The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-06-22

are again Iuduy III tuo Uiu 5CuOoi ChuASh-
es who are in substantial accord with
us. Neither can it be from any other OF
our authorized tenets of faith for the
same reason" Finding on these grounds
no reason for any discrimination against
US DR.. Straub proceeds to give what he
seems to think the real reason for our
rejection from the large aggregations of
evangelical bodies, such as the Y. M. @.
A. and the Evangelical Alliance, etc.
He asks: "Isi not that our church is too
much judged from representations in
some quarters thrust on the community?
Necessarily giving the impression that
not alone the deity of Christ is rejected
but Christ himself, in that his claims
respecting himself are set aside, his his
tory discredited, and philosophy urged
which would render even the Deity him
self non existence, and Christ's own
system at best but a clever, humane
and baseless scheme, a pretension to su-
pernatural relations in order to induce
people to accept him as authority and
be benefited by his reform" DR.. Straub
tells US that the leaders of orthodoxy
are not fools above all others, and that
they can see that these liberal claims
are powerless and baseless and wholly
unserviceable and herein they reject a
church that allows such attitudes. He
says in concluding his article: IF the
Universalist Church has suffered from
such determinations it has but itself to
blame for not having done its own voic-
ing and allowing it too often to be done
by the babble Of Liberalism"
| have known for some time that
Liberalism" "Rationalism," Techni-
cal Rationalism" and "Radicalism" have
been charged with many an evil, but not
till this article appeared in recent
UNIvERsALIsT did know that "Liber-
alism' had babbled so much as to cause
the evangelical churches to set us aside.
1t might be well to ask in this connee-
tion, when this discrimination against
us was declared; and also how long tie
question of Liberal or conservative"
has been question of any prominence
in the Universalist Church. 1t is cer-
tain that this latter question is Of COM
paratively recent date. 1t had shared
no prominence, certainly, previous to
1870, when our whole UNCONVENTIONAL
policy was reconstructed at the Centen-
nial Convention at Gloucester, and not
till several years after that, was much
said or written among us on these
questions. 1t is true that the Connor
and Bisbee cases had attracted some 10.
cal attention, but the denominational at
titude in these instances could not have
influenced the evangelical party against
us. But what about the action. for
instance, of the Y. M. G. A. regard
ing Universalists? A bit of his
tory at this point would have illumi-
mated DIR. Straub's article, and saved
him from making serious charges against
his brethren. l submit that the charge
of discrimination against the Universal
account of the liberal party or it's utter
ances is absolutely without foundation
and utterly wanting in the element of
truth. What are the facts? l quote
the following from the Handbook of the
History, Organization and Methods of
Work of the Y. M. G. A., PIP. 4s. 40.
The committee appointed at the Port
land Convention in 1869, to consider the
report of the Executive Committee.
made variety of recommendations, one
of which called for a re affirmation of
the resolution adopted at the preceding
Convention at Detroit, defining the
qualifications for active membership in
the Associations. 1t read as follows:
THAT, as these organizations bear the
name Of Christian and profess to be en-
gagged directly in the Saviour's service,
so it is clearly their duty to maintain
the control and management of all their
affairs in the hands of those who profess
to love and publicly avow their faith in
Jesus, the Redeemer, as divine, and who
testify their faith by becoming and re-
naming members of churches held to be
evangelical; and that such persons, and
none others, should be allowed to vote
or hold Office"
An inquiry as to the meaning of the
term evangelical church" resulted in
the appointment of the following con-
mittee to define what the Convention
understood by those words; Howard
Crosby, d. D., New York City; Rev. S.
H. Lee, Greenfield. Mass; Rev. g. M.
Grant. Halifax. N. s.; Rev. H. G. Kel-
logg. Jr., Providence. r. l., and General
o. o. Howard. Washington, d. G.
The committees report. which was
unanimously adopted, recommended the
re-affirmation Of the Detroit resolution,
and presented the following definition:
"And we hold those churches to be
evangelical which. maintaining the Holy
Scriptures to be the only infallible rule
of faith and practice, do believe in the
Lord Jesus Christ (the only begotten
Son of the Father, King Of kings. and
Lord OF lords. in whom owelleth the full
ness of the Godhead bodily, and who
was made sin for us, though knowing