Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

truth, loses its hold on the consciences of men; and the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, is brought into disesteem.

III. In the opinion of the undersigned, the said acts of the church were passed with undue haste, and want of that cautious deliberation which their importance required.

They cannot believe, that their brethren generally were aware of the bearing and consequences of their own votes; nor of the anxiety and grief which they occasioned, by passing those votes against the reasonable and earnest wishes of the minority for a postponement, and a fair discussion of the questions they involve.

For these reasons, upon which, were it necessary, they might greatly enlarge, the undersigned feel conscientiously impelled to represent themselves aggrieved with the acts of the church of April 25, 1822. In making this representation, they are not conscious of any want of tenderness toward their brethren, nor of any other desire than to promote the purity and peace of the church. They feel a wound to their consciences; they are afraid of injury to the cause, which by their most solemn engagements they are bound to promote. They tremble at the exposure of the church to the incursions of error, and those divisions and strifes, which may grieve away the good Spirit of God, and bring his frowns upon his herit age in the present and succeeding generations. And the undersigned do express their most earnest desire, that the church would appreciate their motives and weigh their reasons, and remove the occasion of grievance from their brethren by revoking the acts in question of April 25, 1822, thus returning to the ground on which they have so long professed to walk in the faith and fellowship of the gospel.

Should the church, however, not see cause to comply with these requests, the undersigned would then further. propose, 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. EBEN'R ROCKWOOD, (and by eighteen* other members.)

(Signed)

18th June, 1822.

* Of the nineteen who subscribed the memorial, five, including one minor, were males, and the remaining fourteen females.

After the memorial had been read,

"A motion was made by brother Ebenezer Rockwood, that the votes passed by the church on the 25th of April last be reconsidered, which motion did not prevail." (See page 8.)

The church then referred the memorial to a committee of five of their members, whom they requested to report thereon to the church on the 22d of August at an adjourned meeting.

The committee made their report to the church at the time appointed, which was accepted by the church. The report was as follows:

REPORT.

Your committee, to whom was referred the memorial of brother Ebenezer Rockwood and others, have taken it into serious consideration, and have endeavored to give that full and candid examination to the reasons, motives and requests there set forth, and also to the measures heretofore pursued by the church relating to the admission of its members, which they are sensible the importance of the subject, as it concerns the peace and prosperity of the church of Christ here, the feelings of members who state themselves aggrieved, and the pure, simple truths of the gospel and christian liberty, demand.

For better understanding the subjects presented in the memorial, the committee have thought it necessary and proper to examine attentively the doings of this church, in relation to confessions of faith made by members when admitted to full communion.

In the records of this church, so far as kept by the Rev. Jonathan Livermore, they have not been able, on careful examination, to find any act of this church concerning confessions or declarations of faith, or any form of such confessions.

Information has been had from members of the church admitted during the ministry of Mr. Livermore, that no confession of faith was made by them on their admission, or, to their knowledge, on the admission of others, further than what was included in the covenant.

On the day of the ordination of the Rev. Abel Fisk, Nov. 18, 1778, twenty-seven male members of the church renewed their covenant by subscribing a form, that appears, so far as your committee can discover, to have

been prepared for that occasion, and never to have been used on the admission of members.

The church, at a meeting held two months after, on Jan. 19, 1779, made certain rules, among which the only one that relates to confessions of faith is this; "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."

No other rule or vote of the church concerning confessions of faith during Mr. Fisk's ministry has been found by your committee on careful examination of the records; nor have they been able to find, from the records or other sources of information, any act or vote of the church which at any time has expressly repealed or annulled this rule.

It appears, from the recollection of many members of the church, that there was, during Mr. Fisk's ministry, a certain form of a confession of faith to which candidates on admission usually consented; but whether this form was prepared by order of the church, or by the pastor, does not appear on the records.

Your committee have received undoubted information, that variations from that form were allowed in the confessions of faith made by members on admission to this church, while Mr. Fisk was the pastor, and that he in some instances recommended to candidates for admission to write their own confession.

These circumstances clearly indicate, that this confession was used only in accordance with the rule of January 19, 1779.

