Farewell to the First Congregational Church in Norwalk, Conn. (bound with other addresses)

This course still seems to us the most proper, since, whatever may be the difference of opinion in our body respecting the sentiments advanced in Dr. BuShnell's book entitled " God m Christ," we think that there is an impropriety in attempting a discussion of doctrinal points with another Association, and that, in connexion with their peculiar treatment in a book which has been so variously interpreted. The task would be onerous, unsatisfactory, and unprofitable. But while we utterly decline such a discussion as impracticable, and if prac- ticable inexpedient, we feel constrained to clear ourselves from the imputation which seems to be cast upon us by juage of your last communication. 13 You say, " "We think there is a great difference of opinion between you and us as to what are essential doctrines of thie Christian religion. Your judgment and your answer to our remonstrance, forced this conviction upon our minds. We therefore carried the question to the last meeting of the General Association of Connecticut, and asked that body to make some declaration as to what doctrines are so essential and fvmd&mental that the denial of them is to be esteemed and treated as heresy." You then cite the language of the General Association, as deciding the question in your favor and against us. Brethren, we trust that you did not mean what you thus explicitly declare. "We agree with you perfectly in this respect, and we have said this to the public and to you so often and so care- fully, that we feel wounded by your apparent incredulity. The General Asso- ciation did not understand that there was any such issue between you and us ; nor did they decide any such point against us ; for our delegates to that body voted for the very declarations which you cite. The question is not as to what doctrines are fundainental to the Christian religion, for on that point there is no controversy, but as to what are the essential elements of the doctrines conceded to be fundamental, and how far these are retained in Dr. Bushnell's book. The majority of this body affirmed that the author appeared to hold whatever was essential to the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atoueinent, with their related theological points. You, on the other hand, believe and as- sert, that he has not only changed the form and rejected various incidental par- ticulars of these fundamental doctrines, but has denied their very substance, that which alone gives them vitality and power. So far was the General Associa- tion from condemning our judgment m this respect, that it purposely and pro- perly waived the expression of an opinion upon it. We hope, therefore, that it was by inadvertence that you used the language of which we complain, ex- pressing yourselves more strongly than you were aware.. You are probably informed, that there is a diflference of opinion in our body relative to the merits and demerits of Dr. Bushnell's book. While it is not known that.there is a single member, the author himself excepted, who is pre- pared to adopt, or even commend, the views set forth in that publication, the majority are satisfied that it does not substantially reject the orthodox faith. Analyzing the doctrines in question, reducing them to their last elements, throw- ing out what may be termed the merely incidental, or at least non-essential parts, and inquiring whether Dr. Bushnell's book, with one passage set over against another, with due allowance for his somewhat pectiliar views and use of language, and with his verbal and written explanations of meaning, could be considered as denying the fundamental facts and vital significance of evangeli- cal views, tixey have been brought to the decision against which you remon- strate. On the other hand, a minority, embracing nearly or quite one-third of the acting members of the Association, coincide substantially in the view of the book which is set forth in your remonstrance, and have felt as deeply grieved as any of your number by its publication. They regard it as surrendering to the enemies of the truth some of the strongest points,, the most cherished positions of the orthodox faith, and, in fact, as abandoning the defences of the cardinal doc- trines of the Trinity; the Atonement, and JustiScation by Faith. They also be- lieve, that underlying and interpenetrating the whole, are loose and incoherent teachings on the subject of language and interpretation, adapted to unsettle the belief of the churches, and to neutralize, or at least confuse, the instructions of the Word of God. There is also a diversity of opinion among us as to the propriety, in any circumstances, of further action on our part. At our annual meeting in June last, we declared that our action hitherto amounted simply to a decision, that we did not see cause owsehes to present and prosecute a charge of heresy i^ainst Dr. Bushnell. Should your body, or any responsible individual, pre- sent such a charge, and desire us to convene the consociation for the trial, it Tf ould present a new question, and would be decided as should seem right and u wise to a majority. We could not say in adranee what the decision woTjld be, since there are apparently three divisions of sentiment regarding it; some thinking that it would be irregular and unjust to open the case again in any form ; others believing that' there is nothiu S, as regards either justice or expediency, to pre- clude us from giving a respo nsible accuser an opportunity to prefer and sustain charges, there having been hitherto no formal accusation or trial ; and still oth- ers, who, while admitting that we are not formally precluded from the course last mentioned, are yet of the opinion that our decision was regarded at the time as final, no other course being then contemplated, and