Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-01-30

: before the prOvlsO was offered. some
| then wholly refused to vote ON the reso-
: luton, lest they should seem on the one
, hand to deny the right of appeal to the
: Bible, or on the other to deny the Evan
gelicai basis of fellowship. Some voted
for the resolution in order to avoid the
misconstruction to which their negative
vote would he liable, as implying de
NAL of the Evangelical basis of fellow
ship. OF this number some since the al
journment of the Convention have given
, hearty assent to the protest.
The opposition to the resolution has
been repeatedly represented as resistance
to declaration of faith. This persist
ent confounding of confessions with
standards, of declaration with exaction,
has been conspicuous feature of the dis
cussion on the side of the resolution.
The evil may be converted into good, If it
shall serve to warn the churches of the
perversinn to which anv newly framed
creed will be exposed. 1t has been de
monstrated in this discussion that any
creed which the National Council may
Issue, however plainly pronounced as only
n Declaration. will be Immediately applied
by some as the Congregational Standard
to which every minister, and every or
dnining council as II subordinate iu,lica-
tory, must conform ON pain Of sharpest
censure.
Effect Of the Second PrOvis
The Second Proviso is in our opinion
of even more Importance than the first.
1t recognizes the fact that the terms of
fellowship are not unlimited 1t clearly
implies that there is general, though
not exactly defined, doctrinal consensus,
rhiah ha az fnll,uSbi,
1t leaves liable to cens,lre any one who
consciously violates the conditions of fel-
lowship. 1t excludes from its protection
one on whom a competent ecclesiastical
tribunal has passed adverse Judgment.
1t simply cromptS from ccns,re one trho,
being unconscious Of riOiatiIig dIy re-
cIesiasticai Jond. is Ucoadcn0tcd dy
regular Ccclcsiasticai process. 1t re-
cugniZes fully the function OF councils,
and only protects honorable men against
the attacks OF SANDER
The second proviso, moreover, protects
the first against any possible abuse III the
direction of unlimited license.
At time when the theological mind is
unusually active, when new problems are
arising and old problems are presenting
themselves in new lights, when some
Scriptural interpretations need rc-cxami-
nation, and some doctrines long cstab-
lshed are challenged from unexpected
quarters, there may be reason for a re
affirmation of the faith.
Oy.rture>.
On February LIST, 1879, amember of the
committee wrote on his own behalf TO one
who had been very active in opposition to
the resolution, asking whether he and an
other associated with him in the opposi
ton could accept the following resolu-
ton:
I'VE hereby rcanirm our acceptance OF the ,lccla-
ration of faith of the Boston Council oi l-6j he
lieving that the doctrines therein enuncated are in
accordance with the Word Of God. And especially
We declare iirn adherence 10 those fundament-
| al truths in which all Christians should agree, a.
epitomized i'll that declaration of faith"
In reply, an entire Willingness TO accept
this resolution was affirmed. And those
| to whom the enquiry WAS addressed, be-
sides asserting 10 this, offered to the
committee another resolution, which they
! thought would be more satisfactory to |
| the friends Of the original one than that
above cited The form of this resolution
was intended To meet the views of the
questioner, who had declared in the |
| (hroHiclc: The real question with us
now is, Is that doctrine-the doctrine of !
future punishment. as now generally held |
regarded by the Congregational church !
es of Vermont as essentially a compo- |
ncnt part of the evangelical system? ?"
The resolution offered to the committee |
was in these words:
I'VE record our firm adherence To the doctrines /
which in the declaration OF the Boston Council Of |
lsG5 are pronounced fundamental truths in which |
all Christians should agree. And, more Particular
ly, We reaiirm our belief, the basis Of the Holy
Scriptures, that the dvinely authenticated ministry |
OF rcgcnoIaiiuE Grace Is limited 10 this life, and
that the penalties oi the life 10 come are without
end We also regard the denial OF these truths as
preludicili {" the cau 5>r->kS.ngecnl religion, and
A. lIafuiiui lu The SONS Of iM.HGDk
Tins resolution, pre- f.Osru and endorsed
by some Of The most active opponents Of
ia. resolution of 1873, was i'll the hands
Of the committee for several months prior
to the session of 1879.
The Charge of Isad Faith Des,ruc,ive OF
Fellowship
There may be reason for rcaflirming the
faith. But the snme agitations that
contain this reason, also render the
work Of pron"uncinG on the quahtica
tions of candidate for the ministry even
more delicate and difficult than usual.
There may be some ministers who, com
hitting no breach us faith, regard their
own doctrines rs compatible with denomi-
national fellowship, even though others
might think otherwisc And such men
may honorably stay lis ,until by rcgu-
lar ecclesiastical methods our fellowship
is withdrawn. Councils may sometimes
be divided i'll honest opinion on the qucs-
tion of admitting particular man to the
ministry The members of an orllining
council may sometimes come to Il conclu-
sion that afterwards appears to themselves
Ia have been unwise. But the question
of fitness for the ministry is one that our
poliiy entrusts t. councils. And it as
srImes that they will act with good faith.
and with not less Intelligence than is cx-
ercised by those who review their work
from n distance on the basis Of rumor
A disposition to accuse Of bad faith
churches that are disclIargin@ their most
solemn trust in or,laining council. is far
more destructive of our best interests
than any doctrine whose incompatibiIty
with Evangelical fellowship is so obscure.
that neither the holder Of that doctrine,
nor the ncighboring churches see in it
amy occasion for the sIuIcring Of fellow
ship
No measure Of personal honor on the
part of Il minister, no most careful and
praycrful discharge Of grave responsible
lity on the part of an orlaininG council,
will Afford security against rumor alike
unjust and irresponsible. We do not ask
the convention to rebukc any disposition
that may exist, to violate the bonds Of
fellowship by slanderous rumur. We
only ask that the convention protect ITS
own utterances against any construction
tending to the encouragement of such
disposition.
nj.
The second pr"viso seems to us oman
tain not On ecclesiastical principle mainly
nor chiefly, but rudimrntal principle "f
Christian ethics. That II proviso pro
tecting from censure II minlstrrwh whO meth
cr i'll his own mind, nor by det'isi"n "i
competent ecclesiastical tribunal having
examined his particular beliefs, las been
Judged to have forfeited our fellowship,
should have been rejected 10y large vote
in any company of Christian men, would
seem not only HtcIpiicUbiC but mCr6di-
Die. Such however is the fact.
Assurances have been given us by some
that they voted without examination "f
the terms of this proviso 10y others that
they misunderstood It's import and hy
others still that they understood and hp-
proved it, but saw no occasion for IT.
We must believe that most of those
who rejected tins prnvIs", did :" without
due consideration ami without knowledge
of the facts which compelled us tooiler 1t.
But even thus, We think that IN a Con
vention whose prime object Is t" pro
mote the harmony. fellowship and ELI
cheney of the churches. nnl their cn-ope-
ration in Christian work, See Constltu-
tion. Art. |. II request for such II provis"
should have been Granted to u single
member. Such request III such com
pany should OF itself W. think. have
constituted sufficient SlIuni for the ad"p-
tion of the pruvis".
Necessity Tor III. Prov isO.