Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

der which they labor. Should they, however, be disappointed in this hope, should the church remain satisfied with their own acts, the undersigned would then renew their proposition," that this subject of grievance be referred to the arbitration of an ecclesiastical council to be chosen mutually by the church and the aggrieved members, on terms that may hereafter be adjusted between them."

Signed,

EBEN'R ROCKWOOD,

(and eighteen other members of the church.)

Nov. 11, 1822.

After attending to the reading of it, the church-"Voted, that said memorial be referred to a committee of five to report at a future day, and that a copy of their report be communicated to the subscribers of the memorial before the meeting of the church on adjournment."

The committee reported to the church at an adjourned meeting on the 23d of December. The church accepted、 the report of the committee, which was as follows:

REPORT.

To the church of Christ in Wilton.

Your committee, to whom, on the 14th of Nov. last, was referred the second memorial of brother Ebenezer Rockwood and others, have attended to that subject, as they hope, with deep regard to christian truth and liberty, the purity and prosperity of the church, and the welfare of their dissatisfied brethren.

Though what was in their former memorial "the alleged matter of grievance is taken away" in compliance with their wishes, yet they now inform us, that they have the same dissatisfaction with a rule of the church concerning confessions of faith adopted in 1779, which they contend, against the voice of the church, had been annulled.

There seems to be some little mistake in the second memorial in supposing the restoration of any thing by the second resolution passed in August last, for that resolution enacts, or imposes, or restores nothing. It simply declares a fact, or the understanding of the church in regard to the existence of a known rule. This resolution is now alleged by the subscribers of this memorial, as the subject of their dissatisfaction, and as they say

66

adopted "for reasons which are stated at length in the report" of a former committee. And they now inform us that they have still a hope, that if, as they believe, these reasons can be invalidated, the church will be induced to reconsider the resolution founded on them." Arguments of considerable length are offered in the memorial now before us for this purpose. These our dissatisfied brethren may think have not received sufficient attention from your committee, if they are passed over without comment. If these arguments on further examination prove to be inconclusive, it is hoped that the dissatisfaction of our brethren may be removed.

There is, it may be observed, a mistake in the memorial, that the resolution was passed for reasons in the report of the former committee, no reasons being offered in their report for its adoption. The reasons for its adoption are indeed stated by the church in the preamble of the resolution, but to these the arguments in the memorial have no application. In that report, however, are found reasons to shew, that the rule of 1779 remained in force; and it is to these reasons, we apprehend from the arguments offered, that the second memorial refers.

The method pursued to invalidate the reasons offered in the report, is not so much by shewing the reasons to be inconclusive, as by attempting to maintain the contrary position, that the rule of 1779 has been annulled.

This rule, which must be familiar to every member of the church, is expressed in these words: "that every candidate previous to his admission give his consent to a confession of faith, or exhibit one of his own, or a relation satisfactory to the church."

The first topic of argument is on the construction of this very plain and intelligible rule.

After the remark, that the rule respects simply a confession, the first step in the argument is, that by the rule must be intended "either a confession such as the wisdom of the pastor might dictate to candidates for admission, or a confession yet to be prepared by the church or their order." The necessity of this may perhaps not be perfectly obvious to all.

The next step of the argument is, that as the church did not prepare a confession, and the pastor did," a confession, then, at the discretion of the pastor, must have been intended."

It must require a discernment beyond that of your

committee, to perceive from this rule, why the church, after omitting it for a season, might not prepare a confession, or order one to be prepared to be used in conformity to the rule, though the pastor in the meantime had furnished one for that purpose.

The memorial, however, goes on to observe concerning this rule, that by it the church "had given a privilege to Mr. Fisk, and were willing that he should exercise it, while he lived." Here is Here is a remarkable change in the train of reasoning. The position started upon was, that a confession must have been intended to be prepared, either by the church or by the pastor; and from the fact, that the church omitted to do it, and that the pastor did prepare a confession, it is contended that the pastor only was to prepare a confession. This, if it prove any thing, which may possibly be doubted, proves that by the rule it was the official right or duty of the pastor to furnish a confession to which candidates might assent; and if it was an official right or duty, it must of course pass to his successor in office.

But, in contradiction to this natural inference, the memorial makes it the personal privilege of Mr. Fisk. Upon which your committee remark, that if a personal privilege were conferred by the rule, as no person is designated by the words of the rule, or any other vote, either by name or by an office held, it might, for any thing that appears, have been as truly considered the personal privilege of any one else, as of Mr. Fisk.

