censor OF ten known persons, when the basis
of his Judgment is in matter not published,
and when the censor himself may possibly
suffer from some bias of partizanshp.
Nothing seems to me more rrpugnant
to even crude sense of honor, than the at
tempt to evade responsibility for the utter
ance of accusation. And the more severe
the accusation, the more imperative the re
quirement of honor that the accuser should
in his own proper person stand by his charge
and make it good. OF stand iy his retraction
and make that good.
Your correspondent implies that there is
| some intrinsic in!prOpriety in calling the at
tention Of the churches anew to question
that has already been answered by II large
majority. When at the last Convention de-
bate was arrested by summary action of the
majority, there was 10 improperly i'll mo-
tion to reconsider the order. And | must
believe now that the churches Of Vermont as
u body will at least grant Il hearing TO
minority who believe that the action OF last
year, however well intended on the part OF
most, is likely TO be made an instrument oil
| great injustice At the same time ! desire
TO say In answer to inquiries that have reach
ed he from various sources, that have no
reason to believe that any one of the pro-
testers has, or ever has had, the purpose Ia
| brin. the subject of the Protest before the
next session OF the Convention
When vital principles are concerned, the
number Of votes Is not the thing OF decisive
consequence. But those who regard votes
as decisive, should notice in fairness that no
objection was made 10 the resolution except
in its relation to the rejected prOvisos and
that the votes on them were not s. 10 10, but
- to 27, and 90 TO Is.
IF X. L." criticiscs the spirit and Ian
guage of the Protest. He apparently refers
| i'll part TO the evidence in that document that
the supporters of the proviso had been false
| ly charged with Il denial of the Evangelical
| basis of ministerial fellowship.
But the Protest refrains from citation of
I the words in which the charge had been
made which citation would have made
moe garing the contrariety between the ale
cations and actual fact. 1t takes care to at
tribute the false charges to no worse origin
than suspicion and fear. 1t takes pains to
disavow any imputation of wilful falSitica-
| ton. | can see no objectionable spirit in
this.
But the chief fault that Freedom in
| Righteousness and Love" finds i'll the Pro-
| test is apparently lis reference to the per-
sonal meaning that had been privately given
To the resolution 10y some of its advocates.
This all,lsion is in the Judgment of our
! loving and righteous and free critic, very
censurable The only point that can see
in this criticism. is lis implied charge of false
hood against the statement OF the Protest ::
I'VE have abundant testimony from proml-
nent advocates of the original resolution, that
they have given it Il personal meaning as
bearing upon certain ministers, both in the
pulpit and in orCiaining council.
have now to state that such personal ap-
plication was privately made, not only at the
time when the dcnunciatory resolution was
introduced in 1873. but that it has been re-
newcd by Jealous supporters uf the rcsolu-
ton since tie COHDtHtiOH of 1879. While
making this statement, most sincerely hope
that il will not be challenged over any re-
sponsihlc signature. and that ! shall not bc
compelled 10 publish the proof thai supports
it, | wish to bring no man into dIscredt.
But think that the holicr the cause en-
trusted to the Congregational churches of
Vermont, the purrr should he the methods
of maintaining il. And | object to- the
resolution because of the personal meaning
that has been privately given To it by some
of its supporters ltraua' this private as
slult upon character has claimed Tor ltsell
confidential protection AMI chiefly because
reference to this method of purifying our
communion has been branded c;iumnv.
The letter of your correspondent whose
pseudonym cxalts three most sacred Chris
tian principles, seems 10 me 10 furnish new
occasion and argument for an appeal To the
ton.ieSat,"iioi ~i-.---i--a Of Vermont that
they protect, in such way they may deem
wise, the utterance of the last Convention.
against abuse.
GEo t. Stafford.
Burlington, February -.
A large building at ISL and 3S6 Broadway,
New \ lork, was burned on Friday, causing
loss of not f:.r from 81 .000,0 900. 1t was uc-
oupied by wholesale business honse. While
the iircmen were cutting holes in the roof in
order to pour water on the flames, Il portion
of the roof gave away Thomas Daugherty