| Show RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND RELIGIOUS obligations the most important and interesting theological question of our time has come before the public in the trial for heresy of rev howard Mao Mac Queary episcopal minister ini ter of canton 0 the proceedings at cleveland have attracted universal attention more even in the secular than in the religious papers if lios possible sible it is interesting te to note too that rev mr mao mae queary desired to expound his views before the episcopal church congress at new york but bishop potter objected so stoutly alt that he did not do it it does not matter in the least what mr Mac Queary does or does not believe among other things he holds to the dara darwinian n theory of evolution and says that the book of genesis is in the work of chaldean sages the defense the heretical preacher claims is of private and individual interpretation of the scripture that is to say eve every man has the right to lo interpret incerpi the bible Z le rez recording according to the light of of his own reason and this be it observed is the original ground maintained by luther the founder of protestantism mr Mac Queary says he acknowledges the authority iut tut hority of the scriptures the only point he claims is that he will let no other man interpret them for him not even the framers of the episcopal creed his interpretation terp in the light of modern scholarship and le ie search leads him to conclusions different from theirs yet he says he has today as much right to his judgment as they had to theirs when they formulated the creed the question is has ham het he I 1 some of his conclusions areas are as follows he rejects the supernatural birth ot of the savior and believes he was the son ot joseph he disbelieves the literal doctrine of the trinity and believes it originated with the theologians the literal atonement in his judgment is a relic of barbarism and the resurrection of christ was a spiritual not a physical and bodily one this then is the real issue that was to be decided in the trial of Mac Queary has any man who belongs to a church episcopal baptist methodist or presbyterian a right to interpret the bible tor for himself the foregoing appears in an eastern exel exchange iange und mind asks ques questions dons that appear pa r to have agitated a glod many minds the trial of mr Mac Queary took place some weeks ago but ut the principle e involved in his course and the doctrines which he disputes form a topic of present interest in the religious world and we offer some remarks in relation to it the right of every man to think for himself we presume will not be denied by members of any protestant religious ii body belief must be W free and the human mind must not be futter fettered rod that which seems right to each person must be his guide or personal a apon sivility lily lity would fail and man could not bej subtly held accountable for his acts the doctrine of rewards and punishments depends on the freedom of the individual if every man is to be J judged ud ged according to his works every man must be left to the exercise of his agency and to that liberty ol of choice which to is essential to it when people associate as of any society religious or otherwise they make some kind of agreement that places them under obliga obligations time which they must re they should leave the association if that agreement be in relation to the observance of given rules or the upholding of certain tenets they should observe the rules hold to the tenets or sever their connection with the body this appears to us to be beyond dispute nor does this curtail the liberty of the Indi individual vidah he is free to join the society or church of his choice and he is equally free to leave it and if he be changes his mind as to its rules or doctrines it would seem that he ought ud ot in reason to wish to remain under its discipline and pretend to be what hat he is not I 1 if a man becomes a member of any denomination he thus thug virtu lluy 44 endorses its doctrines and govern nt whether he is required or not to ake a formal declaration of that me ac Bp tance A presbyterian ii church is for the purpose of uniting of presbyterian faith and prin pies in order that they may be upheld and promulgated so bo with wy religious denomination no abon connected with it to is forced to lieve or disbelieve any particular tenets tenet but dissent from the essential principles of its creed should disqualify the 1 die dienger di enter for membership he can hold to his bis views as an individual but t as ae a member some religious bodies bodice allow greater latitude than others in tu respect they have but fe W essentials their members may believe what they choose on most things binge but must agree on those few or abw w would be nothing in their mem except form if a church have 4 creeds reason would say that those ho fao belong to it must be persons persona who bold id to that creed and that if they change their minds they should relinquish their membership it all upon the rule or obligation or er standing in each denomination but one thing seems indisputable 49 P Vain minister tater of a religious society has baa aty y right fight to preach or administer in that t capacity whose views are not in coor dance with its established tenets ito ahas has no right to preach doctrines contrary tar Y to the creed of his church it f b he w wants ants to advocate something afferent to its accepted principles he hould go outside its pale we have no sympathy empathy for those bogus martyrs ho pretend to be suffering for con sake when attempting to their own views under authority of A church which repudiates them hem hey aze are impostors not martyrs if th zi y agrow grow out of a body let them ve it if they loose faith in a c reed creed athena at tb eack set it aside they have no light to fight it while wearing its gar ante or wielding its authority tile the world is wide enough for all rhe I 0 field to is ample for every laborer 4 man who wants to keep his presby eatn or methodist or episcopalian gown and in it oppose or throw doubt penany Po nany any of the doctrines of his u garb is the token is nut brave nor insistent consistent nor sincere he is a coward and d a hypocrite if he wants to be f e to proclaim his bis own peculiar views let him m join a church with which he 4 14 in 1 ft harmony or come out butr r alone and laft up his voice without pretending to bahat what he to is not it should be clear we think that an episcopal minister who denies the doctrine of the trinity is a living contradiction tra As a man ho he to la at liberty to disbelieve the absurdity which is an essential noial of the episcopal creed As a minister of that church he is not nol he cannot reject that doctrine foolish as it may baand remain a minister of the church which is founded upon it so with the divinity of christ the literal atonement and the physical resurrection they are fundamentals of the tee episcopalian faith right bight or wrong they are components of a code of articles to which every minister of that must subscribe and when such a minister can no longer maintain them common sense and common honesty would suggest his withdrawal from the church in the episcopal church the holy scriptures are made the standard of doctrine whatsoever is not in accordance therewith and cannot be proved thereby is n nt not t to be received as am an article of its faith but that church has decided that jesus of nazareth was the son on of god cleone conceived elved bythe by the holy ghost and born of the virgin mary p that the fattier father the son and the holy ghost are three persons in one god that jesus christ was crucified for the sins of the world and his blood was shed abed as an atonement that the third day after he arose from the dead and that the resurrection of the body to is a necessary part of the confession of faith and it has decided that these are in accordance with the holy scriptures and are proved thereby and each priest at his ordination must subscribe to all this and much more therefore while every man m must u st be free in to believe W what at seems right to him and to promulgate his views if he can find opportunity to do so he has no right or reason on his side when he attempts to do this as a member of a church which holds the opposite as its established establish od creed and he is particularly wrong and unreasonable when he does so as a minister of that church the tendency of the times to is to depart from old creeds and break loose from time honored doctrines many ganv of them are foolish and unscriptural scriptural un and it is well for the world that independent thought is exposing their fallacy but in these departures from human systems once considered of divine origin there is danger of complete demoralization and the shipwreck of faith in discarding man made dogmas some of the plainest truths of the christian religion are am out aside and the liberty demanded to in running into religious lawlessness and virtual infidelity what is needed is a thorough and concerted overhauling of creeds and systems and a return to the first principles of the christian faith this seems unlikely to be effected by the churches as a whole or by any sect of itself and so independent thinkers will come out as reformers each declaring his own un beliefs elb and his per bonal disregard of the trammels of creed that is all right if the dis dig senters take a bold and consistent stand for what they believe to be right rut but they should not seek to fight a church while claiming its membership nor officiate in authority which they set at naught themselves religious liberty must not disregard religious rights nor destroy reli religious gous obligations |
