Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-17
THE CONFESSION OF FAITH.

THE CONFESSION OF FAITH.
Washington City Presbytery Discusses
the Proposed Revision.
| A SHARP DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT But NO 40
TON TAKEN Up TO REcEss-REv. DR.. cHups
ASKS A LErTKB OF DISMISSAL. 10 TIE Pc
CHURCH.
| The meeting Of the Washington city presby-
terry today at the Ninth Street church was un-
usually well attended. A notable feature Of
the occasion was the presence Of large num-
Der Of ladies. The discussion Of the question
Of the revision Of the Confession Of Faith"
was announced a. the object Of the special
meeting and the prospect Of q debate on that
important topic was the reason for the large at
tendance.
The presbytery first endeavored 70 unravel
the parliamentary tangle which was occasioned
| by the resolution offered at the last meeting by
Judge Drake as substitute for the report of
the committee on revision. This resolution
denied the constitutional right OF the general
| assembly to Cverturn the presbyteries in re-
gard TO revision and held that the initiative
should be made by the presbyteries.
REv. DR. T. Q. CHILDs ASKS FOR LETTER OF DIS
MIssAL
During this discussion it was suggested that
Rev. DR.. T. s. Childs, who had announced his
determination to ask for q letter Of dismissal
from the presbytery, be allowed to present his
letter at this time. DR.. Childs said, previous
| TO this, that he was placed in rather deli
cate position, as he intended to withdraw
| from the Presbyterian church in order to con-
| meet himself with another church. He had hoped
that the question OF revision would be decided,
| and after he had placed himself on record it
| Intention He hnu
ever, leave it to the presbytery when the ques-
ton of his withdrawal should be considered.
1t was decided to allow him to present his
letter at once. DR.. Childs then read his letter,
which was laid on the table without debate for
further consideration. The letter is as follows:
HIS LETTER ANNOUNCING HIS CHANGE OF FAITH.
To the Presbytery of Washington City.
Dear Brethren: would ask dismissal from
your body to the Protestant Episcopal church,
| diocese OF Maryland 1t is unnecessary to
| dwell upon the reasons that have led me to
| seek this change. l find in the Episcopal
| church a doctrinal faith in substantial harmony
with our own, find worship reverent, spirit
ual, comforting. find a communion of saints
In which hope to enlarge the experiences of
| the past and have a pledge of the still wider
| communion Of the future.
do not go out with or to controversy. 90
| with the hope Of yet fuller service for the
| Master in the work of q common faith and the
| bands OF common love. My relations to the
| presbytery have been always pleasant and were
never more so than they are now These rela-
| tons cannot be severed without pain. l trust,
| however, that the bonds Of personal and Chris
tan affection may remain unbroken.
Fraternally yours, T. g. CHrLps
| TONS.
| In order to get rid of the parliamentary
complications connected with the discussion of
| hn H. l.
| the motion adopted at former meeting fixing
the time for taking the vote on revision on the
second day of the meeting in April. He
said that his object in making this
motion was to enable the presbytery
| to proceed with its business and to decide the
| first question as to whether a revision was
| favored by the presbytery, and then to go on
| with the discussion as to the character Of the
| revision.
Opposition was made to such a course by
Rev. Mr.. Van Wyck, who, in the course of his
remarks, characterized the motion to re-
| consider
He claimed that number Of the members of
the presbytery were not present, as they be-
lieved, relying on the former action Of the
presbytery that no action was to be taken
| until the spring meeting.
| The stated clerk, Rev. DR.. Bittinger objected
| to the use OF the word trick, and said that he
| thou%ht there was no member Of the presby
| terry capable of such thing.
Rev. Mr.. Van Wick dIsclaimed any personal
| aluslon to DR.. Bittinger, but maintained his
position that it would be unfair to reconsider
| the resolution at this meeting.
Rev. DIR. Hamlin thought that such language
no attempt was made to establish the trick
lDess OF the proceeding the discussion of par
| lIamentary points went on.
| Judge Drake argued against the power Of the
presbytery to reconsider the action taken at a
| former meeting OF the presbytery and after he
had finished DIR. Hamlin took the floor and
said that Judge Drake was responsible for
| GETTING THE PREsBYTERY INTO THIS HOLE.
In the opinion Of Rev. Mr.. Ramsdell it was
the general assembly that had got the pres
bytery into the hole by prating first
| for action the question of whether a
revision is wanted and then, second,
the question Of the nature of the revision.
| In the case OF many members the action on
| the first depended on their views on the second
| question, and what he wanted was discussion
| of the general subject OF revision. He did not
care when the vote was taken, but he desired
that there should be discussion before the
| vote was taken.
Rev. DR.. Bartlett favored considering the
question at once, and Judge Drake, upon the
| suggestion Of DR.. Hamlin, said that he was
| willing TO amend the motion by substituting
| the word rescind for reconsideration.
| THE TIME FOR TAKING A VOTE ON REVISION
Some Of the members objected to a change
that would not fix definite time for taking
vote on the revision question and DR.. Hamlin
said that there was no objection to fixing
definite time, but he thought that it was a mis-
| take to deter until the spring meeting vote
on both Of the questions of the assembly's
| overture. The first question, whether a revis-
ion was favored or not, in his opinion could be
settled before the spring meeting Then the
| report OF the committee on revision could be
| considered at that meeting.
Judge Drake argued against any change and
maintained that the entire matter could be
considered at the spring meeting. He was
speaking OF the importance of the action Of the
| presbytery on this question az affecting the
interests of the church at large, when Rev. DIR.
Bartlett protested against the prolonged dis
cussion on modes of procedure. He said that
| he was
| SICK OF HEARING SUCH DRIvEL
and he thought tine members of the presbytery
| were tired of it.
| "Dr. Bartlett" rejoined Judge Drake, in a
caustic tone. had better employ a physician
and take some internal remedies for his sick
ness. l consider such remarks as imperti-
| nent."
Nothing but impertiuence will reach you
or effect you" retorted DIR. Bartlett
| Judge Drake replied with considerable heat
that ho wanted it TO be understood that he did