The next step in the argument, and which is necessary to come at the desired conclusion, is still more inexplicable. It is not simply, that this privilege, supposed in the memorial to be granted to Mr. Fisk during his life, ceased at his death, which would be the only natural and just conclusion, but this supposed privilege, which extended only to giving a facility in executing the first clause of the rule of 1779, being at that time annulled, the conclusion is not only, that the first clause of the rule was annulled, which would be strange enough, but what is still more passing strange, that the next clause, and indeed the whole rule, was annulled by the event of Mr. Fisk's death. Thus and at that time, according to the memorial, it was annulled; but proceeding a little farther, we find something still to be done to the rule.

It is asserted that vote" (the rule of 1779) "vested

[ocr errors]

authority in the pastor to prescribe a confession to candidates for church privileges."

To this assertion the committee reply, that an absolute power to prescribe a confession was vested in him, is contradicted by the rule itself, because it gives liberty for candidates to exhibit a confession of their own; and to have vested such authority in any one would have been as derogatory to the church, if they had given it, as it would have been to the highly esteemed character of Mr. Fisk, to have accepted it. We then in candor must take the meaning of the memorial to be, that by the rule of 1779, the pastor was vested with authority to furnish a confession to be used according to the rule. From this it is argued on the part of the memorialists, that when the church, as in 1803, "agree upon and record articles of faith, prepared wholly, or in part, from forms before in use, such acts amount to a resumption of this authority."

It may here be noticed, that the authority vested was an authority to furnish a confession to be used according to the rule of 1779. The authority resumed must be the same, as that which was vested; and as it was resumed by exercising the authority itself, it conclusively follows that the confession prepared by the church in 1803, was designed to be used in accordance with the rule of 1779. But the conclusion in the memorial is, that these acts of the church, that is, the exercise of this authority, not only amounted to a resumption of the authority supposed to be vested in the pastor, but annulled the rule itself; which is neither more nor less than this, that the church, by resuming and exercising an authority to facilitate the execution of the rule of 1779, were so unfortunate as by the very act to annul the rule itself—a rule too, which had ceased to exist more than a year before, at the death of Mr. Fisk, according to an equally conclusive argument of the memorial; so that if this reasoning be true, the rule died twice, and must now be considered twice dead and plucked up by the roots.

But the position taken in the memorial, that the church intended and authorised Mr. Fisk to prepare a confession to be used according to the rule of 1779, is fatal in another respect to the main conclusion contended for. Because, in the case supposed, Mr. Fisk would be the authorised agent of the church, and the form of a confession, prepared by him in pursuance of this authority,

would be thus "made their own" by the church, as much as a form would be, prepared in any other manner by their order. The church, of course, then, by simply accepting this their own form, after revision by their committee in 1803, gave it no additional authority, nor indicated any alteration in its designed use.

The authority or designed use of a form of a confession is not in the least altered by entering it among the records. Mr. Fisk might for better preservation have entered the form he prepared in the records; and if that had been done, it would have saved the labor of its revisal in 1803. The present pastor, for better preservation after revision, entered it in the records, but without any direction from the church. From this it may be seen of how little consequence is the fact of its being in the records, which is repeatedly insisted on as of so much importance in the memorial.

For the purpose of fortifying some points in the argument, the writer of the memorial has resorted to the supposition of great confusion and disorder in the affairs of the church, which never appear to have happened. We are told of the want of records; and what of that? Records, though convenient, are not necessary to the regu lar and well ordering the affairs of a christian church. If this were the case, it would seem that the churches in the days of the apostles must have been in great disorder, for we do not find, that they were ever ordered or ever did keep any records of their internal proceedings: and besides it is a reflection upon the understanding of those persons, who were members of this church in 1779, to suggest the notion, which is suggested in the memorial, that the method of conducting the concerns of the church could not, of course, be adequately understood," without records before them. Even if the affairs of the church had been disordered at that time, (which was not the case,) yet we believe, that the members, by their own good sense, would have perceived that mere temporary expedients would not afford the proper remedy. The rule of 1779, does not appear to be of a temporary nature. Neither the words in which it is expressed, nor any circumstance attending it, gives the least countenance to the supposition of its being a temporary expedient. But, on the contrary, it has every appearance of a permanent rule, as much as any one that was formed by this church.

6

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »