Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-01-22
NO CHURCH GOING
Protestant Leaders Will Soon
 See Empty Benches.
Editor Evening Democrat:

thought struck me that he and Dr Smyth are not so far apart in their opinions. Their difference seems to me to be that each is considering | different epoch of Protestantism. l take it that Dr Smyth referred to the old Protestantism since he himself divides it into two phases, the pro- test against the old church and the phase of making new creeds. In other words, one is considering the ancient, the other the modern Pro- testantism. For instance, Dr Daven- port says: Its central and funda- mental idea is that every human soul stands in direct and immediate relation to God and has the right to appeal to him without the interven- tion of priest or sacrament or cere- mony." Now surely these words could not be said of the older Pro
 testantism which recognized some sacraments and insisted on them and made their ministration of them an all important matter, and despite their assertion of individual opinion, woe
 betide the man that differed with them. Indeed, -Dr Davenport him. self admits that Fin the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was tyrannical,' and further on leaves the impression that the tyrannical stage has passed. All of which leads me to the conclusion that the two scholarly gentlemen are considering different periods of Protestantism, hot hoI of thni~- views solely as to modern Protes
 tantism they would probably coin
 eide
 With Dr Davenport's clear enun-
 tration of present day Protestantism
 few, if any, will care to differ. Summed up briefly religion is an in dividual affair according as each one
 feels "the inner life of loving obedi- ence." In other words, it is the the ory of Professionalism made more
 practical in our day by the larger liberty allowed to men in our times,
 liberty, as Dr Davenport admits in speaking of the Puritans, that was not recognized in former times.
 In such an hypothesis it would be the height of folly to insist on a hierarchy, or sacraments or church
 going, and yet, despite Dr Daven-
 ports intimatiOn that the different sects are not really so far apart,
 there are Protestant sects that still
 insist upon these things. The vari- ous sermons preached on Sunday
 are no convincing test that the vari-
 ous denominations are much nearer together, for as one reads them he finds very little of the doctrinal in them, and am confident that a con ference of the various denomination al ministers would reveal the fact that, in what each deems essential, | they are not much nearer together
 now than they ever were.
 With many of Dr Davenport's as sertions I as Catholic could not, of
 course, agree. One of the salient, if
 not most important topic, of his address is the insistence on the
 individual liberty of con-
 science. Now if the individual liberty of conscience is to be the
 norm of each ones conduct, all laws ecclesiastical and civil are tyranni-
 cal edicts save in so far as they agree with the individual conscience; | that what would be just for one is
 not just for another; that even in an individual case what would be just enactment at one time would be un- | just at another. In this theory of
 individual liberty of conscience the 1 followers of the red flag are thor
 oughly justified.
 l may be told that society de-
 mands these various laws. But then individual conscience liberty is
 in the Protestant view, as take it, God-gIven right, and by
 what authority does society interfere
 with a right that God has given me? Indeed, the very fact that society dence that the individual liberty of
 conscience is not q generally accept
 ed fact, and I feel quite sure that Dr Davenport will not abide by the i ultimate conclusion of that princi- ! pie. If a man steal his money or
 murder any member of his family. : | am confident that Dr Davenport will l agree with me that such a man
 would be guilty of sin, and yet one
 cannot sin without binding the
 conscience. The natural law and
 the positive decalcgue letter the
 conscience. Liberty of conscience is
 one of those catchy phrases that ap- peals to mel. And within limits it
 may be correct, but 1t is not absO-
 lute. It OyerlOoks the rights of God. i and God, after all, as the Omnipo-
 tent Creator. has rights. There is
 no liberty of conscience apart from
 what God gives. Liberty of con science does not consist in the
 emancipation of conscience from all i law, for that would mean its de- structiOn, but it Is essentially being ! subjected to no law but the law of
 God promulgated by divine author < ity. And has God left us no ap- pointed court to declare what is his | law? If so, he has been less provi- dent than any earthly pOtentate. and ! leaving the interpretation of his laws
 to the individual. has himself fur nished us with the best motive to ! despise them. To me 1t seems the real freedom Of conscience is not possibly in Prosestantism. In Pro ! testantism as advocated by Dr Day- export conscience Is either de-
 stroyed by Icing subject to no law. or enslaved, or at least in danger os being enslaved by being subject to another law than the law of God.
 Dr Davenport in his day Is simply more logical than were the leaders