After the death of Mr. Fisk and the ordination of the present pastor, this form of confession of faith and a covenant apparently in the hand writing of Mr. Fisk, being in some parts illegible from the worn state of the paper, was laid before the church. A vote of the church was taken at that time, April 21, 1803, and is recorded in these words: "Voted, that a committee of three be chosen to revise the confession of faith and covenant now used at the admission of members into this church. pastor, Dr. E. Rockwood, and Deac. Abiel Abbot, were chosen for that committee." And June 22, 1803, the church "voted to accept the confession of faith and covenant, as revised and presented by the committee chosen at the last meeting." The confession of faith and covenant thus revised, was entered in the records of the

The

church. This is the last act of the church concerning confessions of faith to be found on record previous to the votes of April 25, 1822, which are the subject of complaint in the memorial.

Here it is proper to inquire, is the rule of January 19, 1779, concerning confessions of faith, repealed or annulled? The inquiry relates only to the matter of fact, and is separate from the question of the expediency or inexpediency of the church rules. That there has been no express repeal of the rule by the church, has already been shewn; and indeed it is not, to the knowledge of the committee, pretended by any one.

It remains to be inquired, has there been any act of the church which repeals it by implication? It is contended in the memorial before the committee, that the revision of the confession and covenant had an effect to do away the rule.

It is a general rule of construction of laws and regulations, founded in common sense, the justness of which it is presumed no one will deny, that no law or rule implies a repeal or revocation of a former law or regulation, unless such former law or regulation is contradictory to the latter, or so inconsistent with it, that both cannot subsist and be executed together. But there is no contradiction or inconsistency between the vote of April 21st and June 22d, 1803, and the rule of January 19, 1779. The confession revised and accepted in 1803 was originally a confession to which candidates might consent, or they might exhibit one of their own, according to this rule.

The votes of 1803 do not imply, much less necessarily imply, any restriction upon that liberty; and unless the implication be necessary, they do not destroy that liberty by implication. What the design and purposes of the confession were before revision, such were the designs and purposes of it after revision.

Whatever is simply revised and amended, and accepted as such, has, after revision, the same authority, and occupies the same place, as the original did before revision, and no other. It is subject to the same restriction after, as before revision. This principle applied to the revised confession, clearly determines, that as the confession before revision was subject to the rule of 1779, so it was after revision; that is, it was a confession to which candidates might consent, or they might exhibit one of their own if they chose.

If a fair construction and interpretation of the rules and votes of the church did not so necessarily impel to this conclusion, but it were a matter of doubt how far the church intended and understood the rule of 1779 to be affected by accepting the confession as revised in 1803; yet the practice acquiesced in by the church since that time clearly shews, that the liberty allowed in the rule of January 19, 1779, to candidates to exhibit a confession of their own, was not intended to be abridged.

Information is derived from the pastor, one of the surviving members of the committee, who revised the confession and covenant in 1803, and which accords with what he incidentally mentioned to some of your committee years ago, that the committee, when they revised the confession and covenant, had conversation on the subject, and then understood, that a consent to the confession of faith revised by them and offered to the church, was not to be considered an indispensable condition of admission for candidates *; and that the member of that committee now deceased, expressly stated, that liberty of candidates to make their confession in a different form was to' be allowed, if they chose. The other surviving member of the committee of 1803, not being placed in circumstances so likely to call frequently to his recollection this conversation, as the official duties of the pastor would do, it is not at all surprising, at such a distance of time, that he does not recollect, as he states, any such conversation. This want of recollection in one of that committee, when it is clearly recollected under such circumstances by the other, does not in the least impair the certainty of what that committee considered the effect of the revision to be. That the church would have the same understanding of the effect of revising the confession of faith and covenant, and accepting it, as that committee had, is altogether probable, and nothing has occurred to shew that it had a different understanding or opinion of the subject. On the contrary, the practice in admitting members has been just such as it would have been, if the church had considered the rule of 1779 to have continued in force.

Many candidates for admission have used the liberty given by the rule of 1779, by declaring their faith in a form varying from that accepted in 1803, not only recent

* Explanations to the same effect were made without opposition in the church meeting, when the revised confession reported by the com. mittee was accepted.

« PoprzedniaDalej »