that the state of the case would, not be so far changed as to warrant a different result. While we are far from endorsing the peculiarities of doctrine held by Dr. Bushnell, and while some of our number regard them with unfeigned suspicion and grief, we deem it best for the interests of Zion, that all measures tending to divide our churches and ministers, and to make a schism in the spiritu^ body, should be laid aside. The moral effect of a trial which should result in a condemnation of Dr., Bushnell by a bare majority, with ministers of equal in- telligence, orthodoxy, and piety, on each, side, would be a nullity ; while an acquittal would certainly be more disastrous to what you consider the interests of truth, than the report which we have adopted can possibly be. The Provi- dence of God, in connection with a free discussion of the controverted points will indicate error, develope its tendencies, and make the path of future duty< plain to all who love the truth. Reciprocating your Christian esteem, and expressing the hope that our future intercourse will ever increase it, we remain. Your brethren in the belief and defence of a common GospeL (A true copy of the original.) Attest, JOHN A. HEMPSTED, Register of the Hartford Central Asaocicetion. Upon the foregoing documents, and the subject to which they relate, we submit the following REMARKS. 1. "We began this correspondence with our brethren of the Hartford Central Association, in the hope that a free discus- sion of their minute of October, 1849, and of the sentiments contained in the book to which that minute refers, would lead to a satisfactory result. In our first communication we al- ledged, and, as we think, proved, that Dr. Bushnell in his book had denied several fundamental doctrines of the Christian re- ligion, and of our Confession of Faith ; and then entreated them to reconsider their decision and withdraw the sanction which they had given to the sentiments of Dr. Bushnell, as being not inconsistent with soundness in the faith, and a gopd stan'aing in the Christian ministry, in our connexion. They " replied very briefly," " simply declining to retrace their steps in the case of Dr. Bushnell," " without entering 15- mio a discussion of the several alUgaiions presented in, ow communication^ "We called their attention to this omission, and earnestly requested them, if they should not reverse their proceedings, to endeavor to satisfy our minds by replying to our allegations and arguments. To this they answer, " that there is an im- propriety in attempting a discussion of doctrinal points with a^iother Association, and that in connection with their peculiar treatment in a book which has been so variously interpreted." They say that such a " task would be onerous, unsatisfactory, and vmprofitdhleP They " utterly decline such a discussion, a& impracticable, and if practicable, inexpedieTd.'" What en- couragement have we to continue this correspondence with them, when they refuse to reverse their proceedings, and " ut- terly decline'^' to discuss our arguments ? 2.. It appears tO|. us, that the Hartford Central Association, by their decision of October, 1849, and their continued adhe- rence to it, have effectually closed the door against a regular trial of Dr. Bushnell before his consociation, for heresy con- tained in his book entitled " God in Christ." It is provided in our Constitution, Article 13th, " That the said associated pastors shall take notice of any among them- selves that may be accused of scandal or heresy, unto or cog- nizable by them, examine th^ matter carefully, and if they find fust occasion, shall direct to the calling of the council, where such offenders shall be duly proceeded against." The only condition, on which the associated pastors are aut\orised to call the council for the trial of an accused mem- ber, is, that they, after examining the matter carefully, "Jmd JMst occasion" for so doing. But how stands the case in re- spect to Dr. Bushnell ? His Association have taken notice of him, as one accused of heresy. They have " carefully exam- ined the book of Dr. Bushnell, and heard his vindication of himself against the charges of heresy brought against Mm frpm various quarters, and after solemn deliberation come to the conclusion" — not that 'Hhej fnd just occasion,'" to csll the counsel for his trial ; not even that they are in dottbt whe- 16 ther there is " just occasion ;" but " that wJiatmer errors the l)ooh moAf eontcdn, it fv/rnishes no sufficient groimdfor insti- tuting a judicial process with A^roy" and that " he could not he prqperli/ or justl/y subjected to the cha/rge of heresy cmd a consequent trial." That is, after carefully examining the mat- ter, they not merely fail to " find just occasion," but they find positively, that there is no just occasion furnished by that book to put him on his trial, and that the thing ca/nnot justly he done. To this their decision in the case, they adhere to the present time, against all our remonstrance and entreaty. Let us now suppose that some responsible brother should prefer regular charges of heresy against Dr. Bushnell, and ofler to prove them by quotations from the book in question, and ask the Association to call the council for his trial. We know that the Association have said and still say, " "We are satisfied that whatever errors the book may contain, it fur- nishes no sufficient ground for instituting a judicial process with him." It is hardly to be expected that they would add, " Yet we do institute such a judicial process with him, by call- ing the council for his trial." "We know that they have said and still say, " He could not, in our view, he^operly or justly subjected to the charge of heresy and a consequent trial." Can it be expected that they would add, " Yet we do subject him to such a charge and trial, by calling the council to try him."