The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-03-06


ened. We believe in freedom of
faith, and not in compulsory and
authoritative creed. 1t is not only in
harmony with the genius of our
church, and with its practice for more
than eighty years, but is, in our
judgment, the best method and brings
the best results to the individual and
to the whole church.
Of course | would have harmonious
elements in Universalist church. |
would have the Universalist church
composed of Universalists. 1t does
not seem to us there is the least dan
ger that it would be otherwise COM
posed by the course we suggest. We
do not ask for a creedless church,
or church without deep and def
rite faith. But we do not think that
specific, written and authoritative
creed, to which all members and min
listers are compelled to subscribe as
condition of mem bership and fellow
ship, is best calculated to promote
such faith. We believe the freedom
of the individual, or the freedom
of the local parish. in the matters of
doctrinal belief. is best calculated to
promote large, deep and definite
faith.
A doct inal creed may be made a
test, if thought best, for those who
are to come into the fellowship of
our ministry. But even here it is en-
tirely unnecessary, because every
candidate for our ministry is examined
in detail in respect to all matters of
belief, and purpose, and general fit
ness for the ministry, and satisfac-
tory answers received, before he can
receive our fellowship as preacher.
Another reason why dogmatic
creed of any kind, as condition of
membership and fellowship in our
church, or in our ministry, is undesir-
able and unnecessary, is the fact that
local churches and pastors will refuse
to use it as such condition, if they
see fit to do 80, and there is practi-
cally no way to prevent, this and this
is just what many of our ministers
and churches are doing, and will con-
tinue to do. Why not freely allow
them to do what they will do any
way?
In a recent issue of the Christian
Leader it is announced that the Uni
versalist parish at Grand Rapids,
Mich, at its yearly meeting, changed
its basis of church membership and
made assent to the Winchester Con-
fession of Faith optional with its mem
bers.
This is only what many other Uni
versalists churches are practically
doing, and have been doing for many
years, and will probably continue to
do more and more.
There are two other reasons why it
seems to us that the course we have
suggested ought to be adopted by
our church.
First, it seems evident that neither
Jesus nor any of his disciples re-
quired assent to any dogmatic creed
as an authoritative condition of mem
bership or fellowship in the Christian
church. On the contrary, the New
Testament standard of discipleshipis
purely practical, ethical and spirit
ual.
Secondly, it seems to us that the
course we suggest would not only
prove eninently satisfactory to all
when put in practice, but would stop
TO ever the bootless discussion that
has been going on in our General
Convention for the last fifteen or
twenty years, and that is liable to go
on Unfortunately under any arrange
ment that insists on belief in, and
formal assent to, some sort of dogma
tic creed as an authoritative condi-
ton of membership and fellowship in
our church, that shall be universally
binding ON ministers and people.
We do not ask for less faith, or a
less definite or dogmatic belief, but
for less arbitrary authority exercised,
or attempted to be exercised, over
mems beliefs. In this matter we can
trust our people as honest and intel
ligent freemen. 1t is but fair and
manly that we should do so.
But, if we must make faith in, and
formal assent to, dogmatic creed
an authoritative condition of member
ship and fellowship in the church and
in our ministry, then it seems to us
the creed proposed by DIR. Bodies is
brief, adequate and admirable.
CHICAGO, ILL.,