The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-12-06
VINCENT HETERODOX?
METHODIST BISHOP ACCUSED OF
DENYING CHRIST,s DIVINITY.


cents Deniai-whnt IL Said in His BE-
half by the Christian Advocate.
A controversy has been going on for the past
two or three months between the Christian Adj
uocdtc. a Methodist Church paper of this city,
and the Presbyterian Banner of Pittsburgh, Pa,
over an utterance made by Bishop Vincent at
Chautauqua in August. The controversy is
based on versions of what the Bishop said
which appeared In two Presbyterian organs.
One was the Christian Observer OF Louisville.
which published on Sept. o a contributed article
beginning:
Perhaps there is no place in tho whole
oountrv where q preacher from the South
can hear more things which he does not
believe than Chautauqua, n. ""
After abiding to the broadening OF the teach
eng at Oh autauqua, the article continues:
THE most deplorable fact is that the dis
tinguished Bishop tDr. VincentL whose name
has been most closely associated with the move
ment, and who has been honored as Its founder
aud chief promoter. seems also to be broaden
ing, At O vesper service he read q letter from
. lady who, in quito plain and repulsive
language. called in question the scriptural mar
Fative touching the birth Of Christ, and reflected
on the character of the Virgin Mary. The
Bishop, in Difference to the views of this letter,
conceded that the divinity of Christ was not
an essential article of the Christian faith, md
IN order to show freedom from the restraints of
creed made other generous concessions. A gen.
tleman said to me, with q toucn OF Indignation
IN his tone: THE Bishop has wiped out every
thing distinctive of Christianity"
A letter to the Presbyterian Of Philadelphia
on Sept. Q thus described tho episode:
Upon Sabbath. Aug. 10. to 1000 persons
Bishop Vincent read q letter which purported
e. come from a lady whom he endorsed as re-
tp,5 a~d Thrfstian In which she set forth that
Christ was born of Mary in sin. and that Mary
put her sin upon the early Church, which
pa ssed 1t on to us as something miraculous.
The actual Language of the letter was such that
i cannot write, and 40 have given it in sub
stance. The letter went on to speak of the doc
year Sill. and as being without warrant Of
Scripture. From this IL went on to repudiate
"Bishop Vincent proceeded. after reading this
letter. while assuring his personal belief in
Shrtsts divinity and neEleo,ing to say what he
nest and. fierce protest against trading doemas In
the pulpit; He declared. with all the emphasis
he was able to use, that 1t was not necessary to
believe In the miraculous conception and birth
of Christ, in the doctrine of the Trinity. or the
the people to take Jesus as a man. as he appeared
TO them to be. and not to be disquieted by the
jmenss Of the New Testament and they should
be saved"
Presbuteridn Banner Of PittsbnrEh on Sept. l6.
under the title, "Chautauqua Broadening in the
, MFo TO P lhe foolsvi, A't freas abSisnfi she o SSslL' tSo
That q Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal
Church should declare that the divinity of
Christ was not az essential article OF the faith
IS. most aston, ling. We leave him to settle
with the Church which has honored him with
one Of its highest appointments. but IT. Is clear
that Presbyterians aud all evangelical Christ
less q reformation in it's teachings is speedily
brought about
attack of the PresbWe rfan Banner on Bishop
Vincent, by printing this, telegram from the
ley P,sn IN answer @asSa W TO a lett letter on mt the subject: D''A
The quotation sent is a gross misrepreeenta-
t.on; 1t sS SSaid scarcely more GoaI %pe + HIso Ri1rsD-
The article embodytng this teleeram called
attention to the fact that the irrespopsi6le IS s9 IN.
only foundation for the Banners ATTACK.
To this rejoinder the Banner replied on Nov.
4 In q long article In which II quoted the letter
in the Prssbytertdn. and gave at greater length
the article in the CHRISTIAN Observer. The Rist
torial in answer to 1t in The Christian Advocate
OF Nov. l2. This is as follows:
"rRYISo TO BOLSTER UP A MISLEADING AccU-
sAT1oS.
Tho Presbyterian Banner devotes two columns
TO trying to vindicate it's attack UPON Chautau-
qua and Bishop Vincent; After quoting Bishop
him was q gross Misrepresentation which could
scarcely more perfectly misrePresent VIII. : the
the Bishop did really say that the divinity Of
Christ was not an essential article OF the Chris
The proof it offers is the original statement
OF the anonymous correspondent. and d state
The latter sey Ss!e:G y convers ot Win vii a nun Der Of
persons about what was said BY Bishop Vincent
able ministers Of the Presbyterian Church. and
all of them were shocked and outraged by what
was said or implied by him. That would not
TO prove. no,n, s,,.,.,, lana, p-..,r-
rim m nnn n r tnNalliUanf Ian v
present at the time. and declare that the Bishop
charged upon him, This would not prove any
thing beyond doubt. 4 minister OF our &C;
an expression which was intrinslcally absurd.
blasphemous, and unchrlstian. by emitting the
Ave Intelligent persons in luccession, whether
the not was omitted. They all said that 1t was
not. The serious manner of the speaker. for tho
occasion was a solemn one. caused them to fail
to notice the omission. Three others. however.
who did notice It settled the matter.
The versions that are given OF what q person
has said when there. was no previous notice that
a as. a w9 9inS. ss rom a"y yh t nIe gr1fSsl' s as a sd Tnis fass
from the prepossessions of others. and 1t Is
quite easy, for any person who has IMPLIED a
strong prejudice to speak to persons who had no
prejudice. and cause them to believe that what
they heard was what the prejudiced perS 4
There is but one point In the Banners re-
marks that could raise a presumption that any
II quotes the Assembly, Herald as saying editori-
ally. Bishop Vincent has said that 1t was. not
necessary to believe in the doctrine of the divin-
ity of Christ in order to he saved
We regret to have. to state. however. that
the Banner has not quoted the editorial note in
the ChdutduQud Assembly Herald correctly.
THIS is the passage: Bishop Vincent then made
avery slrong address on the necessity of put
thug dogmatic theology IN the BACKGROUND
when the salvation OF a soul is concerned lie
dwell, especially on the doctrine OF the dl'ic'ty
OF Christ, and the fact that failure TO b.ii,,ye
in the divinity. OF Christ does not necessarily
prevent q man from becoming q Christian
Whether this Is a correct version of the stu
alton or not we cannot say, but II Is different in
deed from the passage which tho Banner rro-
fesses to quote from the CIhdutduqud assembly
Herald. Bishop Vincent did not say that 1t Is
not necessary to believe In the doctrine OF the
divinity of Christ In order to he saved but that
Failure to believe In the divinity OF Christ does
NOT necessarily, prevent a man from hecomlnG a
Christian The last proposition We be ieve.
The Presbyterian Banner may make what II
pleases OF II, but we have no doubt that many q
man who started TO seek God did not at the time
believe in the divinity of Christ, meaning by
that the Deity 3f Christ, which 70 the orthodox
ii did feel himaelf a sinner, prayed 10. God